Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews Peter Longerich (grave mercy .TXT) 📖

25 August, that the planned

camp should be described as a ‘concentration camp’ had been rejected by the RSHA:

OS, 504-2-8, RSHA II C 3 an Ek 2, 17 Sept. 1941. On the deportations to Riga, the

murders that took place there, and the conditions in which the deportees lived, see the

overview by Wolfgang Scheffler, ‘Das Schicksal der in die baltischen Staaten depor-

tierten deustchen, österreichischen und tschechoslovakischen Juden 1941–1945’, in

Schefffler and Schulle, eds, Buch der Erinnerung, i. 1–45.

130. YIVO, Occ E 3–29, File note Drechsler, 20 Oct. 1941.

131. YIVO, Occ E 30, Minute RK Ostland, 27 Oct. 1941. On the gas chamber letter see above, pp. 279–80.

132. YIVO, Occ E 3–30.

133. YIVO, Occ E 32, RK Ostland, II a 4, 9 Nov. 1941.

134. YIVO, Occ E 26, telegram from Leibbrandt to RK Lohse, 13 Nov. 1941.

135. IMT xxvii. 2–3, 1104-PS. Kube sent Lohse the report from the District Commissioner of Sluzk, in which he had complained about the massacre by Police Batallion 11 in the

district capital on 27 October 1941.

136. YIVO, Occ. E 3–28; also 3363-PS, IMT xxxii. 436.

137. 18 December 1941, YIVO, Occ E 3–28. The phrase ‘fundamentally disregarded’ and the

reference to any ‘dubious cases’ that might arise, show that the Eastern Ministry did

540

Notes to pages 298–301

not wish to confirm in this way Lohse’s question as to whether ‘all Jews’ in the Ostland

were to be liquidated.

138. Breitman, Architect, 218; BAB, R 43 II/684a, Brandt to Lammers, transmission of

Himmler’s file note concerning the conversation.

139. See p. 289.

140. For literature on the deportations to Minsk and the events that took place there, the following provide important information about Minsk: Safrian, Eichmann-Männer,

150 ff; Karl Löwenstein’s notebooks, idem, Minsk. im Lager der deutschen Juden (Bonn,

1961); and the memoirs of Heinz Rosenberg, Jahre des Schreckens . . . und ich blieb

übrig, dass ich Dir’s ansage (Göttingen, 1985).

141. Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm, Die Einsatzgruppe A der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD 1941/42

(Frankfurt a. M., 1986), 124–5, refers to personal notes by Bock, a copy of which is in the possession of the author; YIVO, Occ E 3–34.

142. YIVO, Occ E 3–36.

143. This is apparent from Leibrandt’s communication to Lohse on 4 December 1941: this

suggests Heydrich now wanted to set up the camp near Pleskau: YIVO, Occ E 3–35;

published in Gertrude Schneider, Journey into Terror: The Story of the Riga Ghetto

(New York, 1979), 184.

144. On this see Scheffler ‘Schicksal’, 13 ff.

145. Jäger-Bericht, IfZ, Fb 101/29. See Wolfgang Scheffler, ‘Massenmord in Kowno’, in

Scheffler and Schulle, eds, Buch der Erinnerung, 83–92.

146. Gerald Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution (London, 1985), 76 ff; EM 151, 5 Jan. 1942.

147. Statement, 15 Dec. 1945 to Soviet investigators, in Wilhelm, ‘Einsatzgruppe A’,

566–7.

148. Published in Dienstkalender, ed Witte et al., 278. The time was 13.30.

149. Ibid., 30 Nov., 4 Dec. 1941, p. 284; PRO, HW 16/32, telegrams from Himmler to Jeckeln, 1 Dec. 1941 and 4 Dec. 1941.

150. Andrej Angrick and Peter Klein, Die ‘Endlösung’ in Riga: Ausbeutung und Vernich-

tung, 1941–1944 (Berlin, 2006), 239 ff; on the first shootings see H. G. Adler, Ther-

esienstadt 1941–1945: Das Antlitz einer Zwangsgemeinschaft (Tübingen, 1960), 799.

151. Angrick and Klien, Riga, 338 ff.

152. Walter Manoschek, ‘Serbien ist judenfrei’. Militärbesatzungspolitik und Judenvernichtung in Serbien 1941/42 (Munich, 1993), 35 ff.

153. Ibid. 43–4.

154. Ibid. 49 ff.

155. Ibid. 79 ff. The order initially spoke of 2,100 victims, but the number was raised by 100

after another German soldier was killed.

156. Manoschek, Serbien, 86 ff.

157. NG 3354; Manoschek, ‘Serbien’, 104.

158. NG 3354; Manoschek, ‘Serbien’, 102.

159. Ibid. 84–5.

160. Ibid. 96–7.

161. Ibid. 86.

162. PAA, Inland IIg 104, Rademacher report, 7 November; Manoschek, ‘Serbien’, 102 ff.

163. Zimmermann, Rassenutopie, 248 ff.

Notes to pages 302–306

541

164. Dienstkalender, ed. Witte et al., 20 Oct. 1941, p. 241. The editors quote from an

explanation by Mach, dated 26 Mar. 1942, to the Slovakian council of state, which

mentions the German proposal.

165. The position represented here differs particularly from the versions given by Burrin and Browning.

166. This view is held by Mommsen and Broszat.

167. I am thinking primarily of the works of Pohl, Sandkühler, Musial, and Gerlach.

16.

The Wannsee Conference

1. PAA, Inland II g 177, memo from Heydrich to Luther. On 1 December HSSPF Krüger

und State Secretary Bühler of the General Government were invited to clarify the

question of competencies concerning the ‘Jewish problem’ (note from Eichmann and

invitation letter of 1 December; it was already included in the Eichmann trial as

Dokument T 182, published in Tagesordnung Judenmord. Die Wannsee-Konferenz

am 20. Januar 1942. Eine Dokumentation zur Organisation der ‘Endlösung’, (Berlin,

1992), ed. Kurt Pätzold and Erika Schwarz; facsimile in Yehoshua Büchler and Yehuda

Bauer, ‘A Preparatory Document for the Wannsee “Conference” ’, HGS 9 (1995), 121–9.

For literature on the Wannsee Conference see: Mark Roseman, The Villa, the Lake, the

Meeting: Wannsee and the Final Solution (London, 2002); Christian Gerlach, ‘Die

Wannsee-Konferenz, das Schicksal der deutschen Juden und Hitlers politische Grund-

satzentscheidung alle Juden Europas zu ermorden’, Werkstattgeschichte, 18 (1997), 7–

44; Eberhard Jäckel, ‘The Purpose of the Wannsee Conference’, in James S. Pacy and

Alan P. Wertheimer, eds, Perspectives on the Holocaust: Essays in Honor of Raul

Hilberg (Boulder, Colo., 1995); Peter Klein, Die Wannsee-Konferenz vom 20. Januar

1942. Analyse und Dokumentation (Berlin, 1995); Pätzold and Schwarz, Tagesordnung;

Safrian, Eichmann-Männer, 171 ff.; Wolfgang Scheffler, ‘Die Wannsee-Konferenz und

ihre historische Bedeutung’, in Erinnern für die Zukunft (Berlin, 1995).

2. Elke Fröhlich, ed., Die Tagebücher, Teil II, vol. ii, 13 Dec. 41, pp. 498–9.

3. This is the argument put forward by Gerlach, ‘Wannsee-Konferenz’.

4. This is what Rosenberg recorded in his diary concerning a discussion with Hitler on 14

December, at which he presented him with the manuscript of a planned speech at the

Sportpalast (Rosenberg, Tagebuch, PS-1517, IMT xxvii. 270 ff., 16 Dec. 41, also published in Wilhelm, Rassenpolitik, 132): ‘Where the Jewish question is concerned, I would say

that, following the decision, the remarks about the New York Jews should perhaps be

changed somewhat. I would take the view that one should not speak of the extermin-

ation of the Jews. The Führer agreed with this stance and said they had burdened us

with the war and brought destruction; no wonder they were the first to feel the

consequences.’ In Gerlach’s view, the ‘decision’ mentioned by Rosenberg is Hitler’s

‘fundamental decision’, which must in that