David Irving's Hitler Essay 2
© Copyright Eberhard Jäckel
In a way
David Irving has triumphed and I have to admit
that I may have helped him to that end. In his book
Hitler's War, the nimble historian-author declared that the
murder of the European Jews had been committed
without Hitler's knowledge and against his will. Though
everything we know suggests otherwise, with conclusive
proof against that absurd thesis being unavailable I had,
on August 25, 1977 in this news-paper,[42] brought
reasoning and examples to bear against it. Thereupon
Irving reproached me in a letter-to-the-editor (dated
September 23, 1977) saying I had failed to mention "several
new documents" which, he said, gave further reinforcement
to his thesis. For example (he mentioned only one):
"Hitler's decree in the spring of 1942 to the effect that
the 'Final Solution' was to be postponed until the
war's end."
When I inquired whether there was such a decree,
Irving replied that, although such a document was now no
longer in existence, it was still there at the time of
the Nuremberg Tribunal.[43] He said that there it had
been officially registered as a "Staff Evidence
Analysis" but had subsequently "disappeared." One
could practically feel
Irving's suspicions: the Nuremberg Tribunal must
have discovered the truth and, because it should not have
been there, had let it disappear.
Thereupon I followed the matter up. Since
Irving
had supplied the archival codes, I easily discovered
everything, i.e., both the registration and the document
itself. A copy was found among the Nuremberg Tribunal data
and the original in the archives of the West German
Government. The document had thus certainly not
"disappeared." I now sent a copy to
Irving and added my
interpretation of it. He was so delighted that he
dropped his previous pieces of "evidence" and, while
carefully omitting my explanation, sent out a press
release[44] to the effect that proof of his thesis had now
been discovered.
Here is the [document's] wording: "Reichsminister[45]
Lammers informed me that the Fuehrer had repeatedly
declared to him he wished to see the solution of the
Jewish question put on the back burner until the end of
the war. Accordingly, Minister Lammers considers the
current discussions to have merely theoretical value. He
would in any case see to it that no basic decisions are
made without his knowledge."
There, didn't it say it all clearly in black and white?
Not really; much remained to be explained: how is it that
after and in spite of such an order millions of Jews were
in fact murdered? Was Hitler really a powerless phantom
whose orders were not obeyed? And there is also the
question why Hitler, according to
Irving ignorant of it
all, would have ordered the matter to be put on the back
burner.
The "Secret" Behind the "Lost" Document
Meanwhile, all this is less important than the
pressing question of what this whole document really
implies. It has neither a heading nor a signature and
there is no date on it. For that reason alone an
interpretation of it becomes necessary if it is to become
understandable. Who was it to whom Lammers had given the
information, and when? Obviously only in the larger
context can such questions be answered. Actually the
context is not far to find.
The piece belongs to a file of the Nazi
government's Ministry of Justice, namely the volume
entitled "Treatment of Jews" (catalogue number R 22/52).
Only a few pages are of interest. There is a letter of
March 12, 1942, in which the officiating Minister of
Justice Schlegelberger addresses Lammers, the Minister
and Chief Officer of the Chancellery, then at the Fuehrer's
Headquarters, saying that he was just "informed of the
outcome of a meeting of March 6, concerning the treatment
of Jews and Mischlinge (part-Jews[49]." He continues, it
seems to him that decisions were being prepared
there which he could not but consider utterly
impracticable. And since the outcome was to provide a
basis for the Fuehrer's ultimate plans he urgently
wished an opportunity to "discuss this issue with
him [i.e., Lammers]."
Lammers replied on March 18, that he would be glad to
comply when, as he anticipated, he would be in Berlin
toward the end of the month, at which time he and
Schlegelberger "could discuss these issues." Indeed, as
other files show, he arrived on March 28, and on April
10 he and Schlegelberger had their confab.
The latter had already on April 5 prepared a
lengthy memorandum entitled "Concerning: Final Solution
of the Jewish Question," addressed to no fewer than
seven high government bureaus. It dealt with the legal
treatment of Mischlinge of the first and the
second degree,[47] subdivided into those capable of
reproduction and those not. The central issue of the
memorandum concerned the facilitation of divorce in cases
of marriages between people of German blood and Jews.
That's the kind of problem with which the efficient
officials of the Ministry of Justice had for a long time
busied themselves and around which they had engaged in
inter-departmental arguments.
Precisely there, in that set of papers we find
that "evidential document," and the following conclusion
becomes inevitable: the author of the filed notice and
the person who talked with Lammers was Schlegelberger, and
the point of reference was the discussion of April 10, the
subject being the Justice Ministry's worries. And now,
without further ado, we come to understand the meaning of
Lammer's report of Hitler's declaration.
It did not refer to the bloody Final Solution of the
Jewish Question, i.e., the murder of the Jews. Murder was
not at all within the jurisdiction of the Minister of
Justice. But to whom should he have passed on Hitler's
"order"? The subordinates of the Minister of Justice were
judges, state prosecutors, and prison officials. Murder,
however, was the work of Himmler's subordinates,
Heydrich and Eichmann; it originated in the Nazi Party
Chancellery and the Central State Security Office
(Reichssicherheitshauptamt) .
In contrast, for Schlegelberger, the term "Final Solution
of the Jewish Question" implied the multi-faceted
procedures to deprive German Jews of their civil rights. It
was about such issues that he spoke with Lammers who
replied that all this was currently just of theoretical
interest, and that the Fuehrer wished to have the
matter put on the back burner until the end of the war.
It is all easily understandable: Hitler was never
much impressed by jurists; in the third year of the war
there were for him more urgent matters than the
procedures for facilitating divorces in the case of mixed
marriages, aside from the fact that all this was going
to be superfluous since by war's end there would be no
more Jews.
The jurists however stuck by their case. Not less than
a year-and-a-half later, again in regard to the
"Final Solution of the Jewish Question," Lammers
argued with Bormann about a proposed decree to regulate
divorce in the case of mixed marriages between Germans
and Jews. And once again it says in a file entry of
October 6, 1943: "The head of the Party Chancellery
(Bormann) was of the opinion that the Fuehrer would at
this time not be willing to receive the report. It was
therefore agreed that the issue would have to be
postponed."
All this is well known to
Irving. He, however,
merely searches for and collects whatever pieces of
information fit his preconceptions. That is why he
has interpreted a postponement of the "Solution of
the Jewish Question" through his pet formula [i.e., the
absence of an explicit order by Hitler].
Before long we can expect his newly reinforced thesis
to appear as a book, perhaps even with expressions
of appreciation for help received from a certain historian
in locating the document that provided "proof" for
the "correctness" of his thesis!
Footnotes:
41. This essay first appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung of 22 June 1978, p. 23.
42. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
43. The Allied Governments' court procedure against Nazi
war criminals.
44. Several newspapers ac ally published it.
45. Nazi government minister.
46. People of mixed, i.e., Jewish and non-Jewish, descent.
47. First-grade = people with two Jewish grandparents;
second-grade = people with one Jewish grandparent.
Work Cited
Jaäckel, Eberhard. David Irving's Hitler: A Faulty History Dissected. H.
David Kirk, Translator. Port Angeles, Washington:
Ben-Simon Publications,
1993. Library of Congress Catalog Number 93-072355, ISBN 0-914539-08-6.
Ben-Simon Publications, P.O. Box 2124, Port Angeles, Washington, 98362
Ben-Simon Publications, P.O. Box 318, Brentwood Bay, British Columbia,
V0S 1A0.
The
original plaintext version
of this file is available via
ftp.
[
Previous |
Index |
Next ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
A Faulty History Dissected
Two Essays by Eberhard Jäckel
Translation & Comments by H. David Kirk
© Translation Copyright H. David Kirk
Once More
Irving, Hitler and the Murder of the Jews[ 41]New Documents?
The "Disappeared" Document Turns Up
Seek And Ye Shall Find