Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate.
Paul Grubach of Ohio argues that Eichmann's word is not proof enough, Thursday, January 23, 2003
Did Hitler order it? is Eichmann's word proof?
I AM writing a review of Mark Roseman's The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution: A Reconsideration (Henry Holt, Metropolitan Books, 2002) for Germar Rudolf's English language journal. The book was very favorably reviewed by Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans.
As you know, Adolf Eichmann wrote a passage in his memoirs that Evans believes supports the theory that Hitler ordered the complete extermination of the Jewish people. Nazi official Reinhard Heydrich allegedly told Eichmann in July 1941 that: "I've [Heydrich] come from the Reichsfuhrer [Heinrich Himmler]. [Hitler] has given orders for the physical destruction of the Jews (p.248, Evans's Lying about Hitler)."
You claimed that Eichmann had inserted this phrase in his manuscript so that, if he was captured, his defense would be that he was merely following orders (pp.248-249). Evans claims you are simply trying to rationalize away the evidence that does not fit your views.
Lo and behold!! On page 54, Roseman makes the claim that "Both [Rudolf] Höss's and Eichmann's testimonies lack credibility." A few sentences later he states:
"Eichmann, for his part, was at pains to establish a clear set of orders that absolved him of responsibility."
On page 96, Roseman discusses how Eichmann spoke of the Wannsee Conference after he was captured in the post-war years: "Adolf Eichmann spoke more openly, but his testimony is unreliable, particularly on his own aspirations, concerned as he was to portray himself as a dutiful errand boy, with neither initiation nor knowledge." On pages 97-98, he claims that Eichmann invented false claims. Then, on page 104, he again claims that Eichmann's defense strategy "was to establish that his superiors had given clear killing orders."
Roseman's claims support your position. If Eichmann's testimony is unreliable, and if he had a vested interest in establishing that his Nazi superiors had given him a clear set of orders for mass murder that absolved him of responsibility, then it follows that he very well may have inserted the phrase--"...Hitler has given the orders for the physical destruction of the Jews."--in his postwar [1955/1956] manuscript.
Thus, how can Richard Evans possibly castigate you for "rationalizing away the evidence," when a book of which he has given a favorable review offers evidence for your point of view on the Eichmann passage?
Bookmark the download page to find the latest new free books