Himmler, Heydrich and the Fuehrer Order

[michael mills]

David Thompson asked m for my interpretation of the following:

(1) The statements by Heinrich Himmler to the effect that Hitler entrusted him with the task of exterminating the Jews, made:
(a) to Bruno Streckenbach in May or Jun 1941
(b) to Rudolf Hoess c. summer 1941
(c) to Otto Bradfisch, Horst Bender and officers of Einsatzkommando 8 in Aug 1941
(d) to Otto Ohlendorf in Oct 1941
(e) to Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski c. Mar 1942
(f) in a written order from Himmler to Heydrich, seen by Eichmann and Dieter Wisliceny
(g) on 2 Oct 1942, in an order regarding Jewish workers in armaments plants in the Generalgouvernement
(h) to Felix Kersten in Nov 1942
(i) to a number of high-ranking German Army officers on 26 Jan 1944

and

(2) The statements by Reinhard Heydrich to the effect that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews, made:
(a) to Adolf Eichmann in Aug 1941
(b) to Bruno Streckenbach in Sept 1941
(c) to Admiral Canaris and other Abwehr officers in May 1942?

I will do my best to answer, bearing in mind that in most cases I do not have the details in front of me.

I will deal with 1(b) first, Himmler's supposed order to Hoess in the summer of 1941.

It has long been realised that the account given by Hoess in his various interrogations, and finally in the report given to Judge Sehn in November 1946, according to which he was informed by Himmler in June (or just Summer) 1941 that Hitler had ordered the extermination of European Jewry and that Auschwitz was to be the extermination centre, cannot be true owing to its internal inconsistencies, in particular the impossible time-line implicit in it.

In one of my first contributions to the old forum, I presented a detailed analysis of Hoess's account which exposed those inconsistencies.

Van Pelt, in his book "Auschwitz 1270 to the Present", suggests that Himmler did indeed give Hoess an extermination order in June 1941, but that the intended victims were Soviet POWs selected out as "dangerous Communists", who were subject to execution pursuant to the Commissar Order. Van Pelt's interpretation fits the circumstances; in June Hoess receives the order to kill Soviet POWs, from September small groups of selected POWs arrive and are killed by shooting at the gravel pits (these are not to be confused with the 10,000 Soviet POWs sent to Auschwitz as slave labour), at some uncertain time, perhaps December, experiments are carried out using Zyklon-B to kill the Soviet POWs.

If Van Pelt is right, and I think he probably is, Himmler would probably have referred to the Commissar Order, and the fact that it had been authorised by Hitler himself. However, the Commissar Order was not targeted specifically at Jews, although certain groups of Jews, those in senior Party and State positions, were included among those to be executed.

Accordingly, Hoess's account, although he mistakenly (?) related the order to Jews, is not proof positive that Hitler had issued an order specifically designating all the Jews of Europe for extermination.

More to follow.

[David Thompson]

Michael -- I don't want to put you at a disadvantage about those statements. Here's what I have on them at the moment, along with my sources:

(1) Himmler:

(a) In early Jun SS-Gruppenfuehrer Bruno Streckenbach, head of RSHA Branch I (SS personnel office), gave a further explanation of the orders to exterminate the Jews to Einsatzgruppe officers assembled at Pretzsch, Germany. According to later testimony by SS-Brigadefuehrer Prof. Otto Ohlendorf, a supplementary special order was given verbally by SS-Gruppenfuehrer Heinrich Mueller, head of the Gestapo, and SS-Gruppenfuehrer Bruno Streckenbach to the Einsatzgruppe commanders and their principal subordinates. This order, issued by Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler and SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich, the chief of the RSHA, Sipo and SD, read as follows: "That in addition to our general task the Security Police [Sipo] and SD, the Einsatzgruppen and the Einsatzkommandos had the mission to protect the rear of the troops by killing the Jews, gypsies, Communist functionaries, active Communists, and all persons who would endanger the security." Ohlendorf then went on to say:
The immediate feeling with me and with the other men was one of general protest. SS-Gruppenfuehrer Streckenbach listened to this protest, and even gave us a few different points which we could not know, but at the same time he told us that even he himself had protested most strenuously against a similar order in the Polish campaign, but that Himmler had rebuked him just as severely by stating that this was a Fuehrer order, which must be carried out, in order to achieve the war aim of destroying communism for all times, therefore this order was to be accepted without hesitation. . . . I did not consider it justified because quite independently from the necessity of taking such measures, these measures would have moral and ethical consequences which would deteriorate the mind. (Trials of War Criminals 244-5)

(b) In the summer of 1941, Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler summoned SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Rudolf Hoess, who served in several Nazi concentration camps, to a private conference, when Himmler said that Adolf Hitler had ordered "the final solution of the Jewish question"; and consequently, "whatever Jews we can reach" were to be executed "without exception" throughout the war. Himmler went on to tell Hoess: "We, the SS, must carry out that order. If it is not carried out now, then the Jews will destroy the German people." Himmler then explained that Hoess was to wait for further instructions from Karl Adolf Eichmann. (Holo Levin 292; Fleming 47)
According to Hoess: "In the summer of 1941, I cannot remember the exact date, I was suddenly summoned to the Reichsminister-SS, directly by his adjutant's office. Contrary to his usual custom, Himmler received me without his adjutant being present and said, in effect: 'The existing extermination centers in the east are not in a position to carry out the large actions that are anticipated. I have therefore designated Auschwitz for this purpose, both because of its good position as regards communications and because the area can easily be isolated and camouflaged.' We discussed the ways and means of effecting the extermination. This could only be done by gassing, since it would have been absolutely impossible to dispose by shooting of the large numbers of people that were expected, and it would have placed too heavy of a burden on the SS men who had to carry it out, especially because of the women and children among the victims." (Hoess 183-4)

(c) In Aug or Sept 1941, Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler witnessed a mass execution of 100-150 Jews outside Minsk, Belorussia, which was later described by SS-Oberstgruppenfuehrer Karl Wolff, then Himmler's liaison officer with Adolf Hitler's headquarters:
An open grave had been dug and they had to jump into this and lie face downwards. And sometimes when one or two rows had already been shot, they had to lie on top of the people who had already been shot and then they were shot from the edge of the grave. And Himmler had never seen dead people before and in his curiosity he stood right up at the edge of this open grave -- a sort of triangular hole -- and was looking in.
While he was looking in, Himmler had the deserved bad luck that from one or other of the people who had been shot in the head he got a splash of brains on his coat, and I think it also splashed into his face, and he went very green and pale; he wasn't actually sick, but he was heaving and turned round and swayed and then I had to jump forward and hold him steady and then I led him away from the grave.
After the shooting was over, Himmler gathered the shooting squad in a semi-circle around him and, standing up in his car, so that he would be a little higher and be able to see the whole unit, he made a speech. He had seen for himself how hard the task which they had to fulfil for Germany in the occupied areas was, but however terrible it all might be, even for him as a mere spectator, and how much worse it must be for them, the people who had to carry it out, he could not see any way round it.
They must be hard and stand firm. He could not relieve them of this duty; he could not spare them. In the interests of the Reich, in this hopefully Thousand Year Reich, in its first decisive great war after the take-over of power, they must do their duty however hard it may seem. He appealed to their sense of patriotism and their readiness to make sacrifices. Well, yes -- and then he drove off. And he left this -- this police unit to sort out the future for themselves, to see if and how far they could come to terms with this -- within themselves, because for some it was a shock which lasted their whole lives. (Gilbert Holo 191)
After Himmler's experience, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Otto Bradfisch, head of Einsatzkommando 8 of Einsatzgruppe B, operating in the Minsk area, asked Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler who was taking the responsibility for the mass extermination of the Jews. Himmler told Bradfisch, "These orders . . . come from Hitler as the supreme Fuehrer of the German government and . . . they [have] the force of law." Himmler later said the same thing in a speech to Einsatzkommando 8 and some security police. One of Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler's command staff, Higher SS and Police Judge Horst Bender, also asked Himmler who was responsible for the "final solution" order. According to Bender, "Himmler categorically stated that this measure had been personally ordered by Hitler, out of political and military considerations, and it therefore stood above all jurisdiction, including SS and police jurisdiction." (Fleming xxiv 51; Fleming 51)

(d) On 4-5 Oct 1941, during a visit of Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler to Nikolaev, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., he visited the headquarters of Einsatzgruppe D. SS-Brigadefuehrer Prof. Otto Ohlendorf, the commander of Einsatzgruppe D, described Himmler's inspection tour:
When the Reichsfuehrer-SS arrived at my headquarters, I had assembled all available commanders of my Einsatzgruppe. The Reichsfuehrer addressed these men and repeated the strict order to kill all those groups [Jews, gypsies, communist functionaries and communist activists] which I have designated. He added that he alone would carry the responsibility, as far as accounting to the Fuehrer was concerned. None of the men would bear any responsibility, but he demanded the execution of this order, even though he knew how harsh these measures were.
Nevertheless, after supper, I spoke to the Reichsfuehrer and I pointed out the inhuman burden which was being imposed on the men in killing all these civilians. I didn't even get an answer." (Trials of War Criminals IV, 251)

(e) In early Mar 1942, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, the Higher SS and Police Leader of Central Russia, suffered a nervous breakdown and had to be taken to the SS hospital in Hohenlychen. SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Ernst Robert Grawitz, the SS chief medical officer and head of the German Red Cross, treated von dem Bach-Zelewski and reported to Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler: "He is suffering particularly from hallucinations connected with the shootings of Jews which he himself carried out and with other grievous experiences in the East." When Dr. Grawitz discussed von dem Bach-Zelewski's nightmares, the patient said: "Thank God, I'm through with it. Don't you know what's happening in Russia? The entire Jewish people . . . is being exterminated there." In a discussion with Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler about the psychological strain of being a mass murderer, von dem Bach-Zelewski asked if the whole "Jewish business" in the East could be brought to an end. Himmler replied, "That is a Fuehrer order. The Jews are the disseminators of Bolshevism . . . . If you don't keep your nose out of the Jewish business, you'll see what'll happen to you!" (Hoehne 411)

(f) Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler sent out a written order of very limited circulation that all Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were to be exterminated. According to SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dieter Wisliceny, who saw it in Apr 1942, , it read: "The Fuehrer has decided that the final solution of the Jewish question is to start immediately. I designate the Chief of the Security Police and the SD [SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich] and the Inspector of Concentration Camps [SS-Brigadefuehrer Richard Gluecks] as responsible for the execution of this order . . . ." (Holo Levin 299-300)
This order was shown to Wisliceny by SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann on a subsequent occasion, when Eichmann told Wisliceny that almost all of the Jews Wisliceny had deported to the East from Slovakia were dead. This was the first Wisliceny learned of the systematic extermination he was helping to implement, and Wisliceny later described the order as reading in very euphemistic terms:
Eichmann then said he could show me this order from [Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich] Himmler in writing, if it would put my conscience at rest. He went to his safe, took out a thin file, and showed me a letter from Himmler to the head of the Security Police and the SD [SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich].The gist of this letter was that the Fuehrer had ordered the final solution of the Jewish problem. The head of the Security Police and the SD and the Inspector of Concentration Camps were entrusted with implementation of this final solution. Pending the final solution, all able-bodied concentration-camp inmates of female or male sex should be employed on labor projects." (Eichmann Interr 95)

(g) On 2 Oct 1942, Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler ordered that Jews working in the armaments factories in the Generalgouvernement of Poland were to be "concentrated to capacity in a few Jewish camp-run industrial centers in the eastern parts of the Generalgouvernement . . . . However, one day the Jews there, in conformity with the Fuehrer's wish, are also to disappear." (Fleming 128)

(h) In Nov 1942, According to a November, 1942, conversation between Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler and his friend and physiotherapist, Dr. Felix Kersten, Adolph Hitler ordered Himmler to begin a systematic extermination of the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. According to Kersten's account, Himmler had proposed that the Jews be "resettled" in Madagascar, but Hitler wasn't interested. Himmler believed that Propaganda Minister Dr. Paul Josef Goebbels had urged Hitler to begin physical extermination of the Jews. Kersten said Himmler stated: "For months and years, Goebbels kept exciting the Fuehrer to exterminate the Jews by radical means. Once the war had begun, he finally gained the upper hand." (Holo Levin 298) This extermination of the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe was to be accomplished "by degrees." Himmler told Kersten: "[Hitler] gave this task to the SS and to me. I told him [Hitler], 'The SS is ready to fight and die, from myself down to the last man, but don't give us a mission like this.' The Fuehrer became furious and said, 'Himmler, you are being disobedient! . . . This is an order; I take the responsibility for it.'" (Holo Levin 298)

(i) On 26 Jan 1944, In a speech to a number of high-ranking German Army officers, Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler stated:
"When the Fuehrer gave me the order to carry out the total solution of the Jewish question, I at first hesitated, uncertain whether I could demand of my worthy SS men the execution of such a horrid assignment. . . . but this was ultimately a matter of a Fuehrer-order, and therefore I could have no misgivings. In the meantime, the assignment has been carried out, and there is no longer a Jewish question." (Fleming xxxii)

(2) Heydrich

(a) In about Aug 1941 SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich, the head of the RSHA, Sipo and SD, summoned SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann to his Berlin offices and told Eichmann that Adolf Hitler had ordered the physical extermination of the Jews. Eichmann later described the scene and the order Heydrich gave him:
The final solution depends . . . it's mixed up with . . . something that happened after the start of the German-Russian war.
At that time [July 31, 1941] Reich Marshal Goering issued a document conferring a special title on the head of the Security Police and the SD [SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich]. I'm trying to remember the wording. Was it "Deputy Charged with the Final Solution," or was it "with the Solution of the Jewish Question"?
We can only be sure that it relates to the period when emigration had ceased to be possible and the more radical solution was resorted to. The war with the Soviet Union began in June 1941, I think. And I believe it was two months later, or maybe three, that Heydrich sent for me. I reported. He said to me: 'The Fuehrer, well, emigration is . . .' He began with a little speech. And then: 'The Fuehrer has ordered physical extermination.' These were his words. And as though wanting to test their effect on me, he made a long pause, which was not at all his way. I can still remember that. In the first moment, I didn't grasp the implications, because he chose his words so carefully. But then I understood. I didn't say anything, what could I say? Because I'd never thought of a . . . of such a thing, of that sort of violent solution. And then he said to me: 'Eichmann, go and see [SS-Brigadefuehrer Odilo] Globocnik in Lublin.' (Eichmann Interr 74-5)

In the early Autumn of 1941, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann visited SS-Brigadefuehrer Odilo Globocnik, the Higher SS and Police Leader of Lublin, Poland: "[SS-Brigadefuehrer Odilo] Globocnik, the former Gauleiter of Vienna [later promoted to SS-Gruppenfuehrer], was then head of the SS and the police in the Lublin district of the Government General. Anyway, Heydrich said: 'Go and see Globocnik, the Fuehrer has already given him instructions. Take a look and see how he's getting on with his program. I believe he's using Russian anti-tank trenches for exterminating the Jews.' As ordered, I went to Lublin, located the headquarters of SS and Police Commander Globocnik, and reported to the Gruppenfuehrer. I told him Heydrich had sent me, because the Fuehrer had ordered the physical extermination of the Jews."
(Eichmann Interr 74-76)

[This appears to be a description of a single incident, with confused dates].

(b) In Sept 1941 SS-Gruppenfuehrer Bruno Streckenbach, chief of personnel for the RSHA, whose job included selecting Einsatzgruppen personnel, brought up the subject of mass exterminations with Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler and RSHA chief SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich. Heydrich told Streckenbach "that it was pointless to criticize this operation or to oppose it. This was strictly a matter of a Fuehrer-order; for in connection with this war, which represented the final, violent clash of two irreconcilably opposed world views, the Fuehrer had expressed his resolve to find simultaneously a solution to the Jewish problem." (Fleming 52)

(c) In May 1942, during the course of a very heated discussion with several intelligence officers in Prague, including Armed Forces Intelligence Chief Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich stated that the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office) was not behind the extermination of the Jews, but that it was done on a personal order from the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. (Fleming xxv 59-60)

[Roberto]

Philosopher keeps waving at us, so let's be nice and wave back.

As he said he didn't like the proposed patting on his shoulder, I'll do it by asking him some questions (not too many, in order to keep the expectable "answers" as short as possible).

As Gerlach writes:

Many insisted on the murder of all European Jews, but before they could begin with it systematically, there was the need in the National Socialist system for a decision taken by Hitler.

Were the named officials among those "many" who "insisted"?

How did they know that Himmler/Heydrich weren’t lying?

The question goes the other way round, my dear philosopher.

What should have made them think that Himmler/Heydrich were lying?

What evidence or indications can you offer that they might have been?

Only Hitler had to resort to "euphemisms".

Why?

Now tell us, phil, where do you see "euphemisms" in Goebbels' diary entry regarding Hitler's statements at a meeting with high-ranking party officials on 12 December 1941, which read as follows:

[…]Bezüglich der Judenfrage ist der Führer entschlossen, reinen Tisch zu machen. Er hat den Juden prophezeit, daß, wenn sie noch einmal einen Weltkrieg herbeiführen würden, sie dabei ihre Vernichtung erleben würden. Das ist keine Phrase gewesen. Der Weltkrieg ist da, die Vernichtung des Judentums muß die notwendige Folge sein.[…]

Translation:

[…]In respect of the Jewish Question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that if they again brought about a world war, they would experience their annihilation in it.[my emphasis] That wasn't just a catch-word. The world war is here, and the annihilation of Jewry must be the necessary consequence.[my emphasis][…]

Source:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/nazis-words/

or in Frank's rendering of the same statement of Hitler's on 16 December 1941 ?

[…]"As far as the Jews are concerned, I want to tell you quite frankly, that they must be done away with in one way or another. The Fuehrer said once: should united Jewry again succeed in provoking a world war, the blood of not only the nations which have been forced into the war by them, will be shed, but the Jew will have found his end in Europe.[my emphasis]

Source of quote:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Frank.htm

Or in Frank's ensuing statements?

[...]"Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourselves of all feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to maintain here the structure of the Reich as a whole. This will, naturally, be achieved by other methods than those pointed out by Bureau Chief Dr. Hummel. Nor can the judges of the Special Courts be made responsible for it, because of the limitations of the framework of the legal procedure. Such outdated views cannot be applied to such gigantic and unique events. We must find at any rate, a way which leads to the goal, and my thoughts are working in that direction.
"The Jews represent for us also extraordinarily malignant gluttons. We have now approximately 2,500,000 of them in the General Government, perhaps with the Jewish mixtures and everything that goes with it, 3,500,000 Jews. We cannot shoot or poison those 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation, and this in connection with the gigantic measures to be determined in discussions from the Reich. The General Government must become free of Jews, the same as the Reich. Where and how this is to be achieved is a matter for the offices which we must appoint and create here. Their activities will be brought to your attention in due course."[…]

Source of quote: as above.

Before asking "profound" questions, how about checking whether your assumptions underlying such questions hold water, in the future?

[Erik]

Roberto wrote:

Erik wrote: As Gerlach writes:

Quote:
Many insisted on the murder of all European Jews, but before they could begin with it systematically, there was the need in the National Socialist system for a decision taken by Hitler.

Were the named officials among those "many" who "insisted"?

How did they know that Himmler/Heydrich weren’t lying?

The question goes the other way round, my dear philosopher.

What should have made them think that Himmler/Heydrich were lying?

What evidence or indications can you offer that they might have been?

Mr. Thompson wrote:

Himmler's statements to Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf and von dem Bach were made in their response to their complaints about having to murder people.

So Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf and von dem Bach were not among those “many” who “insisted on the murder of all European Jews”.

On the contrary, they complained “about having to murder people”!!!!

How do we know that THEY didn’t lie?

Well, they murdered people, didn’t they? Why else would they find it needful to complain about having to murder people?

Maybe they lied about their COMPLAINTS!!

How silly! By complaining “about having to murder people” they actually confess “about having to murder people”, right?

If they wanted their murders to remain unknown, the best policy would be to keep quiet about them!

Is that it?

No, of course not. We have ample documentation from “good records” kept by themselves and others that they murdered people. Their alleged “complaints about having to murder people” made no difference in that respect.

In what respect did those alleged complaints about having to murder people make a difference?

Why did they “have to” murder people? Answer: they received orders by superiors to do so.

But the responsibility was felt to be on their own shoulders, perhaps on account of the euphemistic nature of the received orders.

That must have been the cause of the complaints.(?).

Are those orders to murder extant? The Commisar Order obviously is:

The initial policy was orally communicated to the officers of the Einsatzgruppen. They were later embodied in the "Commissar Order" issued by Heydrich Himmler and never revoked. (Harris, 241) The Commisar Order issued on July 17, 1941, called for "the separation and further treatment of . . . . all Jews." (TMWC IV 258-9)

http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-einsatz/

“…separation and further treatment of…all Jews” are Holocaustian euphemisms for murder; the so called “Tarnsprache”.

The five named officials wanted the orders to be more explicit.(?).

The five named officials (above) made their complaints to Himmler both before and after July 17, 1941, and were invariably informed about the “orally communicated” decision of Hitler to murder all the Jews of Europe.

Roberto wrote:

As German historian Christian Gerlach has plausibly argued, it is reasonable to assume that Hitler's order for the "final solution", which was more of a "go ahead" conferring the Führer's blessing to exterminatory initiatives from many sides, a "you may" rather than a "you shall", was given at a meeting between Hitler and high-ranking officials of the Nazi party on 12 December 1941.

But Mr. Mills mentions a

global authorisation of October 1939.

Gerlach wrote:

Hitler’s decision was necessary for the authorities involved both in regard to the murder of the German Jews an in order to obtain the basis for a central planning of the genocide.

And:

As little as this monstrous process was normal politics, as much as Hitler produced it – in this respect the decision about the lives of the European Jews were taken almost as in a “normal” political deliberation: the “Führer” did not take the decision all alone, but after a given time, in a given situation and on a given occasion he approved the initiatives from the state and party apparatus. Many insisted on the murder of all European Jews, but before they could begin with it systematically, there was the need in the National Socialist system for a decision taken by Hitler.

Quote: the pressure by the police and parts of the civilian administration… in the direction of a large-scale extermination was already so great that it would have inevitably led to terrible consequences sooner or later.

So Hitler relented. The relentless will of the police and the civilian administration in the direction of the murder of the European Jews could not be kept at bay for ever. The “need in the National Socialist system” (Gerlach) for “the Führer's blessing” (Roberto) could not be ignored. “The basis for a central planning of the genocide” must be “obtained”.

Still, the Führer’s need for euphemisms must also be taken into account. Decent blokes like Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf and von dem Bach might take offence.(?)

He needed these euphemisms

Simply because he didn't want to be seen as a complicit in the act of mass murder since he was the nation' leader and the head of State.

according to witness.

So here we have a paradox. The genocidal urge of “the police and the civilian administration” needed a “ basis for a central planning” of a “monstrous process”, and from “the nation’s leader and the head of the State”.

But the urgently wanted “Führer’s blessing” must not make the Führer “to be seen as a complicit in the act of mass murder since he was the nation' leader and the head of State”.

Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf , von dem Bach and other decent officials had other needs. They gave vent to “their complaints about having to murder people”.

Accordingly, they were informed by Himmler that they had to murder people since Hitler had decided to kill the Jews of Europe.

But Hitler didn’t want “to be seen as a complicit in the act” of it.

So Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf , von dem Bach and other decent officials had to take Himmler’s word for the said “Führer’s blessing”, and forget about any “complaints about having to murder people”.

Roberto wrote:

The question goes the other way round, my dear philosopher.

What should have made them think that Himmler/Heydrich were lying?

Answer: their need to make “complaints about having to murder people”.

What evidence or indications can you offer that they might have been?

Answer: Hitler’s need for euphemisms.

Roberto also wrote:

Philosopher keeps waving at us, so let's be nice and wave back.

As he said he didn't like the proposed patting on his shoulder, I'll do it by asking him some questions (not too many, in order to keep the expectable "answers" as short as possible).

Sorry that I can’t be “short” enough on a subject that bores you!

But you wrote:

Try to understand our poor philosopher, Michael.
…
So however much he may bore you, try to have a heart.
…
So wave back at the philosopher once in a while, and make his day.

Make my day!

Try to understand the complaints ot Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf and von dem Bach, and the need of Hitler for euphemisms and non-knowledge of the Holocaust.

Pay heed also to the admonition of the moderator:

Gentlemen, the topic involves Hitler's knowledge of the holocaust, not Erik's mentality or character.

[michael mills]

David,

Thank you for posting the texts of the incidents on which you sought my thoughts. I will post my answers at my earliest available opportunity.

In the meantime, I think some of the comments made in the exchange btwen you and Erik are relevant. You informed him that the statements made (post-war) by Ohlendorf, Bach-Zelewski et al about Himmler telling them of a Fuehrer order to exterminate all Jews wre in the context of their claims that they had complained to Himmler about having to murder people. Erik responded by questioning whether the post-war claims about having complained could be taken at face value, since the individuals concerned would have a clear motive in presenting themselves as acting under duress. I think Erik has a very good point there.

But more later.

[witness]

So here we have a paradox. The genocidal urge of “the police and the civilian administration” needed a “ basis for a central planning” of a “monstrous process”, and from “the nation’s leader and the head of the State”.

But the urgently wanted “Führer’s blessing” must not make the Führer “to be seen as a complicit in the act of mass murder since he was the nation' leader and the head of State”.

Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf , von dem Bach and other decent officials had other needs. They gave vent to “their complaints about having to murder people”.

Of course one can create all kind of "paradoxes" if one makes his conclusions based on the wrong premises.
Here is this premise

The genocidal urge of “the police and the civilian administration”

I don't think that there is any existing evidence of the"genocidal urge " of "the police and the civilian administration"
"The police and the civilian administration" were not exactly the cannibals in anticipation of their meal.. They simply had all those Jews on their hands which had been declared to be "subversive elements" and "subhumans" not knowing what to do with them and basically wanting to get rid of them which is not equal to having some sort of a "genocidal urge ". The Jews could have been sent to Siberia etc..
Perhaps on the contrary because they didn't have this "urge" they were giving "vent to their complaints " ?
However after Hitler gave his "go ahead" approval ,there were no already such alternatives to murder and naturally the police and civilian administration had to come to terms with the reality of having to participate in the mass murder since they knew that the order from " the nation's leader and the Head of the State " existed.?

I am just following Robeto's advice and nicely waving back..

[Roberto]

Roberto wrote:

As German historian Christian Gerlach has plausibly argued, it is reasonable to assume that Hitler's order for the "final solution", which was more of a "go ahead" conferring the Führer's blessing to exterminatory initiatives from many sides, a "you may" rather than a "you shall", was given at a meeting between Hitler and high-ranking officials of the Nazi party on 12 December 1941.

But Mr. Mills mentions a

global authorisation of October 1939.

Cheerfully mixing apples with oranges, philosopher, or did you just not read Mills' statement, which referred to a general authorization to kill off undesirables as required and not the targeting of a certain group for wholesale slaughter?

Gerlach wrote:

Hitler’s decision was necessary for the authorities involved both in regard to the murder of the German Jews an in order to obtain the basis for a central planning of the genocide.

And:

As little as this monstrous process was normal politics, as much as Hitler produced it – in this respect the decision about the lives of the European Jews were taken almost as in a “normal” political deliberation: the “Führer” did not take the decision all alone, but after a given time, in a given situation and on a given occasion he approved the initiatives from the state and party apparatus. Many insisted on the murder of all European Jews, but before they could begin with it systematically, there was the need in the National Socialist system for a decision taken by Hitler.

Quote: the pressure by the police and parts of the civilian administration… in the direction of a large-scale extermination was already so great that it would have inevitably led to terrible consequences sooner or later.

So Hitler relented. The relentless will of the police and the civilian administration in the direction of the murder of the European Jews could not be kept at bay for ever. The “need in the National Socialist system” (Gerlach) for “the Führer's blessing” (Roberto) could not be ignored. “The basis for a central planning of the genocide” must be “obtained”.

Hitler's statements quoted by Goebbels and Frank don't make it look as if he "relented" without the pressure by various entities in the direction of wholesale extermination having been in accordance with his own views and intentions. As to the need to obtain from the highest authority of state a basis for the central planning on a Europe-wide level of a mass killing that was already in execution on a local level, especially in the Soviet Union, I don't see what could be so problematic with this notion. Only Hitler had the authority to bring together all the entities that needed to be involved in a program covering the entire German area of influence in Europe. And only he, as Gerlach points out, could take a decision in regard to the Jews of German nationality.

Still, the Führer’s need for euphemisms must also be taken into account.

What euphemisms exactly, uttered on what occasions and before whom, is the philosopher talking about?

Decent blokes like Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf and von dem Bach might take offence.(?)

He needed these euphemisms

Nonsense. Euphemisms, where used, were needed not to spare the feelings of the executors, but to hide the program from the German public and world opinion, to leave the Fuehrer's image untarnished and to diminish the risk of Germany's military enemies getting hold of compromising material.

Simply because he didn't want to be seen as a complicit in the act of mass murder since he was the nation' leader and the head of State.

according to witness.

Quite a reasonable interpretation.

So here we have a paradox. The genocidal urge of “the police and the civilian administration” needed a “ basis for a central planning” of a “monstrous process”, and from “the nation’s leader and the head of the State”.

But the urgently wanted “Führer’s blessing” must not make the Führer “to be seen as a complicit in the act of mass murder since he was the nation' leader and the head of State”.

I don't see the paradox. It's neither unusual nor unreasonable for a leader, especially one as keen of and dependent on the admiration of those led as Hitler was, to avoid leaving evidence that might directly link him to crimes being committed on his behalf. The great leader must always have the possibility to wash his hands in innocence and claim he didn't know about what was going on or the full extent thereof, if things go wrong.

Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf , von dem Bach and other decent officials had other needs. They gave vent to “their complaints about having to murder people”.

When did they do that? When standing trial (big deal, so would I have in their place) or before? If before, did they complain on grounds of morality and law or of political convenience?

Accordingly, they were informed by Himmler that they had to murder people since Hitler had decided to kill the Jews of Europe.

But Hitler didn’t want “to be seen as a complicit in the act” of it.

So Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf , von dem Bach and other decent officials had to take Himmler’s word for the said “Führer’s blessing”, and forget about any “complaints about having to murder people”.

Assuming such "complaints" were not a mere subterfuge of defense when on the dock, see above. I don't see what the problem with this "paradoxical" notion is supposed to be. Himmler was their superior, and he was giving them orders. He was even doing so invoking a higher authority. Who were they to contest such orders, or to doubt the higher authority invoked? Who were they to suspect that their superior might dare to falsely invoke the state's highest authority, the admired great leader they had vowed to follow blindly?

Roberto wrote:

The question goes the other way round, my dear philosopher.

What should have made them think that Himmler/Heydrich were lying?

Answer: their need to make “complaints about having to murder people”.

As I said above, who were they to check behind their superior Himmler if they didn't like his orders, assuming they really had the problem therewith they later claimed? Who were they to entertain the possibility that one of the Fuehrer's closest associates might dare to misrepresent the Fuehrer's will, assuming there were even any indications in this direction?

What evidence or indications can you offer that they might have been?

Answer: Hitler’s need for euphemisms.

Manifestly insuffficient, as such euphemisms, where used, served a reason of state that could be understood by the executors and was even brought to their attention by Himmler, if I remember correctly. If Himmler stated that he was acting on the Fuehrer's behalf and pointed out that the Fuehrer's person must not be connected with the process and that he, Himmler, assumed all responsibility, who were Streckenbach, Ohlendorf et al to contest the veracity of his statements let alone to question his orders?

"Sorry, Herr Reichsfueher, I don't believe what you're saying. Show me a written order by the Fuehrer, or I'll call up the Reichskanzlei and find out for myself", Streckenbach or Ohlendorf would have said, according to the philosopher. Even though they were men trained and educated to follow a superior's orders and instructions without questioning. Go figure.

Roberto also wrote:

Philosopher keeps waving at us, so let's be nice and wave back.

As he said he didn't like the proposed patting on his shoulder, I'll do it by asking him some questions (not too many, in order to keep the expectable "answers" as short as possible).

Sorry that I can’t be “short” enough on a subject that bores you!

It's not the subject that bores me, it's the philosopher's nonsense. It's good to see, however, that he can be concise when he tries - even though this doesn't improve the contents of his assertions.

But you wrote:

Try to understand our poor philosopher, Michael.
…
So however much he may bore you, try to have a heart.
…
So wave back at the philosopher once in a while, and make his day.

Make my day!

Try to understand the complaints ot Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf and von dem Bach, and the need of Hitler for euphemisms and non-knowledge of the Holocaust.

Why, that's exactly my recommendation to you. I hope my above considerations will help the philosopher wake up from his dreamworld and understand the utter absurdity of his contentions and the ridiculousness of his desperate fishing for supposed "paradoxes".

Pay heed also to the admonition of the moderator:

Gentlemen, the topic involves Hitler's knowledge of the holocaust, not Erik's mentality or character.

A beautiful statement. Unfortunately, a fanatical crackpot's ramblings necessarily bring his mentality and character into play, making it difficult to leave them out of the discussion.

Sure you don't prefer the back-patting instead, philosopher?

[Erik]

Mr. Thompson wrote:

Heydrich's statement to Streckenbach was in response to Streckenbach's complaints about having to murder people.

Heydrich's statement to Canaris and the Abwehr officers was in response to their accusations that Heydrich and the RSHA were responsible for the mass murders.

No one was "eagerly waiting for a confirmation of a daily murder routine."

But Gerlach wrote:

It is surely difficult to understand that Hitler took a principle decision on the murder of all European Jews after the mass murder in a number of countries had already victimized almost a million Jewish people. It is difficult to comprehend that this decision was not taken all at once, but step by step, region by region.

And:

Many insisted on the murder of all European Jews, but before they could begin with it systematically, there was the need in the National Socialist system for a decision taken by Hitler.

There was insistence on a “blessing” from the Führer, a “need” for decision taken by Hitler, in order to make a daily routine of mass murder begin “systematically”.

Roberto wrote:

Assuming such "complaints" were not a mere subterfuge of defense when on the dock, see above. I don't see what the problem with this "paradoxical" notion is supposed to be. Himmler was their superior, and he was giving them orders. He was even doing so invoking a higher authority. Who were they to contest such orders, or to doubt the higher authority invoked? Who were they to suspect that their superior might dare to falsely invoke the state's highest authority, the admired great leader they had vowed to follow blindly?

The insistence described by Gerlach was perhaps turned into a “complaint” as “a subterfudge of defense when on the dock”, after the war.

Mr. Mills agreed to a

…questioning whether the post-war claims about having complained could be taken at face value, since the individuals concerned would have a clear motive in presenting themselves as acting under duress.

Then what does such a suspicion of a “subterfuge”, or a “clear motive in presenting themselves as acting under duress”, make of the truth-value of the reported statements by Heinrich Himmler / Reinhard Heydrich “to the effect that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews”?

Prof. Richard Evans wrote on David Irving in the “Evan’s Report”(available for download from Mr. Irving's website):

2. Irving’s work with historical material is characterised by his utterly tendentious choice and interpretation of documentation. The greater wealth of statements directly implicating Hitler’s role in the ‘Final Solution’ is rejected out of hand, whilst those rather fewer statements exculpating Hitler are adopted as ‘persuasive’ without any explanation as to why greater emphasis should be put on one set of statements than another.

Likewise, Irving deliberately fails to take into account a number of key considerations when using his material. For instance, rather than Hitler not knowing about the ‘Final Solution’ he may quite explicablly have lied to certain members of his staff.

Can we “deliberately fail” to take into account as a key consideration that lies and subterfuges abound from the Führer and from members of his staff, on down through the hierarchy, including officials “subterfuging” as decent guys in post-war trials?

If even Hitler had to lie “to certain members of his staff” concerning his role in the Final Solution in order not to implicate himself, why shouldn’t those “certain members” have lied, too ; and “quite explicably”?

Perhaps we can agree to the point that in order for the Final Solution to become true, lies were the order of the day. The truth must be hidden. Only lies could save you from the consequences of such a decision. Hitler must have known this. His staff must have known it. Streckenbach, Bradfisch, Bender, Ohlendorf and von dem Bach knew it.

Only lies could save them.

Roberto wrote:

Who were they to contest such orders, or to doubt the higher authority invoked? Who were they to suspect that their superior might dare to falsely invoke the state's highest authority, the admired great leader they had vowed to follow blindly?

Still, the “admired great leader” had to lie, too – at least to “certain members of his staff”, whose authority he might fail to invoke(?).

At least that is a key consideration that must not fail to be taken into account when we are dealing with lies.

Even today – according to Prof. Evans above – does it happen that an historian
“deliberately fails to take into account a number of key considerations when using his material”, for example that a perpetrator or a witness has an interest to lie.

Maybe this interest is still going strong?

[michael mills]

David,

I would now like to address some of the points you posted.

In doing so, I am proceeding from the position that the essential issue is whether

1. Hitler at some time issued an order specifically mandating the extermination of all Jews under German control, in addition to the more general orders (described by me) that authorised measures, including killing, against population groups deemed dangerous to the German people, or the killing of people who wre "burdensome" due to sickness or disability, or the killing of supporters of Bolshevism, with Hitler being the main force pushing his sometimes reluctant subordinates to kep the process going; or whether

2. Hitler did not issue such a specific order, and the mass killing of the Jews, which over time assumed genocidal proportions, resulted from the general authorisations of mass killing described above, combined with objective factors, such as the need to reduce the consumption of scarce resources, and also idological factors, such as the concept of the Jews as the main supporters of Bolshevism (a concept not confined to National Socialism, but widely held by both moderate and extreme rightist political tendencies).

As you know, I believe that the hard evidence, ie documented orders and reports, supports the second alternative.

You wrote:

(1) Himmler:

(a) In early Jun SS-Gruppenfuehrer Bruno Streckenbach, head of RSHA Branch I (SS personnel office), gave a further explanation of the orders to exterminate the Jews to Einsatzgruppe officers assembled at Pretzsch, Germany. According to later testimony by SS-Brigadefuehrer Prof. Otto Ohlendorf, a supplementary special order was given verbally by SS-Gruppenfuehrer Heinrich Mueller, head of the Gestapo, and SS-Gruppenfuehrer Bruno Streckenbach to the Einsatzgruppe commanders and their principal subordinates. This order, issued by Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler and SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich, the chief of the RSHA, Sipo and SD, read as follows: "That in addition to our general task the Security Police [Sipo] and SD, the Einsatzgruppen and the Einsatzkommandos had the mission to protect the rear of the troops by killing the Jews, gypsies, Communist functionaries, active Communists, and all persons who would endanger the security." Ohlendorf then went on to say:
The immediate feeling with me and with the other men was one of general protest. SS-Gruppenfuehrer Streckenbach listened to this protest, and even gave us a few different points which we could not know, but at the same time he told us that even he himself had protested most strenuously against a similar order in the Polish campaign, but that Himmler had rebuked him just as severely by stating that this was a Fuehrer order, which must be carried out, in order to achieve the war aim of destroying communism for all times, therefore this order was to be accepted without hesitation. . . . I did not consider it justified because quite independently from the necessity of taking such measures, these measures would have moral and ethical consequences which would deteriorate the mind. (Trials of War Criminals 244-5)

Ohlendorf made the claim that a specific order to exterminate Soviet Jews was conveyed to the Einsatzgruppen leaders before the start of Barbarossa by Bruno Streckenbach, both in his testimony at the IMT and at his own trial at NMT Case 9 (the Einsatzgruppen Trial). He was supported in that claim by the other Einsatzgruppen leaders.

At the time Ohlendorf made that claim, Streckenbach was missing, believed killed on the Eastern Front. In the mid-1950s, after the execution of Ohlendorf, Streckenbach returned unexpectedly from Soviet imprisonment, and denied Ohlendorf's claim. Most of the surviving Einsatzgruppen leaders then changed their stories; they supported Streckenbach's statement that no order to exterminate Jews had been given at Pretzsch, before the start of Barbarossa, and that their previous false statements had been part of a defence strategy co-ordinated by Ohlendorf, acording to which they would all claim to be ating under duress, bound by an extermination order from Hitler issued to them before they started their mission in the Soviet Union.

It is most likely that the only authorisation for mass-killing issued to the Einsatzgruppen at Pretzsch was the so-called "Commissar Order", which was targeted at the main members of the Communist infrastructure rather than at specific ethnic groups, although Jews in senior positions in that infrastructure were specified as one of the groups to be targeted, as was only to be expected given the ideological premiss that Jews were the main supporters of Bolshevism.

The view that the Einsatzgruppen were not given specific orders targeting Jews as an ethnic group is supported by a report from Einsatzgruppe C in the Ereignismeldung dated 17 September 1941. In that report, EG C complains that the real goal of destroying the Communist apparatus is in danger of being displaced by the easier task of killing Jews, and points out that other Soviet nationalities are just as much "Bearers of Bolshevism" as the Jews.

The complaint by EG C demonstrates that:
- the task given to the Einsatzgruppen in their orders was the destruction of the Communist apparatus, including the killing of the persons comprising that apparatus; and
- Jews were particularly targeted in the killing operations because they were considered to be the main "bearers of Bolshevism", rather than simply because they were Jews as such.

It also shows that a process was occurring that is very common in police operations against a large and difficult target (such as the Communist system), namely that the forces carrying out the operation tend to concentrate more and more on the softer, easier components of the general target (eg rounding up petty drug-pushers rather than gang-leaders). In this case, the Einsatzgruppen made a big show of rounding up and killing lots of Jews, eventually women and children and whole communities, in order to demonstrate that they were destroying the Communist apparatus, whereas in fact those actions were not really achieving the main aim, and were actually hindering it (as many Bolsheviks of other nationalities were escaping), as EG C rightly pointed out.

Thre is also another piece of evidence that is relevant. When Wisliceny was being interrogated by Slovak authorities in Bratislava in 1946, after having been handed over to them upon compltion of his testimony at the IMT, he claimed that Hitler had issued the Commissar Order targeting Communist functionaries, but that Himmler and Eichmann had taken that order and extended it to incorporate the killing of all Jews.

(That testimony by Wisliceny can be found in the book "Das Dritte Reich und die Juden", by Poliakoff and Wulf. I do not have the book in front of me, and I am citing it from memory, but I am certain of this particular item).

Wisliceny's claim needs to be taken with a certain amount of salt, since his main aim was to deflect blame from himself to Eichmann, and even to persuade the Slovak authorities to spare his life so that he could help to hunt Eichmann down. Nevertheless, I think that the basic thrust of claim is true; Hitler had issued an authorisation allowing the summary killing of anybody supporting the Soviet system, without specifying the Jews, and conditions in the field, as interpreted by Himmler, led to the targeting of the Jews more than any other group.

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

(b) In the summer of 1941, Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler summoned SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Rudolf Hoess, who served in several Nazi concentration camps, to a private conference, when Himmler said that Adolf Hitler had ordered "the final solution of the Jewish question"; and consequently, "whatever Jews we can reach" were to be executed "without exception" throughout the war. Himmler went on to tell Hoess: "We, the SS, must carry out that order. If it is not carried out now, then the Jews will destroy the German people." Himmler then explained that Hoess was to wait for further instructions from Karl Adolf Eichmann. (Holo Levin 292; Fleming 47)
According to Hoess: "In the summer of 1941, I cannot remember the exact date, I was suddenly summoned to the Reichsminister-SS, directly by his adjutant's office. Contrary to his usual custom, Himmler received me without his adjutant being present and said, in effect: 'The existing extermination centers in the east are not in a position to carry out the large actions that are anticipated. I have therefore designated Auschwitz for this purpose, both because of its good position as regards communications and because the area can easily be isolated and camouflaged.' We discussed the ways and means of effecting the extermination. This could only be done by gassing, since it would have been absolutely impossible to dispose by shooting of the large numbers of people that were expected, and it would have placed too heavy of a burden on the SS men who had to carry it out, especially because of the women and children among the victims." (Hoess 183-4)

I have already dealt with this claim by Hoess. Here I will limit myself to pointing out some of the anomalies that discount his testimony on this point.

In his interrogations in March and April 1946, Hoess claimed that the interview with Himmler took place in June 1941. However, at that time, there were no "existing extermination centres in the east"which supposedly could not deal with the load.

That has led some historians, eg Reitlinger, to speculate that the interviw actually took place a year later, in June 1942, when there really were extermination centres in the east, presuming that Hoess simply got the year wrong. However, Hoess goes on to say that at the interview, or subsquent to it, there were discussions as to how the extermination would take place, and what gas should be used; that would be absurd in June 1942, since by then Zyklon-B had been in use as a killing agent at Auschwitz for several months, and gassing was also well stablished elsewhere as a killing methodology.

Hoess's account is full of anomalies such as the above, and therefore has to be discarded in so far as it relates to Jews. Probably the only accurate element in it is his account of how Zyklon-B came to be used as a medium for killing Soviet POWs, and if the June 1941 interview with Himmler actually took place, then it was certainly related to the task of executing selected Soviet POWs. The elements relating to Jews have simply been inserted by Hoess into his account; they are clearly not true.

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

(c) In Aug or Sept 1941, Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler witnessed a mass execution of 100-150 Jews outside Minsk, Belorussia, which was later described by SS-Oberstgruppenfuehrer Karl Wolff, then Himmler's liaison officer with Adolf Hitler's headquarters:
An open grave had been dug and they had to jump into this and lie face downwards. And sometimes when one or two rows had already been shot, they had to lie on top of the people who had already been shot and then they were shot from the edge of the grave. And Himmler had never seen dead people before and in his curiosity he stood right up at the edge of this open grave -- a sort of triangular hole -- and was looking in.
While he was looking in, Himmler had the deserved bad luck that from one or other of the people who had been shot in the head he got a splash of brains on his coat, and I think it also splashed into his face, and he went very green and pale; he wasn't actually sick, but he was heaving and turned round and swayed and then I had to jump forward and hold him steady and then I led him away from the grave.
After the shooting was over, Himmler gathered the shooting squad in a semi-circle around him and, standing up in his car, so that he would be a little higher and be able to see the whole unit, he made a speech. He had seen for himself how hard the task which they had to fulfil for Germany in the occupied areas was, but however terrible it all might be, even for him as a mere spectator, and how much worse it must be for them, the people who had to carry it out, he could not see any way round it.
They must be hard and stand firm. He could not relieve them of this duty; he could not spare them. In the interests of the Reich, in this hopefully Thousand Year Reich, in its first decisive great war after the take-over of power, they must do their duty however hard it may seem. He appealed to their sense of patriotism and their readiness to make sacrifices. Well, yes -- and then he drove off. And he left this -- this police unit to sort out the future for themselves, to see if and how far they could come to terms with this -- within themselves, because for some it was a shock which lasted their whole lives. (Gilbert Holo 191)
After Himmler's experience, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Otto Bradfisch, head of Einsatzkommando 8 of Einsatzgruppe B, operating in the Minsk area, asked Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler who was taking the responsibility for the mass extermination of the Jews. Himmler told Bradfisch, "These orders . . . come from Hitler as the supreme Fuehrer of the German government and . . . they [have] the force of law." Himmler later said the same thing in a speech to Einsatzkommando 8 and some security police. One of Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler's command staff, Higher SS and Police Judge Horst Bender, also asked Himmler who was responsible for the "final solution" order. According to Bender, "Himmler categorically stated that this measure had been personally ordered by Hitler, out of political and military considerations, and it therefore stood above all jurisdiction, including SS and police jurisdiction." (Fleming xxiv 51; Fleming 51)

While it is clear that the demonstration shooting took place as described, and it is highly likely that Himmler gave his men a pep talk, enouraging them to be strong in their task of killing Germany's enemies in large numbers, it is not fully clear who the victims were. Some sources say Jews, some say inmats of mental hospitals, some say Soviet POWs.

The demonstration shooting was obviously staged to give Himmler a feel for what was happening in the occupied territories in relation to th practical implementation of the Commissar order, which had mandated large-scale killing. But whether the demonstration shooting was connected to the killing of Jews in particular, or to the broader elimination of enmis, has not been demonstrated conclusively.

In any case, the really important items are the statements by Bradfisch and Bender, which I presume were made post-war, and are obviously designed to exculpate the two individuals, showing them as personally disquieted by the mass-shootings and seeking some sort of justification or authorisation from Himmler.

It is in fact quite likely that at various times Himmler assured his subordinates that he had an order from Hitler that authorised the mass-killings they were carrying out. That order could well have been the task assigned to Himmler in October 1939, in his new role as Reichskommissar fuer die Festigung deutschen Volkstums, namely to take whatever measures he deemed necessary against population groups who posed a danger to the Grman people. That order or authorisation would have been quite sufficient to cover the killings that Himmler had instructed his men to carry out in the occupied Soviet Union. It does not have to have been a different order referring specifically to Jews, although at the end of the war person like Bradfisch and Bender might well have inyerpreted Himmler's words in retrospect in that way, given the interest that their interrogators were giving to the killing of Jews in particular.

[Roberto]

Mr. Thompson wrote:

Heydrich's statement to Streckenbach was in response to Streckenbach's complaints about having to murder people.

Heydrich's statement to Canaris and the Abwehr officers was in response to their accusations that Heydrich and the RSHA were responsible for the mass murders.

No one was "eagerly waiting for a confirmation of a daily murder routine."

But Gerlach wrote:

It is surely difficult to understand that Hitler took a principle decision on the murder of all European Jews after the mass murder in a number of countries had already victimized almost a million Jewish people. It is difficult to comprehend that this decision was not taken all at once, but step by step, region by region.

And:

Many insisted on the murder of all European Jews, but before they could begin with it systematically, there was the need in the National Socialist system for a decision taken by Hitler.

There was insistence on a “blessing” from the Führer, a “need” for decision taken by Hitler, in order to make a daily routine of mass murder begin “systematically”.

Roberto wrote:

Assuming such "complaints" were not a mere subterfuge of defense when on the dock, see above. I don't see what the problem with this "paradoxical" notion is supposed to be. Himmler was their superior, and he was giving them orders. He was even doing so invoking a higher authority. Who were they to contest such orders, or to doubt the higher authority invoked? Who were they to suspect that their superior might dare to falsely invoke the state's highest authority, the admired great leader they had vowed to follow blindly?

The insistence described by Gerlach was perhaps turned into a “complaint” as “a subterfudge of defense when on the dock”, after the war.

Which would be nothing other than an expectable reaction, the more unconvincing the higher the rank and position of the defendants and the greater their involvement in planning and decision-making.

Mr. Mills agreed to a

…questioning whether the post-war claims about having complained could be taken at face value, since the individuals concerned would have a clear motive in presenting themselves as acting under duress.

Then what does such a suspicion of a “subterfuge”, or a “clear motive in presenting themselves as acting under duress”, make of the truth-value of the reported statements by Heinrich Himmler / Reinhard Heydrich “to the effect that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews”?

Not what the philosopher would like it to, given the coincidence of independent testimonies and their corroboration by recorded statements of Himmler's such as those he made at his speeches on 4 and 6 October 1943 in Posen.

Prof. Richard Evans wrote on David Irving in the “Evan’s Report”(available for download from Mr. Irving's website):

2. Irving’s work with historical material is characterised by his utterly tendentious choice and interpretation of documentation. The greater wealth of statements directly implicating Hitler’s role in the ‘Final Solution’ is rejected out of hand, whilst those rather fewer statements exculpating Hitler are adopted as ‘persuasive’ without any explanation as to why greater emphasis should be put on one set of statements than another.

Likewise, Irving deliberately fails to take into account a number of key considerations when using his material. For instance, rather than Hitler not knowing about the ‘Final Solution’ he may quite explicablly have lied to certain members of his staff.

Can we “deliberately fail” to take into account as a key consideration that lies and subterfuges abound from the Führer and from members of his staff, on down through the hierarchy, including officials “subterfuging” as decent guys in post-war trials?

The possibility exists, but it doesn't warrant a blanket assumption that everyone lied, as the philosopher would like to have it. On the contrary, every particular case should be examined for indications that the witness in question was not speaking the truth, the coincidence of several independent testimonials and/or their corroboration by other sources of evidence strongly diminishing the possibility of deliberately uttered untruths.

If even Hitler had to lie “to certain members of his staff” concerning his role in the Final Solution in order not to implicate himself, why shouldn’t those “certain members” have lied, too ; and “quite explicably”?

Whether or not someone lied tells us nothing about whether or not someone else lied as well. And "why shouldn't they" is an argument good for bar-room discussions but not for debates on a historical forum.

Roberto wrote:

Who were they to contest such orders, or to doubt the higher authority invoked? Who were they to suspect that their superior might dare to falsely invoke the state's highest authority, the admired great leader they had vowed to follow blindly?

Still, the “admired great leader” had to lie, too – at least to “certain members of his staff”, whose authority he might fail to invoke(?).

Yep, to those who were not involved in the execution of the genocidal program and whose knowledge about the same might be inconvenient. And so?

At least that is a key consideration that must not fail to be taken into account when we are dealing with lies.

See above on how such considerations should be approached. Not the philosopher's way of bluntly assuming that if one may have lied, everyone is likely to have lied.

Even today – according to Prof. Evans above – does it happen that an historian
“deliberately fails to take into account a number of key considerations when using his material”, for example that a perpetrator or a witness has an interest to lie.

Taking into consideration that someone may have had an interest in lying is one thing. Bluntly assuming that said someone did lie is another, and postulating that because he or she may have lied everyone else is likely or even certain to have lied as well is still another. The latter considerations, which the philosopher is trying to promote, have much to do with ideologically motivated wishful thinking but little if anything to do with historiography.

Maybe this interest is still going strong?

Or maybe it takes a fantasy-prone mind to believe that certain inconvenient facts are "lies", despite the evidence to such facts and the absence of evidence to supposed manipulations by any "interested" entities.

[David Thompson]

Roberto -- You said: "Taking into consideration that someone may have had an interest in lying is one thing. Bluntly assuming that said someone did lie is another, and postulating that because he or she may have lied everyone else is likely or even certain to have lied as well is still another. The latter considerations, which the philosopher is trying to promote, have much to do with ideologically motivated wishful thinking but little if anything to do with historiography."

You have made an excellent point, Roberto. Raising one of several possible explanations does not transform that possible explanation into an established fact. This fallacious (and intellectually lazy) form of argument is frequently seen in this section of the forum. The fact that a possible explanation exists does not mean that it happened that way, nor does it even establish how likely the possible explanation is to be true. There is a huge chasm between a possibility and a fact. One cannot pass over that chasm by asking the reader to help him imagine a bridge.

[David Thompson]

For Michael Mills -- Needless to say, my comment above is not directed at you. Your responses to the Himmler and Heydrich statements have been thought-provoking, and I'm looking forward to more.

[Erik]

Mr. Thompson wrote:

Roberto -- You said: "Taking into consideration that someone may have had an interest in lying is one thing. Bluntly assuming that said someone did lie is another, and postulating that because he or she may have lied everyone else is likely or even certain to have lied as well is still another. The latter considerations, which the philosopher is trying to promote, have much to do with ideologically motivated wishful thinking but little if anything to do with historiography."

You have made an excellent point, Roberto. Raising one of several possible explanations does not transform that possible explanation into an established fact. This fallacious (and intellectually lazy) form of argument is frequently seen in this section of the forum. The fact that a possible explanation exists does not mean that it happened that way, nor does it even establish how likely the possible explanation is to be true. There is a huge chasm between a possibility and a fact. One cannot pass over that chasm by asking the reader to help him imagine a bridge.

And later:

For Michael Mills -- Needless to say, my comment above is not directed at you. Your responses to the Himmler and Heydrich statements have been thought-provoking, and I'm looking forward to more.

Mr. Thompson’s comment may of course have been directed at Roberto and witness, since they, too, are posting “in this section of the forum”.

However, a possibility may exist that Erik is the targeted promotor of the “fallacious (and intellectually lazy) form of argument” that consists in “raising one of several possible explanations” in order to “transport that possible explanation into an established fact”.

This abominable aberration of intellectual laziness perhaps is the one of the considerations that has “much to do with ideologically motivated wishful thinking but little if anything to do with historiography", according to Roberto.

Mr Thompson wrote (above):

The fact that a possible explanation exists does not mean that it happened that way, nor does it even establish how likely the possible explanation is to be true. There is a huge chasm between a possibility and a fact. One cannot pass over that chasm by asking the reader to help him imagine a bridge.

That is perhaps why the fact needs the help of the law to be true? To avoid the likelihood of other possible explanations across that “huge chasm” of possibilites, and the imagining of any “bridge”?

An “Alcatraz” theory of truth?

Roberto wrote:

Taking into consideration that someone may have had an interest in lying is one thing. Bluntly assuming that said someone did lie is another, and postulating that because he or she may have lied everyone else is likely or even certain to have lied as well is still another.

How about turning it around?

>>Postulating that someone may have an interest in lying is one thing.<<

That’s why we have legal inquiries and court proceedings, isn’t it? This “interest in lying” is “postulated”. Truth must be inquired after, and not bluntly assumed to be in the interest of everybody.

>>Taking into consideration that said someone did lie is another.<<

Once the interest is postulated, this must be taken into consideration.

>>Bluntly assuming that because he or she may have lied everyone else is likely or even certain to have lied is still another.<<

That is why we have “hate speech” legislation, isn’t it? The lies must be stopped, and accordingly “bluntly” assumed. No appeal to be given once “historiography” has ruled.

Robert wrote:

Or maybe it takes a fantasy-prone mind to believe that certain inconvenient facts are "lies", despite the evidence to such facts and the absence of evidence to supposed manipulations by any "interested" entities.

That is why any bridges from the “Alcatraz” of facts over the chasms of possibility to the land of free inquiry must be un-imagined.(?).

Erik wrote:
At least that is a key consideration that must not fail to be taken into account when we are dealing with lies.

See above on how such considerations should be approached. Not the philosopher's way of bluntly assuming that if one may have lied, everyone is likely to have lied.

Notice how the possibility of “bridges” is “approached”.

The philosopher’s “at least” concerning “a key consideration that must not fail to be taken into account when we are dealing with lies” is turned into “bluntly assuming that if one may have lied, everyone is likely to have lied”.

Erik was using the formulation of Prof. Evans in his criticism of David Irving:

Likewise, Irving deliberately fails to take into account a number of key considerations when using his material. For instance, rather than Hitler not knowing about the ‘Final Solution’ he may quite explicablly have lied to certain members of his staff.

Hitler’s interest to lie is postulated, “simply because he didn't want to be seen as a complicit in the act of mass murder since he was the nation' leader and the head of State”, to use the formulation of witness, approved by Roberto.

Can it be postulated that others had the same interest to lie, simply because they wanted to be seen as acting under the duress of the Führer’s will?

Or is that “bluntly assuming” etc? (see above)

What happens when we take such interest into account as a key consideration when using the materials of postwar war-crimes inquiries?

Isn’t that what Mr. Mills is doing, with brilliantly “thought-provoking” (Mr. Thompson) results?