The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/jackel/jt-2-1


Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Holocaust Almanac: David Irving's Hitler, Essay II
Summary: Eberhard Jaeckel's Essays on David Irving (English translation)
Reply-To: kmcvay@nizkor.org
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: The Nizkor Project, Vancouver Island, CANADA
Keywords: Irving

Jackel Essay 2: Once More - Irving, Hitler and the Murder
of the Jews[ 41]

New Documents?

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-tothe-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.


The "Disappeared" Document Turns Up

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."

Seek And Ye Shall Find

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

Ja"ckel, 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. 

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.