Hitler's Hangman (87 page)

188. Wolfgang Benz, ‘Die Dimension des Völkermordes’, in idem. (ed.),
Dimension des

Völkermordes
, 1–23, here 17; Streit,
Keine Kameraden
, 142ff.

189. Witte et al. (eds),
Dienstkalender
, 21 January 1942, p. 331.

Chapter VIII: Reich Protector

1. For the latest analysis of the Nazi occupation of Bohemia and Moravia, see Bryant,
Prague

in Black
.

2. The ‘viceroy’ analogy to British India was first used by the State Secretary of the Interior,

Wilhelm Stuckart, who devised the Protectorate’s civil administration structure. See

Miroslav Kárný and Jaroslava Milotová (eds),
Anatomie okupaćní politiky hitlerovského

Nĕmecka v ‘Protektorátu Čechy a Morava’. Dokumenty z období říšského protektora Konstantina

von Neuratha
(Prague, 1987), doc. 2, p. 7.

3. Alice Teichová, ‘The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (1939–1945): The Economic

Dimension’, in Mikulas Teich (ed.),
Bohemia in History
(Cambridge, 1998), 267–305;

Brandes,
Tschechen
, 166; Eva Drdáćková,
Správní uspořádání protektorátu do Heydrichovy

správní reformy (1939–1942)
(Plzeň, 2004).

4. Eduard Kubů and Drahomír Janćík,
‘Arizace’ a arizátoři. Drobný a střední židovský majetek

v úvěrech Kreditanstalt der Deutschen (1939–45)
(Prague, 2005); Evans,
Third Reich in

Power,
686f; Drahomír Janćík, Eduard Kubů and Jan Kuklík (eds),
Arizace a restituce

židovského majetku v ćeských zemích (1939–2000)
(Prague, 2003).

5. Teichová, ‘Protectorate’, 274f.; Evans,
Third Reich
, vol. 2, 665ff. Heydrich’s 17th report for

Bormann (30 December 1941), in Kárný et al. (eds),
Deutsche Politik
, 201ff.

6. John L. Heinemann,
Hitler’s First Foreign Minister: Constantin Freiherr von Neurath,

Diplomat and Statesman
(Berkeley, CA, 1979), esp. 3, 9–16, 86–166; Mastny,
Czechs
, 60;

Richard Overy,
Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands, 1945
(New York, 2001), 82.

7. John G. Lexa, ‘Anti-Jewish Laws and Regulations in the Protectorate of Bohemia and

Moravia’, in Avigdor Dagan (ed.),
The Jews of Czechoslovakia
, 4 vols (Philadelphia,

336

N OT E S to pp. 220–26

1968–84), vol. 3, 77–103. See, too, the collection of policy documents and internal docu-

ments in ‘Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD. Zentralamt für die Regelung der

Judenfrage in Böhmen und Mähren’, in Yad Vashem Archives, 051/204.

8. Brandes,
Tschechen
, vol. 1, 83ff.

9. On the Czech resistance, see Jaroslav Čvaćara,
Někomu život, někomu smrt. Československý

odboj a nacistická okupaćní moc 1939–1941
(Prague, 2002); Radomír Luža,
V Hitlerově objetí.

Kapitoly z ćeského odboje
(Prague, 2006); on the German Communists in the Sudetenland,

see Mark Cornwall, ‘Stirring Resistance from Moscow: The German Communists of

Czechoslovakia and Wireless Propaganda in the Sudetenland, 1941–1945’,
German History

24 (2006), 212–42.

10. Brandes,
Tschechen
, vol. 1, 171ff.

11. Neurath’s report to Bormann and Hitler of 15 September 1941, in Kárný et al. (eds),

Deutsche Politik
, doc. 1, pp. 77ff.

12. See Brandes,
Tschechen
, vol. 1, 196; Sládek, ‘Standrecht’, 330f.

13. On Hitler’s order (31a) of 16 September, see Hubatsch (ed.),
Hitlers Weisungen
, 149; Keitel’s

order of the same day, in BA-MA, RH 26, 104/14. On Serbia, see Manoschek,
‘Serbien ist

judenfrei’
, 43ff. On Western Europe, Guus Meershoeck et. al. (eds),
Repression und

Kriegsverbrechen. Die Bekämpfung von Widerstands- und Partisanenbewegungen gegen die

deutsche Besatzung in West- und Südosteuropa
(Berlin and Göttingen, 1997); Weber,

Sicherheit
, 59ff.

14. Heydrich to Stapoleitstellen, 27 August 1941, in BAB, R 58/1027, f. 205; Bohn,

Reichskommissariat
, 81f. and 92ff.

15. Guus Meershoek, ‘Machtentfaltung und Scheitern. Sicherheitspolizei und SD in den

Niederlanden’, in Paul and Mallmann (eds),
Gestapo im Zweiten Weltkrieg
, 383–402.

16. John A. Armstrong,
Ukrainian Nationalism, 1935–1949
(2nd edn, New York, 1963), 69f.

17. Heydrich to Lammers, 18 September 1941, BAB, R 43 II/396. Heydrich and Himmler

flew to Riga, and drove on to Mitau and Reval (Tallinn) the next day, and from there to

Dorpat and Pleskau. On 21 September, they arrived at the Führer headquarters near

Rastenburg in the Masurian Forests where they dined with Hitler and discussed the situa-

tion in the Protectorate and Heydrich’s appointment to the post of acting Reich Protector.

Witte et al. (eds),
Dienstkalender
, 18–21 September 1941, pp. 214f. On the meeting with

Hitler, see, too, Koeppen, report no. 35 of 22 September 1941, BAB, R 6/34a, f. 24.

18. See, for example, the report from the Stapoleitstelle in Prague of 19 September 1941, in

Kárný et al. (eds),
Deutsche Politik
, doc. 6, p. 86; Detlef Brandes, ‘Nationalsozialistische

Tschechenpolitik’, in idem and Václav Kural (eds),
Der Weg in die Katastrophe. Deutsch–

tschechoslowakische Beziehungen 1938–1947
(Essen, 2004), 39–50, here 46.

19. Kershaw,
Hitler
, vol 2, 641;
Dienstkalender
, 217ff.

20. On the reasons for Hitler’s change of mind on this issue, see Friedländer,
Extermination
,

291f. See, too, Browning,
Origins
, 326; Kershaw,
Hitler: Nemesis
, 477.

21. See Lösener’s memorandum for Frick of 18 August 1941, in Lösener, ‘Rassereferent’, 303.

The issue was also discussed between Himmler and Heydrich on 2 September. See Witte

et al. (eds),
Dienstkalender
, 203.

22. Himmler to Greiser, 18 September 1941, in BAB, NS 19/2655, f. 3; reprinted in Peter

Witte, ‘Two Decisions Concerning the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”:

Deportations to Lodz and the Mass Murder in Chelmno’,
Holocaust and Genocide Studies
9

(1995) 318–45. A copy of the letter was sent to Heydrich.

23. Goebbels’s diary entry of 24 September 1941, in
Tagebücher
, part II, vol. 1, 480ff.

24. Yet, despite the existence of Jewish partisan brigades, Jews made up less than 5 per cent of

the overall partisan strength in the occupied territories. See Leonid Smilovitsky, ‘Righteous

Gentiles, the Partisans and Jewish Survival in Belorussia, 1941–44’,
Holocaust and Genocide

Studies
11 (1997), 301–29.

25. On Heydrich’s emotional response to the appointment, see Schellenberg,
Labyrinth
, 225;

Heydrich,
Kriegsverbrecher
, 56. On the relationship with Himmler after 1941, see Longerich,

Himmler
, 589.

26. Heydrich,
Kriegsverbrecher
, 98f.; Witte et al. (eds),
Dienstkalender
, 24 September 1941, p. 217.

27. On Frank, see BAB, BDC, SSO Karl Hermann Frank; Miloslav Moulis and Dušan

Tomášek,
K. H. Frank. Vzestup a pád karloovarského knihkupce
(Prague, 2003), 12ff.; Ralf

N OT E S to pp. 226–9

337

Gebel,
‘Heim ins Reich’. Konrad Henlein und der Reichsgau Sudetenland (1938–1945)

(Munich, 1999), 43ff.

28. Heydrich,
Kriegsverbrecher
, 102. Heydrich to Bormann, 27 September 1941, in Kárný et al.

(eds),
Deutsche Politik
, doc. 11, p. 93. See, too, the description of the mood in Prague as

described by Naudé,
Politischer Beamter
, 116; and Wilhelm Dennler,
Die böhmische Passion

(Freiburg, 1953), 55.

29. Heydrich,
Kriegsverbrecher
, 104.

30. Heydrich’s speech in Černín Palace on 2 October 1941, in National Archives, Prague,

114–6–4, carton 22. Naudé,
Politischer Beamter
, 124. Similar sentiments were expressed in

Heydrich’s speech of 4 February 1942, in National Archives, Prague, 114–22, f. 56.

31. See Heydrich’s Declaration of the State of Emergency of 27–28 September 1942 and the

version for press dissemination in National Archives, Prague, 114, carton 1140. See also the

second (more detailed) Declaration of the State of Emergency of 1 October 1941, in ibid.

The quotation is from Heydrich’s speech to Protectorate journalists on 10 October 1941,

National Archives, Prague, 114–2–47, carton 8.

32. Kural,
Vlastenci proti okupaci
, 156ff. On the number of people brought before summary courts,

see Brandes,
Tschechen
, vol. 1, 212. On the verdicts of 30 September, see Gregory’s report to

Heydrich of 20 September 1941, in National Archive, Prague, 114, carton 1140. See, too,

Martin Hořák and Tomáš Jelínek,
Nacistická perzekuce obyvatel ćeských zemí
(Prague, 2006).

33. Heydrich to Bormann, 1 October 1941, in Kárný et al. (eds),
Deutsche Politik
, doc. 20,

p. 105; and protocol of the senior staff meeting in the Reich Protector’s Office, 17 October

1941, in National Archives, Prague, 114–2–26.

34. Sládek, ‘Standrecht’, 326.

35. Brandes, ‘Nationalsozialistische Tschechenpolitik’, 45; Hans Maršálek,
Die Geschichte des

Konzentrationslagers Mauthausen
(Vienna, 1980), 122; on the number of prisoners sent to

Auschwitz, see Miroslav Kárný, ‘Introduction’, in idem et al. (eds),
Deutsche Politik
, 41.

36. See Heydrich’s decree as published in
Der Neue Tag
, 12 October 1941. See, too, Mark

Dimond, ‘The Sokol and Czech Nationalism, 1918–48’, in Mark Cornwall and R. J. W.

Evans (eds),
Czechoslovakia in a Nationalist and Fascist Europe, 1918–1948
(Oxford, 2007),

185–206. Report of the Foreign Office representative in the Reich Protector’s Office,

Gerstberger, of 2 October 1941, in PAAA, R 101109, vol. 2.

37. Heydrich to Bormann, 16 May 1942, in Kárný et al. (eds),
Deutsche Politik
, docs 96 and 97,

pp. 259f. and 262f. See, too, Jaroslav Kokoška and Stanislav Kokoška,
Spor o agenta A-54

(Prague, 1994).

38. Stapo Leitstelle Prague, report on arrests of resistance members, 10 November 1942, in

Kárný et al. (eds),
Deutsche Politik
, doc. 47, pp. 177–81. On the fate of the democratic resist-

ance, see Brandes,
Tschechen
, vol. 1, 217ff.

39. Heydrich to Hácha, 9 October 1941, in National Archives, Prague, 109–4–16.

40. Hitler as quoted in Kárný et al. (eds),
Deutsche Politik
, 11.

41. See the trial proceedings in BAB, R 22/4070; and Helmut Heiber, ‘Zur Justiz im Dritten

Reich. Der Fal Eliáš’,
VfZ
3 (1955), 275–396. Eliáš as quoted in Heydrich’s letter to

Bormann of 1 October 1941, in Kárný et al. (eds),
Deutsche Politik
, doc. 20, p. 103. He had

previously reported the news to Himmler over the phone on 28 September; see Witte

et al. (eds),
Dienstkalender
, 221. For the published declaration, see, for example,
Der Neue

Tag
, 2 October 1941;
České slovo
, 2 October 1941;
Venkov
, 2 October 1941;
Národní politika
, 2 October 1941. On col aboration in the Protectorate more general y, see Detlef

Brandes, ‘Kolaborace v Protektorátu Čechy a Morava’,
Dějiny a soućasnost
16 (1994), 25–9; Jiří

Frajdl,
Protektorátní kolaborantské a fašistické organizace, 1939–1945
(Prague, 2003).

42. Heydrich to Bormann, 30 December 1941, in Kárný et al. (eds),
Deutsche Politik
, doc. 65, p.

202, and Heydrich to Bormann, 3 January 1942, ibid., doc. 66, p. 208. See, too, Gustav von

Schmoller, ‘Heydrich im Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren’,
VfZ
27 (1979), 626–45.

Brandes,
Tschechen
, vol. 1, 213ff.; Mastny,
Czechs
, 187ff.

43. Mastny,
The Czechs
, 200.

44. Hácha on 4 December 1941, as quoted in Mastny,
Czechs
, 197ff. See, too, Kural,
Vlastenci

proti okupaci
, 156f.

45. Heydrich’s speech in Prague Castle, 4 February 1942, in National Archives, Prague,

114–6–2, carton 22, p. 10.

338

N OT E S to pp. 230–5

46. Brandes,
Tschechen
, vol. 1, 225–7.

47. Heydrich’s speech in Prague Castle, 4 February 1942, National Archives, Prague, 114–6–2,

carton 22, pp. 1–2. Similar sentiments were articulated in Heydrich’s telegram to Lammers

of 9 October 1941, BAB, R 43II/1326.

48. See the eyewitness report in Lisl Urban,
Ein ganz gewöhnliches Leben
(Leipzig, 2006), 113.

On Heydrich’s strategy, see Heydrich to Bormann, 1 October 1941, in Kárný et al. (eds),

Deutsche Politik
, doc. 20, p. 105, and protocol of senior staff meeting in the Reich Protector’s

Office, 17 October 1941, in National Archives, Prague, 114–2–26. On the continuation of

executions: SS-Sturmbannführer Illmer, President of the Prague summary court, to Frank,