Longerich Peter. Heinrich Himmler: A Life

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

courage’. To this end, Himmler would, he said, move him to the SS

division Leibstandarte, where as soon as possible he was to take over a

company ‘going into action’.

108

Himmler gave express instructions to the

commander of the division that Korsemann, in the rank of a Waffen-SS

Hauptsturmfu

hrer, was to be ‘deployed on the front line. I forbid you to

deploy him in a rearguard position [ . . . ] I have given Korsemann the

opportunity to see action with the tank division “Leibstandarte Adolf

Hitler” so that he can clear himself through this action of the accusation

of lack of courage and weakness of nerve.’

109

The Waffen-SS generals were also admonished and told off; remarkably,

such letters nevertheless often end in a conciliatory manner, in spite of

frequently vehement reproaches. In November 1942 Himmler wrote a

positively exemplary warning letter to Theodor Eicke. Now leader of the

SS Death’s Head division, Eicke had once again sent an SS leader assigned to

him back to Berlin, in this case Kleinheisterkamp, as the latter ‘was ill and at

the end of his tether’. ‘Dear Eicke,’ was Himmler’s riposte, ‘I cannot resist

the impression that if anyone is ill and at the end of his tether it is you and

not Kleinheisterkamp.’ Himmler reproached Eicke with two instances of

‘impossible behaviour’: ﬁrst of all that he had ‘blatantly gone against my

order’, and secondly that, ‘at the most difﬁcult time’, he

had taken away from the 3rd Death’s Head regiment an able, experienced com-

mander, respected by his men, simply because you do not get on with him [ . . . ]

You cannot justify to your men what you did here. You have placed your

headstrong ego in what are surely private differences of opinion above the well-

being of your division. You may be in no doubt that by this you will not gain the

affection of your men or an increase in the respect shown you.

After this accusation Himmler changed his tone. His next words are

solicitous:

The only explanation I can ﬁnd, as I am really not willing to accept that you are

consciously annoying and disappointing me in this way, is that you are not yet

recovered and your nerves are not at all as they should be. In my view you came out

too soon and the pain your foot gives you naturally has an effect on your decisions.

That is not right, however, and must change. Either one is in good health and takes

all decisions calmly and in a ﬁt state or one is not in a healthy state and is ill (by no

fault of one’s own, of course). In that case one must not occupy this position and

make life difﬁcult for others by one’s bilious mood.

I now expect from you an impartial report, not based on Herr Eicke’s idiosyn-

cracies, but a clear statement from my old comrade Eicke about how his health is. If

340 himmler as educator

it is not good—as I unfortunately assume—then come back here for four weeks and

get properly better. If on the other hand you believe you are ﬁt, then you cannot

afford any further episode of th is kind under any circumstances.

Himmler’s closing words were: ‘I have never doubted your personal loyalty

for a single moment. What I want to eradicate is your irrational self-will and

your irrational waywardness. [ . . . ] I am sorry this letter was necessary.

Yours, Heinrich Himmler.’

110

In July 1938 he reprimanded Sepp Dietrich, the leader of the Leibstan-

darte, in a similarly fatherly and gentle manner for having wilfully exceeded

his authority. In response the Wehrmacht High Command had sent in a

complaint. ‘Dear Sepp,’ Himmler admonished him, ‘you know what we are

facing in the weeks ahead and how much unnecessary bother all these

arbitrary actions on the part of your subordinates cause me and, in the

ﬁnal analysis, cause you also; so please put a ﬁnal stop to them.’

111

When, in 1943, he got wind of the fact that in the Ministry for the Eastern

Territories a comment of Dietrich’s was being spread about to the effect that

‘even’ [sic] Dietrich ‘no longer believes that we can defeat the Russians’, he

ﬁrst of all made it clear in a letter to Dietrich that ‘an opinion of yours

concerning the combat strength of the Russians’ must have been ‘misunder-

stood’, before telling him to ‘contact Rosenberg’ or write ‘a short note to

him along these lines’. Himmler added: ‘I know your view of the war in

Russia very well. We are well aware that it is not easy. At the same time,

however, we are certain that we can and will defeat the Russians, and indeed

in the foreseeable future. Sincere greetings and Heil Hitler, Your good old

friend Heinrich Himmler.’

112

In July 1943 Himmler asked the head of the SS Main Ofﬁce, Berger, to

have a talk with one of his most important Waffen-SS generals, Felix

Steiner. Himmler had been annoyed by his exchange of telegrams with

Finnish volunteers. ‘I want to spare Berger’, Himmler wrote, ‘being spoken

to by me personally. I think I am well known for having shown the greatest

generosity towards the vanity sported by soldiers and in particular by the

typical general.’

Himmler had been struck by the fact that, in his telegram, Steiner had

used the formulation ‘in the ranks of my troops’. ‘In this instance Steiner

should really have given pride of place to the Fu

hrer and, as beﬁts an SS man

and Obergruppenfu

hrer, he should have remained in the background.’

Apart from that, Himmler went on to complain, ‘I have no recollection

himmler as educator 341

of a greeting “Hail to you” being used in the SS. Since I have been a

National Socialist SS man the greeting has been “Heil Hitler”.’ Further-

more, wrote Himmler to Berger, it was his wish that in future Steiner be

addressed by his SS rank and not as general. In addition, he was to be so

good as to desist from ‘the backbiting tone that quite a few men in the

‘Viking’ division still feel free to use towards me as Reichsfu

hrer-SS in their

conversations in the mess, etc.’.

113

Only a month later Himmler wrote to Steiner directly, because the

deployment of an SS-Oberscharfu

hrer on the staff of the ‘Viking’ division

that he had ordered had been arbitrarily changed. Admittedly, he avoided

putting the blame on Steiner himself, but rather expressed ‘the expectation

that you will ﬁnd the guilty man on your staff and will, by means of an

exemplary punishment, lend my orders the weight I must require [ . . . ]. I

must also say here candidly that even in the messes of the Viking division it

should be unheard of for SS leaders to discuss the actions of the Reichsfu

hrer

in a tone of criticism that goes beyond the proper limits of mess discussions.’

Since his warning the month before, therefore, there had clearly been no

change. Himmler insisted that ‘the last trace of this spirit in the leadership of

the Germanic corps be extirpated completely and that orders from the

Reichsfu

hrer-SS be carried out blindly, unconditionally, and without hesi-

tation’.

114

After Steiner had assured him of his loyalty, Himmler let him

know that as far as he was concerned the matter was closed. ‘I have absolute

conﬁdence in you.’

115

In a letter of March 1943 Himmler levelled serious accusations at Paul

Hausser, the commanding general of the 2nd SS Tank Corps, but in the end

went no further than a reprimand. On his own initiative Hausser had

approached the supreme army command of the Wehrmacht to which his

tank corps was subordinated and requested replacement personnel from

among members of the Wehrmacht (in this case a Luftwaffe division

assigned to an army formation). Himmler was critical:

You cannot expect me, as Reichsfu

hrer-SS and founder of the SS, with my own

hand to reduce to rubble the foundation on which the successes of your tank corps

were ultimately built, namely racial and human selection and education. The

moment I make a move to integrate a division of the army or air force, lock,

stock, and barrel, into my old divisions, we might as well give up. I doubt very

much, dear Hausser, for all that I acknowledge your merits, if you can take that

upon yourself. Even in the exigencies of war neither you nor your chief of staff can

resort to actions that tie my hands as Reichsfu

hrer-SS.

116

342 himmler as educator

‘Punishments should be few but just and severe’

If lectures and reprimands were not sufﬁcient, Himmler took active steps to

educate his men. Disciplinary transfers to the ‘front line’, alcohol bans, and

treatment for addiction have already been discussed; SS leaders who, in

Himmler’s view, spent too much time hunting could in a similar fashion

receive a ‘hunting ban’ from the R eichsfu

hrer.

117

Smoking bans were also

issued.

118

Himmler developed idiosyncratic methods of dealing with disputes

among SS leaders. ‘My procedure when two are in conﬂict’, he told

Obergruppenfu

hrer Arthur Phleps in May 1944, ‘is always on principle to

transfer both [ . . . ] Similarly, even if there has been no conﬂict, I never

appoint the man who has hitherto been his subordinate as successor to his

superior ofﬁcer; for otherwise the door is opened wide to intrigue.’

119

In a

concrete case, as he told the Gruppenfu

hrer in 1938, he had ‘sent word to

two Oberfu

hrer who were in an unresolved dispute with each other [ . . . ]

that I would make my ofﬁce, with a bottle of water and two glasses,

available to them from eight in the morning to eight at night. I would

assume that by evening they would have had a chance to discuss every last

issue. In future I will do the same in every individual case.’

120

This procedure had potential to be extended: in 1942 the SS Guidance

Booklets contained a report, headed ‘A Chance to Talk Things Through . . .

The Reichsfu

hrer’s Order Concerning Comradeship’, about an order of

Himmler’s to make two SS leaders who had fallen out live together for six

weeks in one room. The SS Guidance Booklets commented that this example

showed that ‘the Reichsfu

hrer-SS gives precise consideration to every

disciplinary case, looks into the motives, and takes measures according-

ly—and that he most certainly tries out “amusing” punishments if he is

convinced that his aims will be achieved.’

121

‘Amusing’ punishments were a true speciality of Himmler’s, and a

tendency to sadism is undeniably present in them. In October 1942 the

Reichsfu

hrer issued an order to all Waffen-SS and police leaders, reminding

them of their duty to pay detailed attention to their men’s diet. ‘Leaders

who fail to obey this command shall experience personally what a negative

effect poor nourishment has on the performance and morale of the troops,

and shall learn at the same time how to do better. I shall therefore consign

himmler as educator 343

these leaders to the House of Poor Nourishment I have set up. They shall

stay there long enough to gain ﬁrst-hand experience of how bad it is for the

men to be forced to eat poor food provided by their commanders.’

Himmler had personally planned in detail the ‘House of Poor Nourish-

ment’, which was to be situated next to the SS catering school in Oranien-

burg. Inmates were to spend up to four weeks there, and were not allowed

to leave the building. ‘Three-quarters of the time those taking part in the

disciplinary course at the House of Poor Nourishment will receive poor and

insufﬁcient food, while for the remaining quarter they will be given an

exemplary diet for troops.’ The ‘poor nourishment’ was to be produced on

the following principles: ‘No variety. Overcooked. Tinned food with no

fresh vegetables. Badly prepared.’ If he encountered ‘particularly bad

menus’, Himmler went on, ‘I reserve the right to serve the commander in

question this menu for the duration of the punishment’.

122

In August 1944 Rudolf Brandt informed Standartenfu

hrer Guntram

Pﬂaum, whom Himmler had put in charge of pest control, about a new

idea Himmler had had. After the war Himmler intended to set up a ‘Fly and

Gnat Room’. ‘All SS leaders and police who are either uninterested in the

nuisance created by ﬂies and gnats or even dismiss it with a superior smile

will ﬁnd they will be taken into care there for some considerable time,

during which they will have the opportunity to study the question of ﬂies

and gnats from a theoretical angle as well as to enjoy the attentions of the

hundreds and thousands of ﬂies and gnats in the room itself.’ Even now,

Brandt continued his exposition of Himmler’s reﬂections, thought should

be given to ‘collecting the appropriate literature for both rooms. The

culprits to be accommodated there were to study this literature in depth

and to write long and detailed essays on it, for example “Flies as carriers of

disease”, “Why do we need insect screens?”, and so on.’ ‘Fly and Gnat

Rooms’ were, according to Himmler’s concept, to form part of a ‘House of

Correction’, for which he occasionally set down further detailed instruc-

tions.

123

Up to 1939 the SS punished its members exclusively according to formal

disciplinary procedures, on the basis of the ‘Disciplinary and Appeals

Regulations’, by means of reprimands or, in serious cases, exclusion or

‘expulsion’ of those concerned.

124

However, from 1937 onwards there is

clear evidence that Himmler had been working towards creating a separate

jurisdiction for SS and police, comparable to the military courts.

125

October 1939 he received Hitler’s approval for this, and from then on the

344 himmler as educator

SS had its own courts, which could dispense a whole catalogue of punish-

ments provided for in the military and civil codes, including capital punish-

ment. As we shall see, Himmler was to make this penal system his special

province.

126

Willing executioners: three case studies

Himmler’s idiosyncratic approach to discipline produced extraordinary

successes precisely in the case of SS leaders whose career histories were

seriously ﬂawed. In his hands they became willing instruments of his

policies. The cases presented here of Oskar Dirlewanger, Curt von Gott-

berg, and Odilo Globocnik, though extreme, are nevertheless perfect ex-

amples of Himmler’s methods.

Born in 1895 and a commando during the First World War, Oskar

Dirlewanger was by the end of it ‘a mentally unstable, violent fanatic and

alcoholic, who had the habit of erupting into violence under the inﬂuence

of drugs’.

127

The fact that he had succeeded, even after the ceaseﬁre, in

ﬁghting his way back from the front in Romania to Germany with his men

became for him the deﬁning experience. Henceforth he adopted an unre-

strained mode of life, characterized by contempt for the laws and rules of

civil society. A student from 1919, he fought in a number of Free Corps

units. Yet again, whatever troops he was leading became known for their

excessive violence. Disciplined in 1921 by the college of commerce in

Mannheim for ‘anti-Semitic incitement’, and with several convictions for

possession of ﬁrearms, he gained his doctorate in politics the same year. He

had an unstable career, in the course of which he lost a number of posts on

the grounds of embezzlement, though no charges were brought. Mean-

while he was active in radical right-wing organizations, and in 1922 had

become a member of the NSDAP. Promoted to deputy director of the

labour exchange in Heilbronn after the Nazi takeover of power, in 1934 he

was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for indecent behaviour com-

mitted against a 14-year-old girl in his ofﬁcial car. When, after his release, he

pressed for his case to be reopened, the Gestapo took him into protective

custody for several months on the grounds of his ‘disturbing the peace by

malicious complaints’. After this he volunteered for service with the Con-

dor legion in Spain, but his conviction again got him into serious difﬁculties

there. Back in Germany he approached Himmler for ‘permission in the

himmler as educator 345

event of mobilization to march with the SS’. Dirlewanger declared that he

had actually been convicted ‘as the result of personal and political motives’:

‘I admit that I have done wrong but I have never committed a crime.’

128

Himmler hesitated in responding to Dirlewanger’s request, as he wanted

to await the outcome of the procedure for reopening the case.

129

But in

Gottlob Berger Dirlewanger had found a strong ally whose inﬂuence was

probably responsible for securing his ﬁnal acquittal.

130

And now Himmler

gave this man who was on his beam-ends a second chance: he took

Dirlewanger into the SS, though in the meantime he had joined the

Wehrmacht, and gave him the task of forming a special unit made up of

convicted poachers. These men, later known as Sonderkommando Dirle-

wanger, were particularly known for their extraordinary brutality in com-

bating partisans. First they were deployed in the General Government

(German-occupied Polish territories not annexed by Germany)

131

and

then in Byelorussia; and in 1944 they took part in the suppression of the

Warsaw uprising, after which they were used to combat the Slovakian

uprising.

Dirlewanger’s leadership of the Sonderkommando was characterized by

continued alcohol abuse, looting, sadistic atrocities, rape, and murder—and

his mentor Berger tolerated this behaviour, as did Himmler, who so

urgently needed men such as the Sonderkommando Dirlewanger in his

ﬁght against ‘subhumanity’. It was important to the Reichsfu

hrer, however,

that the detachments within the Sonderkommando did not belong to the

Waffen-SS, but merely served it.

132

It was not until 1945 that Dirlewanger

succeeded in incorporating his unit, which accepted criminals of every hue

and so was growing unstoppably, into the Waffen-SS as the 36th Grenadier

Division.

Curt von Gottberg, born in 1896, was discharged in 1919 as a lieutenant

after ﬁve years’ military service. At ﬁrst he joined the Ehrhardt brigade, and

with it took part in the failed Hitler putsch of 1923.

133

He tried various lines

of work; in 1932, having meanwhile become a property developer in East

Prussia, he was involved in a ﬁnancial scandal leading to a one-year ban on

holding ofﬁce in the NSDAP. In spite of this, in October 1933 Himmler

entrusted to him the leadership of the political action squad in Ellwangen, in

other words, of an armed SS unit.

134

Himmler was, however, to relieve him

of this task because he ‘behaved like a common freebooter’.

135

Like so many SS leaders, von Gottberg had a massive alcohol problem. At

the beginning of 1936 he lost a foot in a serious car accident for which he

346 himmler as educator

was to blame.

136

Though he insisted that he had drunk no more than two

glasses of beer and a corn schnapps,

137

he was forced, after Himmler’s

intervention, to make a declaration on his word of honour (to Jeckeln, of

all people, the leader of the Oberabschnitt responsible for him) ‘that for

three years beginning from today I shall desist from the consumption of

alcohol in any form’.

138

A vigorous man, von Gottberg restored his mobility to an astonishing

extent with the help of an artiﬁcial leg. On 1 July 1937 he took on a new job

as head of the Settlement Ofﬁce within the Race and Settlement Main

Ofﬁce. In 1938, however, while out riding he suffered a serious heart attack,

apparently the result of damage to the heart muscle that had occurred while

he was ill. Von Gottberg ignored the warning signals. The supposed heart

attack was not diagnosed until February 1939, when, on Himmler’s instruc-

tions, von Gottberg was forced to report to Dr Fahrenkamp for a through

examination. The report Fahrenkamp wrote for Himmler depicts an old

warrior distinctly the worse for wear. In addition to the battered heart and

amputated foot, the doctor noted old war wounds (bullet lodged in the

stomach, bullet wound to the thigh, stab wound in the right upper arm). At

the age of 27 von Gottberg had also accidentally lost two ﬁngers while

working a threshing machine.

Fahrenkamp summed up the result of his diagnosis as follows: ‘Up to now

he has made extraordinary demands on his body and has expended much

energy disregarding accidents, war injuries, and illnesses.’ Von Gottberg

was, he reported, almost ‘a textbook example of what even a seriously

impaired body can do if the mind is strong’. Now he was in a psychological

state in which medical help of the normally recognized kind would be of no

use. ‘Medical treatment in the usual sense is not appropriate for this patient.

There are people a doctor cannot help. [ . . . ] As far as his state of mind in

general is concerned, so many unresolved issues have accumulated that

mental relief is more important than treatment of the body. For this patient

a frank discussion with his boss would provide psychological relief.’ ‘Medi-

cal considerations’, therefore prompted him, Fahrenkamp, to refer this

request to Himmler.

Whether Himmler granted this ‘psychological relief’ in the following

months cannot be established from the ﬁles. At the end of 1939 von

Gottberg suffered another heavy blow: only six months after Himmler

had appointed him acting head of the Land Ofﬁce in Prague, thereby

placing responsibility for settlement policy in the Protectorate in his

himmler as educator 347

hands, Gu

nther Pancke, head of the Race and Settlement Main Ofﬁce,

ordered him to report sick immediately and to give up all his posts.

139

Pancke’s explanation for this was that von Gottberg had claimed that Walter

Darre

, Agriculture Minister and, up to 1938, head of the Race and Settle-

ment Main Ofﬁce, was ‘of Jewish extraction’; in addition, ‘while in a fairly

drunken state’ he had made megalomaniacal statements in front of quite a

large number of people’, treated his colleagues ‘in a humiliating fashion’,

and had deliberately misinformed him, Pancke. Pancke threatened KZ

detention if von Gottberg continued spreading rumours. In fact the reasons

for von Gottberg’s demotion were more complicated: he had been involved

in a dubious ﬁnancial affair and was possibly also the victim of an intrigue

initiated by Darre

140

Himmler gave instructions that, until the accusations were ﬁnally cleared

up, von Gottberg was to be deployed as steward of an estate in the east and

‘strictly to avoid any political involvement’.

141

Four months later he felt

compelled to call von Gottberg, who was still in the Protectorate, to order

after his two sons had caused a roof to catch ﬁre: ‘I do not believe that the

unfortunate action of your two unsupervised children has increased respect

for Germany or for the SS in the Protectorate. Six- to eight-year-olds

should not be allowed to play with matches.’

142

But in July 1940 Himmler rehabilitated von Gottberg and moved him to

the SS Main Ofﬁce, where, in October, the latter took over the recruitment

department. At the close of the investigation the charges against him were

declared to be unfounded and it was Pancke who received a sharp repri-

mand from Himmler.

143

In November 1942 von Gottberg became SS and

Police Leader in White Ruthenia and, as we shall see, made rapid career

progress in the war against the partisans as head of the ‘Gottberg combat

group’.

Von Gottberg is an almost perfect example of an SS leader whose

dependence on Himmler was virtually total and existential. A physical

wreck, alcohol-dependent, and burdened with a variety of transgressions

and accusations, he developed an immensely strong need to prove himself

and achieve psychological release, which only Himmler could provide. And

Himmler bent von Gottberg to his will, through criticism and demotion, by

overlooking misdemeanours and, on a number of occasions, by giving him

the chance to redeem himself.

When, in November 1939, a retired lieutenant-colonel named Michner

complained to the Fu

hrer that the former Gauleiter of Vienna, Odilo

348 himmler as educator

Globocnik, had, without warning, broken off his engagement to Michner’s

daughter, Friedrich Rainer, the Gauleiter of Salzburg, rushed to the defence

of his old comrade-in-arms. Rainer appealed for leniency to be shown

towards Globocnik on the grounds of the latter’s varied career in the service

of the party and the movement. He claimed it was necessary to bear in mind

that

from the start of the struggle in the Ostmark this man has been continuously in the

most prominent and dangerous position, [ . . . ] endured over a year’s detention

with a numbe r of interruptions during the time of struggle, for whole periods was

absolutely penniless and survived only through handouts from good comrade s,

endured illnesses as a result of overexertion, and then after the liberation of the

Ostmark he plunged without a break into preparations for the referendum and re-

establishment of the party; then, again without a break, he took over the extremely

difﬁcult Gau of Vienna; then, when threatened with dismissal, he fought desper-

ately for his achievements to be acknowledged and to defend his personal honour,

while also weighed down by the constant anguish of a private concern, with the

Michner family insisting ever more urgently on the engagement and on his keeping

his word.

144

In fact Globocnik had been removed from ofﬁce as Gauleiter of Vienna

in January 1939 because of his self-willed style of leadership; on top of that,

during this time a ﬁnancial audit by the punctilious Reich Treasurer of the

NSDAP, Franz Xaver Schwarz, prompted by a number of murky ﬁnancial

deals, was hanging over him. This audit was not concluded until the spring

of 1941, with Schwarz levelling massive criticism at Globocnik for his

actions at the time in question.

145

If Himmler had not shielded Globocnik,

Schwarz would hardly have been so obliging. Himmler, who in spite of this

affair had appointed Globocnik SS and Police Leader in Lublin in Novem-

ber 1939, wrote to Schwarz that Globocnik would have to admit ‘quite

candidly’ that ‘in this ﬁnancial matter I have behaved foolishly and in the

revolutionary period I behaved thoughtlessly’. Though his behaviour was

not ‘excusable’, ‘I am convinced that Globocnik has in no instance behaved

in a way that was not decent’.

146

Meanwhile, Globocnik was highly active in the district of Lublin.

147

The

Lublin auxiliary unit (Selbstschutz) subordinate to him, the leadership of

which was assumed in spring 1940 by the former West Prussian Selbstschutz

leader Ludolf von Alvensleben, committed such acts of cruelty in the course

of the so-called AB Action, the systematic murder of members of the Polish

himmler as educator 349