bombsaway wrote: ↑Sun Dec 28, 2025 8:50 pm
You notice how in the Sonthofen speeches he says this?
On 5 May 1944 Himmler explained to Generals in Sonthofen that perseverance in the bombing war has only been possible because the Jews in Germany have been discarded.[25]
The Jewish question has been solved within Germany itself and in general within the countries occupied by Germany. [...] You can understand how difficult it was for me to carry out this military order which I was given and which I implemented out of a sense of obedience and absolute conviction. If you say: 'we can understand as far as the men are concerned but not about the children', then I must remind you of what I said at the beginning. [...] In my view, we as Germans, however deeply we may feel in our hearts, are not entitled to allow a generation of avengers filled with hatred to grow up with whom our children and grandchildren will have to deal because we, too weak and cowardly, left it to them.
Yes, he is describing a blanket
anti-partisan policy approach, here, feeling a need to justify why [Jewish] children were also executed, which the Wehrmacht no doubt found horrifying. The key context at Sonthofen is specifically a
military context of partisan networks -- this speech was to Wehrmacht generals, specifically, in a segment of the speech about anti-partisan tactics. The tie-in to Jewish policy overall is mentioned only insofar as the "uncompromising" nature and because clearing the ghettos as partisan "headquarters" was a necessity. One has to consider the questions important to the audience, here:
- How are the activities of the SS relevant (to the Wehrmacht)?
- Why are you (SS) known to execute women and children [of partisans], rather than just the men?
Thus, Himmler's focus on justifying his SS organization's support for Wehrmacht operations is central, here. He speaks separately about (1) the clearing of the ghettos (mentioned only in passing reference), and (2) the intense fighting against partisans these operations entailed. There is only evidence of child executions as relevant to the second topic (fighting partisans), made clear in subsequent speeches at Sonthofen and in comparison to speeches at Posen and official Final Solution policy on Jews.
Himmler finishes this segment on Jews in this same 5 May 1944 speech, with the following:
The Asian [Russian], in his advance from Asia [Russia], which you have to fend off at the front and are allowed to fend off, will not be able to set up an enemy at your back, neither among your own people nor as a serious danger - apart from small bandits - which always exist in the countries we occupy.
Clearly, the concern and emphasis is on how these Jewish-partisan hotbeds can be utilized by the enemy. Jews in ghettos as partisan headquarters (deeply connected to surrounding areas via black markets, underground tunnels, communications, etc.) were a threat -- Jews dispossessed and shipped into isolation much further East ("quarantine", per Goebbels) were not.
bombsaway wrote:1944-05-25 - Heinrich Himmler - Rede vor Vertretern der deutschen Justiz in Kochem
Another question which was decisive for the inner security of the Reich and Europe, was the Jewish question. It was uncompromisingly solved after orders and rational recognition. I believe, gentlemen, that you know me well enough to know that I am not a bloodthirsty person; I am not a man who takes pleasure or joy when something rough must be done. However on the other hand, I have such good nerves and such a developed sense of duty – I can say that much for myself – that when I recognise something as necessary I can implement it without compromise. I have not considered myself entitled – this concerns especially the Jewish women and children – to allow the children to grow into the avengers who will then murder our children and our grandchildren. That would have been cowardly. Consequently the question was uncompromisingly resolved.
I have this same speech dated as 1944-05-24 (a day prior), here is a larger excerpt, emphases added:
Another question that was decisive for the internal security of the Reich and Europe was the Jewish question. It was solved without compromise according to orders and rational knowledge. I believe, gentlemen, that you know me well enough to know that I am not a bloodthirsty person and not a man who takes pleasure or fun in any task that he has to do. On the other hand, however, I have such good nerves and such a great sense of duty - I can claim this for myself - that when I recognize a matter as necessary, I carry it out without compromise. I did not consider myself entitled - this concerns Jewish women and children - to let the children grow up to be avengers who would then kill our fathers and our grandchildren. I would have considered that cowardly. Consequently, the question was resolved without compromise. At the moment, however - it is strange in this war - we are initially bringing 100,000, and later another 100,000, male Jews from Hungary into concentration camps, with whom we are building underground factories. But not one of them comes into the field of vision of the German people. But I am convinced that I would see things in a negative light for the front that has been built up in the east of the General Government if we had not solved the Jewish question there, if the ghetto in Lublin still existed and the huge ghetto with 500,000 people in Warsaw, the clearing of which, gentlemen, cost us five weeks of street fighting last year with armored cars and with all weapons, where we stormed around 700 houses in bunkers in the middle of this fenced-off ghetto. - Of course we have gangs. The Russians have them too. They're just as unpleasant with them. You can't take it tragically, you have to take it seriously. If you have courage, take action, take action prudently and sensibly, namely by being prepared, then gangs can never be a decisive danger. They never decide a war.
Clearly, Himmler is speaking about the response against partisan networks, specifically. The "uncompromising" approach is specifically targeting these networks, however Himmler believed that killing a partisan male and sparing his wife and children was an eventual threat as the children would become
avengers upon Germany in the future. Himmler compares his own uncompromising approach to that of the Russians,
who were "just as unpleasant" with their own gangs.
Notice also that Himmler has an opportunity here to mention or allude to actual Jewish extermination operations (at Reinhardt camps, i.e. 'gassing'), or a "liquidation" of the people in the ghettos. Instead, he mentions only the "clearing ["Bereinigung"] of [the Lublin/Warsaw ghettos]" but with
focus on the military threat encountered (five weeks of street fighting, underground bunkers, etc.). He also mentions the Hungarian Jewish workers never "[coming] into the
field of vision of the German people", which reinforces the priority of
preventing Jewish influences affecting surrounding populations (Germans). Jews who could not reach outside networks or "poison" the German population were not among the threat being described, here.
These ghettos (in the General Government, in particular) were still connected to the surrounding areas in Poland (with black markets and partisan recruiting thriving in the major ghettos). These had to be addressed with brutal force but the partisans in these ghettos were not going to give up their "headquarters" easily. As these ghettos were being cleared, Jewish partisans fought tooth-and-nail to hold their position/headquarters, given the strategic importance.
All of those involved (and their family members, likely found together in these "bunkers") were executed, without compromise.
These executions were separate from the larger policy of Jewish evacuations ("Judenevakuierung") which were mentioned multiple times at Posen but are not mentioned at all at Sonthofen.
bombsaway wrote:Do you maintain, as with the Posen speech that this is evidence of the women and children being spared? The same exact language is being used.
That is a bit of a strawman. I have shown that the speech is an admission and explanation of women and children of Jews tied into partisan networks
not being spared. Posen is a different audience, is explicitly about Jewish evacuations ("Judenevakuierung"), seven months prior, and clearly about Jewish policy more broadly (limited discussion of partisans). Sonthofen is about partisan activity and securing the rear, with mention of Jewish policy only insofar as it is directly relevant here.
bombsaway wrote:I should remind you that I haven't seen any revisionist that has taken your view about that part of the Posen speech. The most common argument seems to be viewing the killing of women and children as part of larger reprisal actions against partisans. But you explicitly argue that this is about all Jews.
You can keep mentioning what "other revisionists" have said/believed, bombsaway, it is irrelevant.
If I am wrong, point out the error. Otherwise, there is nothing else to say.
