Aaah, the semantic pedantry of genocide.
Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, clearly believed the order for the final solution came from Hitler, and remembers Himmler telling him that he (Himmler) was ordered by Hitler to effectuate it. (Goldensohn:“the Nuremburg interviews”)
That said, by the time of this order there was already widespread killing of Jews and others. The treatment of Jews and other “undesirables” until this point was already appalling, and even without the decision to engage in industrial and complete annihilation could only have ended in mass murder anyway.
The work camps, for most of the inhabitants, and even early in the war, were designed to kill those inhabitants with work, malnutrition and abuse. That is no less dead than gassed - just slower.
The notion that without Hitler ordering it there would not have been the final solution I find hard to swallow. It was ordered by Hitler because stuff needed to be ordered by Hitler to maintain proper protocol and order - but it was ordering something that was already going to happen, and was in fact already happening.
The T4 program did not originate with Hitler, by the time it became official (if secret) policy, many handicapped had already been murdered. Similar with the large scale killing of Jews. The first experiments in mass scale killings were by enterprising underlings (Hoess’ second in command at Auschwitz comes to mind - experimenting with Zyklon-B while the boss is out). All this an inevitable consequence of believing that certain lives not only have zero value, but represent a threat to your “culture”, life and home.
This distinction warms my heart. Thank God we have people who can tell the difference. Humanity is not lost.
Nonsense. The Nazis were a product of their zeitgeist among an entire population (which, BTW, was mirrored in other European countries and in the US, though not with quite the same enthusiasm and gusto), not some magnificent Triumph of Hitler’s Own Will.
Shoot Hitler in 33, or 38, or 44, some other Nazi takes his place, events proceed more or less exactly the same, give or take the odd military strategic blunder actually directly attributable to Hitler (of which there are actually fewer than most people reckon).
As **isosleepy **says, it’s not like Hitler ordered the extermination out of the blue.
First of all that’s just the secretary’s own guess, which is worth sweet fuck all.
Second of all, even if we do accept that it was the day in question, Himmler’s distress is not an indication that he was troubled by the concept of exterminating the Jews - he could have been just as bothered by the scale of it and the timetable expected of him, i.e. the logistical nightmare, the problems with maintaining secrecy (compounding the logistics aspect - how are people supposed to keep track of and direct such a massive undertaking without paperwork, or involving their own staff ?), the burden of having to come up with the means and methods etc…
In the second speech, he also specifically addresses ‘this most secret circle’ and stresses how the things he is saying must never be repeated outside of this group.
I get that, I really do. I understand that he wants it kept secret - demands that it’s kept secret - and unknown to anyone outside the SS and the ‘highest-ups’.
What I still don’t understand, though, especially given Himmler’s emphasis on keeping things within that group (precisely as you note above), is why he’d allow a phonograph recording to be made of it. Doing so removes all hope of deniability should the recording ever get out (which, of course, it did!).
After reading the comments in this thread so far, the best I can come up with is that he didn’t appreciate the risk of his speech’s dissemination - that transcribing and recording it made it more likely to get out of the group and that once it did get out, it would then not only be impossible for him to deny saying such things but, by extension, the things he spoke about must have actually occurred). Perhaps what I now take for granted about never recording/transcribing stuff you want kept private is a result of the Internet - all of us (I would think) have come to appreciate that nothing is secret once it’s been put online.
Yep, this is always the dilemma for corrupt powers though. If you want things to be organised and efficient, you have to have things written down. The more people are involved in a conspiracy and the more closely they have to be coordinated, the more evidence they leave behind. There doesn’t seem to be a way around it.
But they’re working on it at Microsoft.
Other simple explanation : to keep the trust of the underlings. If the higher-up tells you to do Something Questionable but doesn’t want any record of the order kept, that means he’s planning on letting you hang to dry if/when things go pear-shaped. He can always say he wasn’t informed and y’alls did it behind his back.
If you’re ever involved in a nefarious conspiracy, always ask for your eeeevil orders to be notarized in triplicate.
That’s a very astute point. It makes a lot of sense and is the type of insight I had hoped to get by opening this thread in the first place. Thanks.
You’re welcome. Any time you need a deviously paranoid little bastard on the case, you know where to find me 
Except in Nazi Germany who was going to hang them out to dry? No one involved in any of the killing projects was ever ‘hung out to dry’. Why would anyone think anything would happen to them after 10 years of murder?
The guys who saw how Hitler dealt with Ernst Röhm?
It’s really not a big leap to believe that, once all the murdering’s over, the guys who did all the murdering might just get disposed of too. Then blamed for the whole thing because they were such horrible people ; while at the same time praising the thing itself being done in the abstract. What’s one more bit of requisite doublethink between Nazi friends ?
Missed edit : it’s all the more likely a thought to have come up to the kind of shithead who would, themselves, do that if given half a chance. I forget the name of that cognitive bias (a subset of projection I think), but we tend to assume everybody would act and think exactly like us because we only have that one trustworthy frame of reference.
And seeing as the inner circle of the SS were the selfsame guys who erased a now-inconvenient Röhm from history after a good 'nuff smear campaign against his corpse…
I come back to my suggestion about maintaining “discipline” (and the “no exceptions” statements) - perhaps it was meant for some at least of those present to have the option of using a recording of the speech to underline to their juniors who weren’t present what they were supposed to do and the lines of authority for doing it.
Interesting post. Rohm was a direct threat to Hitler and had to be offered up as a sacrifice to win support of the army. But I agree with your larger point.
I don’t feel it is a burden to share my knowledge…it is a mission.
::bows head humbly::
On this theme, if I heard correctly (from a documentary) Rohm went to some politician from another country (France?? that doesn’t sound right…) and asked them if they would be upset if there were a change of leadership in Germany. So, he needed, rightfully, to be disposed of.
The quote may have been incorrect/misunderstood/etc… though, so, maybe Rohm was a victim.
I think the key is in your first sentence: “real time.”
Piles of rotting corpses would likely make even cold-blooded killers a bit squeamish, and even in a mostly anti-Semitic society, lots of people would have friends or neighbors or classmates who were Jewish. Saying you are killing nice Mr. Finkelstein or young Abraham Cohen or the Frank girls is different than saying you are killing some vague and ill-defined “other.”
The glorious reich was going to last a thousand years though, and after thirty or fifty or a hundred, nobody would be able to put faces and names to the victims. The Holocaust then could be portrayed in an impersonal, antiseptic manner, the bloodless removal of a cancer on society or whatever. For that, Himmler would be only too ready to take the credit.