Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Discussions
User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Jeff_36 » Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:15 am

More on his interview in 1971.
believes Hoess confession was "straight"; M believed Hitler knew of the extermination edict, "he had to know."
So he's not denying anything.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:46 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Balsamo wrote:Mary

found on David Irving site:

Extracts from Transcript of John Toland's interview with Konrad Morgen
at Frankfurt am Main, October 25, 1971

Morgen says of the 6 Million:
"It is hard to believe such a figure"; recalls "that Jews helped to kill their own people." Refused to testify at IMT that Frau Ilse Koch made lampshades -- "The Americans almost killed me for it... They threatened three times to turn me over to the Russians or French or Poles and had started to transfer me."
EDIT. posted only half of the quote, corrected.
And you consider information from David Irving's site reliable? Look, Rudolf Hoess says he was beaten when he was arrested. The people who arrested him say they beat him. He was photographed appearing as though he had been beaten. Yet we know he was not beaten. Now we have Konrad Morgen saying he was beaten? Germans were not beaten, or tortured, or threatened or harmed in anyway by the Americans, British, French, Russians or anybody else.
This episode, if Morgen is to be believed, kind of disproves the predictable point you are at pains to make: Morgen didn't testify as the Americans wanted him to, beating or no beating.
Is that my point? That Morgen didn't testify as the Americans wanted? How do you know what the Americans wanted him to say?

I'd say that that he very much did testify as the Americans wanted him to testify. The Americans (and British, and Russians, etc.) wanted the Germans they chatted with to tell the truth. That is all. And that is exactly what Morgen did. He told the truth, or at least he told the truth as he knew it.
I am not aware of Balsamo's having written, or so much as implying, anywhere that "Germans were not beaten, or tortured, or threatened or harmed in anyway by the Americans, British, French, Russians or anybody else" - which makes your sarcasm misdirected, to say the least.
Balsamo didn't say that. I did.
Also, Muehlenkamp, for one (many others do, too, of course), says of Höss, that, "following his capture by the British," "he was indeed subjected to torture, as he wrote himself later in his memoirs." Balsamo may even agree with Muehlenkamp that the British beat Höss. He has, after all, posted to this effect on RODOH . . .
Hoess wasn't beaten so of course he wasn't tortured either. Hoess, like all Germans, was happy to tell Allied investigators the truth about the Final Solution just as soon as he was certain he was talking to the enemy and not a fellow German (you know, what with that oath of secrecy Germans could never speak freely to other Germans). Anybody who says that Hoess was tortured is seriously mistaken and probably has ulterior motives for making such a ludicrous statement.
Of course, "the information from Irving's website" is a quotation of notes from John Toland; maybe Irving did fabricate them - is that the issue you're raising, Irving's known and proven history?
Well, yes, of course. David Irving is the kind of guy who says that there's no evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust just because the evidence that Hitler did hasn't been found. We know that Irving will make up things that aren't necessarily untrue but could be interpreted the wrong way.
I really am out of advice for you, Mary, you seem to get nothing right; it's embarrassing. Air ball after air ball. UFOs?
So I'm wrong about Konrad Morgen not being beaten and he actually was beaten? I'm wrong about Hoess not being tortured and Hoess really was tortured? Lots of people say that Hoess was tortured? As in actually tortured? I'm wrong in distrusting information from David Irving? Thank you for setting me straight.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Jeff_36 » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:29 am

Morgen was beaten in an attempt to get him to admit to the lampshade tale. He refused despite eating hay-makers and being threatened with a transfer to the USSR (a death sentence essentially). It takes some kind of stupid to think that this man will then turn and describe a fake killing operation in detail. The interview in 1971 says a lot. He questioned the death toll, while confirming the extermination.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Thu Apr 02, 2015 6:36 am

Jeff_36 wrote:Morgen was beaten in an attempt to get him to admit to the lampshade tale. He refused despite eating hay-makers and being threatened with a transfer to the USSR (a death sentence essentially). It takes some kind of stupid to think that this man will then turn and describe a fake killing operation in detail. The interview in 1971 says a lot. He questioned the death toll, while confirming the extermination.
Morgen wasn't beaten at any time. There wouldn't be any reason to beat Morgen over the lampshades. If he didn't know Jews were turned into lampshades, then he didn't know. He couldn't testify to something he didn't know about. Why do you think the Allies would beat a German to get him to admit something that they already had plenty of evidence to prove anyway?

Morgen didn't know anything about Jews being turned into lampshades or Jewish hair being used for mattresses and socks or Jews being made into soap so he didn't say he did. Morgen knew about the extermination program prior to the end of the war (unlike other Nazis who said they didn't know until the Allies told them about it). So Morgen told the truth--he knew about the extermination program and he knew about it prior to the end of the war. When he was asked how he found out about it, Morgen again told the truth--how a suspicious Jewish wedding led Morgen to question Wirth who then explained how he recruited thousands of Jews who were happy to kill other Jews and take their property and so on. It's all true and nobody was beaten to say it.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Jeff_36 » Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:52 am

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:01 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:Is that my point? That Morgen didn't testify as the Americans wanted?
No, your point was the exact opposite, and, just as I wrote, Morgen didn't testify as the Americans wanted, despite the predictable point you keep trying to make in your lugubrious, dull manner.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:How do you know what the Americans wanted him to say?
The same way you would if you'd have read, instead of trolling, Balsamo's post or gone to Irving's site:
Refused to testify at IMT that Frau Ilse Koch made lampshades -- "The Americans almost killed me for it... They threatened three times to turn me over to the Russians or French or Poles and had started to transfer me.”
Toland's notes, from Irving's "Real History" website
I've read a number of other references to the same, probably most coming from Toland. You could have, too.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:I'd say that that he very much did testify as the Americans wanted him to testify.
Who cares what you'd say? It's based on BS.

Also, during the testimony quoted by Jeff, which is the point of this thread, Morgen was testifying on behalf of the SS, not the Americans. The Americans must have wanted Morgen, in your view, to have explained the SS as a whole as clean and to have presented the KLs as
A concentration camp is not a place for the extermination of human beings. I must say that my first visit to a concentration camp-I mentioned the first one was Weimar-Buchenwald-was a great surprise to me. The camp is situated on wooded heights, with a wonderful view. The installations were clean and freshly painted. There was much lawn and flowers. The prisoners were healthy, normally fed, sun-tanned, working ... The installations of the camp were in good order, especially the hospital. The camp authorities, under the Commander Diester, aimed at providing the prisoners with an existence worthy of human beings. They had regular mail service. They had a large camp library, even books in foreign languages. They had variety shows, motion pictures, sporting contests and even had a brothel. Nearly all the other concentration camps were similar to Buchenwald.
I wasn't aware that these were parts of the Allied case.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:The Americans (and British, and Russians, etc.) wanted the Germans they chatted with to tell the truth. That is all. And that is exactly what Morgen did. He told the truth, or at least he told the truth as he knew it.
In this instance, according to Toland's notes, Morgen believed he was being pressed, and beaten, to say that his investigation at Buchenwald had had a specific result. He wouldn't say it, some Americans beat him as a result. According to Morgen. Or we could go with whatever you feel like making up.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Balsamo didn't say that. I did.
You don't say?
sarcasm
noun sar·casm \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
1
: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2
a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
b : the use or language of sarcasm
See sarcasm defined for English-language learners
See sarcasm defined for kids
I suggest you go to the entry for "sarcasm" in this dictionary, click on the links for ELL and kids, and read the material there to learn more, at the appropriate level, about what it is you keep trying to use but failing at so miserably.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Hoess wasn't beaten so of course he wasn't tortured either. Hoess, like all Germans, was happy to tell Allied investigators the truth about the Final Solution just as soon as he was certain he was talking to the enemy and not a fellow German (you know, what with that oath of secrecy Germans could never speak freely to other Germans). Anybody who says that Hoess was tortured is seriously mistaken and probably has ulterior motives for making such a ludicrous statement.
This crap gets less and less amusing, and less and less useful to you, the more you go with it. And it started off unfunny and useless. It is a bit of a train wreck to watch you choose, over and over, to resort to what has for so long failed you. Perhaps it is all you've got?
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Well, yes, of course. David Irving is the kind of guy who says that there's no evidence that Hitler ordered the Holocaust just because the evidence that Hitler did hasn't been found. We know that Irving will make up things that aren't necessarily untrue but could be interpreted the wrong way.
You need to ask mummy and daddy, when they tuck you in, to read to you from the Irving trial transcripts. Mummy and daddy will be there to explain to you the big words and all the stuff you don't understand.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:So I'm wrong about Konrad Morgen not being beaten and he actually was beaten? I'm wrong about Hoess not being tortured and Hoess really was tortured? Lots of people say that Hoess was tortured? As in actually tortured? I'm wrong in distrusting information from David Irving? Thank you for setting me straight.
As Balsamo told you, you've got miles and miles, thousands of them, to go to catch up. I did think of some advice: if you are really sold on sarcasm and irony as your cover for lack of knowledge, at least write something, from time to time, not utterly predictable, and enliven your heavy-handed attempts now and then with a touch of wit.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:33 am

The authors of Konrad Morgen: The Conscience of a Nazi Judge (2015) write that
We have found Morgen to be a largely reliable witness of his wartime activities.
One way the authors come to this conclusion is through study of the
record of his investigations [that] survives both in his contemporaneous reports to superiors and in his post-war testimony to interrogators and war-crimes tribunals.
This study reveals of Morgen that
With a few notable exceptions . . . his postwar testimony squares with the documentary record
from the second world war, including Morgen's papers and personnel files of figures with whom he was involved.

Morgen testified to the CIC, at the IMT, in a number of other court cases involving German war crimes, and at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial. He gave his final such deposition in 1980. (p xi)

I will post pertinent material from this book as I read further. The first thing I want to share comes from Morgen's testimony - for the prosecution in this instance - at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, given 9 March 1964. As the authors quote 4-1/2 pages of Morgen's testimony, I will give highlights rather than a transcription.

Morgen told the court the following (pp 1-5):

- he went to Auschwitz to follow up on dental gold (3 lumps, the largest the size of two fists) mailed by a medical assistant from Auschwitz to his wife

- he knew that gold removed from "the burning bodies" in the camps was to be sent to the Reichsbank

- the amount of dental gold mailed was significant and could have, depending on assumptions about what % of inmates had how much dental gold, represented "twenty- or fifty- or a hundred-thousand bodies"; from the fact that no one had missed this quantity of dental gold, Morgen concluded that "equally little notice might be taken if 50,000 or 100,000 people had disappeared and turned into ash"; he further surmised that a "natural cause of death wouldn't have done it; those people must have been murdered"

- he felt compelled to proceed by looking into matters for himself and conducting "inquiries on the spot"

- his first impression of Auschwitz was of a large, drab prison with great transportation activity ("a very large transit and transfer station") - "prisoner transports" leaving Auschwitz (this was in November 1943, months before the new ramp built for the Hungarian transports was in place), he had witnessed no arriving transports as he approached the camp

- Höss assigned a Hauptsturmführer to give him a tour of the complex

- his tour began with "the end, namely, the ramp in Birkenau," which was like an ordinary freight ramp

- the Hauptsturmführer detailed the ramp process: "He explained to me that the camp was notified by the station of a transport, usually of Jews, shortly before arrival, before it was due in Auschwitz. Then a guard unit was called out and they cordoned off the tracks and the ramp. Then the doors of the car were opened, and the arrivees had to disembark and put down their luggage. Men and women had to form separate lines, and then, he explained, the rabbis were called for first. Rabbis and other Jewish notables were immediately separated out and brought into the camp, into a barrack that they had to themselves. I saw it later; it checked out. They were well cared-for; they didn't have to work, they were expected to write letters and postcards all over the world from Auschwitz, as many as possible, so as to allay any suspicion that anything horrible was going on there."

- the arrival process continued thus: "Then a call went out for specialists needed in the camp - the camp was connected with industrial concerns - and these people were picked out. Then the remainder were divided into those who were fit for work and those who weren't. The ones who were fit for work marched on foot into the camp of Auschwitz, were duly recorded as prisoners, outfitted, divided into groups. The others had to take a seat in a lorry and went, without their names being taken, straight to Birkenau and into the gas chambers." Sometimes - this is SS humor - the SS men would trick those who might have marched into camp into riding on the transport vehicles and thereby being taken to their deaths.

- "From the ramp we followed the path of the death cargoes to the camp Birkenau": he described "the so-called camp 'Canada,' where the effects of the victims were searched, put in order, recycled" and listed some of the types of items collected and sorted; he described the crematoria and gave a portrait of the workers there ("they acted like a pack of sheep dogs") and explained their orders ("The condemned should first be reassured by seeing their co-religionists. And this commando has instructions not to strike the arrivees. They should avoid anything that would cause an outbreak of panic.")

- he gave a description of the crematory building: "the so-called changing rooms, like the changing room of a gym . . . simple wooden benches with clothes racks and each spot was clearly numbered and had a locker tag . . ."; a sign directing victims to the showers; a corridor along which were chambers with no furnishings; "cold, bare, cement floor" and "a grated duct in the middle, reaching to the ceiling" (he was told that it was from the roof through this column that crystals of Zyklon B were introduced into the chambers); "lifts for the corpses, and these led to the second story, or, viewed from the other side, the ground floor"; the "actual crematorium" with its "long row of crematory ovens"

- in the guard room, he reported, he was surprised to find, not a bare, functional room, but a lounge with a "giant hotel stove: and "colorful couches" on which hungover SS men lounged and were fed by "four or five young girls . . . obviously Jewesses" who treated the men as "pashas"; the Hauptsturmführer explained the lack of formality - the men failed to salute, e.g., - by saying that "The men have had a hard night behind them. They had to dispatch several transports"

- he also saw other parts of the camp, including the Black Wall "where shootings took place

- when he searched the lockers of SS men, "various things came to light: gold rings, coins, chains, pearls, pretty much all the currencies of the world. Here small 'souvenirs,' as the owner called them; there a small fortune"
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Jeff_36 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:07 am

This thread is about to get awesome.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:02 pm

In these posts I will focus on those parts of Konrad Morgen's career and postwar testimonies that are most germane to the Holocaust. A bit of background is necessary for this post. As a young jurist in the Third Reich, and especially a judge in the SS- and Police Judiciary, Morgen internalized - and even wrote on - National Socialist legal theory. Critical concepts involved are 1) abandonment of the liberal precept nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (no crime or punishment without a law)* in favor of 2) a jurisprudence based on the principle of "no crime without punishment." The definition of crime, under this theory, expanded to cover that which was deemed by a judge, and ultimately the Führer, to threaten the national community ("the sound perception of the Volk"). In this conception, judges were to investigate the will and the inner character of the accused (to determine Lebensführungs-Schuld, or "conduct-of-life guilt"). (pp 13-14, 26-30)

With this in mind, let's look at a finding written by Morgen (February 1942) in a case involving an accusation of excessive force against a a German policeman stationed in occupied Galicia. Morgen's determination reflected the Nazified ideas of justice under which he was trained and built his career. I am posting the finding, however, to illustrate how those with the typical outlook of the SS viewed the occupied East, its residents, and the tasks of National Socialism in the region, in short, to give us a window into the widely agreed National Socialist agenda for the conquered East:
During the occupation of Galicia, Hauptmann of the Schutzpolizei Paul Kleesattel was guilty of continually assaulting Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians of both sexes. He used his riding crop and his hand, and instructed his subordinates to strike them. The reason for these assaults was generally minor, and they were occasionally due to excessive drinking by the accused.

. . . First, let me note that in the eastern territories generally it is necessary to rule with a stronger and rougher hand. Thus - when the end calls for it - the criminal law in force is not taken into account.

Disobedience and disrespect are mainly punished with corporal penalties by uniformed personnel on the spot. Public prosecutors, police, and security officers cannot handle native populations of foreign races without the application of the utmost force, including as a means of extracting confessions.** . . .

In addition, there is among our men a widespread mental attitude to the effect that the eastern region, as an area for future German immigration, is to be freed up for the Germans through the extirpation (Ausrottung) and annihilation (Vernichtung) of the native population, and that the population is therefore to be tolerated as a currently necessary evil and treated as such.

Given this situation and this mental attitude, transgressions and excesses in the use of bodily force are quite understandable. . . . Combatting this with penal provision is pointless. . . .

For this reason, the SS- and Police Judiciary in adjudicating cases of this kind has taken the approach of intervening in a legal way against such misdemeanors and crimes only when the accused manifests by his act severe character flaws that make him intolerable to the German Volksgemeineschaft. Thus, for example, if assaults degenerate into sadistic tortures, or sexual motives play a role - and here the law is to be applied ruthlessly - when the victim is German by nationality or race, or has citizenship in an allied state.

The SS- and Police Judiciary is there to preserve the purity of our own ranks, not to protect the rights (Rechtsgüter) of an enemy people. . . .

. . . From a political point-of-view, it strikes me as debatable whether, in such a transitional period [implementation of German rule in Galicia, a period of unrest], measures of terror, even if they were clearly arbitrary in a particular case, might nevertheless be for the time being politically proper in the end. Nevertheless, instituting legal investigations into them strikes me as unwise. There is too great a danger that the troops will become confused. . . .
(pp 31-32)

Conclusions regarding the SS approach to the East:
1. Conquest of the East and subjugation of its residents required, in SS thinking, draconian rule including physical violence against inhabitants of the East on a daily basis and for minor issues.
2. In the SS view, law was to be applied unequally, on the basis of a racial hierarchy, with legal standards for Germans not extensible to non-Germans, who were to be judged without the force of the criminal law but rather as subjects of German conquest and rule; in addition, the rule of law should be largely suspended in the "eastern regions" with regard to the local population.
3. Offenses are classified in part by who the victim is, rather than what act a person committed, that is, according to the racial or national identity of the victim, with protections for German and allied victims. The native inhabitants of the East, other than Germans and their allies, are "an enemy people" to be treated harshly - with terror, even arbitrary terror, permissible on the ground that it furthers Germany's long-term objectives in the East.
4. Those in the uniformed services of the Third Reich were to be afforded leeway to determine the application of corporal force and infliction of violence on subject people and to be given benefit of legal doubt in cases involving violence against "native populations."
5. Legal judgments of German men stationed in the East should reflect, as well as the special situation in the East (its subjugation for use by Germany), the "mental attitude" and training of these men. The situation/goals of the Third Reich in the East and the mental outlook of Germans stationed there trump the law and rights of subject peoples - in fact, the law itself should advance the German cause and the German race and not offer protection to peoples identified for subjugation by the Germans.
6. The East belongs to Germany and that which advances German settlement there is to be protected by the justice system; genocidal measures against the native population are in keeping with this goal and on their face legitimate - those Germans involved in genocidal actions in keeping the Third Reich policies and goals are to be protected by the courts. The native population is itself undesirable and is only temporarily accepted "as a currently necessary evil" whose existence contradicts the long-term goals for Eastern settlement by Germans.
7. Acts of excessive terror and violence against native people in the East in the pursuit of the German policy of genocide and resettlement should not even be investigated by legal authorities, with any discipline left up to the agencies themselves.
8. The occupation agents of Germany nonetheless can, however, commit punishable offenses - but only by taking actions that do not advance the Volk's interests but their own, which are against the German national community's interest, or which demonstrate perverse individual will and self-gratification. Such transgressions are against Germany - not the rights of local people; excessive violence against locals is, at the same time, understandable and not deserving of punishment of the transgressor.

- - - - - - -

* Given the legal ideas of their heroes, deniers' wittering on about the ex post facto justice at Nuremberg (and its violation of the dictum "no punishment with a law," the very concept trashed by the National Socialists during the Third Reich) is irony raised to the power of farce.

** It would seem that in the SS view at Nuremberg the Allies, only roughing up Höss and a few others, did not go far enough in using the "utmost force" to compel confessions. Interesting. Has any denier mentioned this failure, by the standards of the heroes of denial, on the part of the Allies?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:23 pm

Tallboy wrote:It's interesting to me how many of these threads (more on rodoh) go back to discussing the I/P conflict.
Indeed, this focus and approach, in the hands of deniers, combined with a number of related tropes, make up the well-known (heh heh) anti-Semitic stance called the theory of WUF, for which RODOH's junior member been-there is a vociferous, if ineffectual, advocate.

The theory of WUF incorporates a great deal of familiar material and stirs it into a toxic confection: anti-Semitic raving about Zionism, speculation about international Jewry, claims of so-called Jewish overrepresentation, the history of supposed Jewish perfidy and treachery, and, of course, attributions to international Jewry of warmongering.

With WUF in mind - and WUF is in mind 24/7 for readers of RODOH - I want to share an observation made by Konrad Morgen. The occasion for his remark was the critical reception in 1936 of a book he wrote on war propaganda and prevention (explaining the peace-motives of the Third Reich and articulating in part a defense of the Führer principle against liberal democracy). Apparently, Morgen's book was condemned, as Morgen explained in his 1947 testimony in the Nuremberg subsequent proceeding against Pohl et al, for overlooking the most important point about war:
I was reproached with not having pointed out that the Jews were [. . .] actually instigators of the wars.
Apologies for this but, as I am avid collector of WUFaica, such nuggets are important to me.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Balsamo » Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:27 pm

Brilliant, StatMec,
Many thanks.

PS: I guess that the last post might belong to the other thread (I did the same mistake) yesterday.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Jeff_36 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:37 pm

1. Conquest of the East and subjugation of its residents required, in SS thinking, draconian rule including physical violence against inhabitants of the East on a daily basis and for minor issues.
2. In the SS view, law was to be applied unequally, on the basis of a racial hierarchy, with legal standards for Germans not extensible to non-Germans, who were to be judged without the force of the criminal law but rather as subjects of German conquest and rule; in addition, the rule of law should be largely suspended in the "eastern regions" with regard to the local population.
3. Offenses are classified in part by who the victim is, rather than what act a person committed, that is, according to the racial or national identity of the victim, with protections for German and allied victims. The native inhabitants of the East, other than Germans and their allies, are "an enemy people" to be treated harshly - with terror, even arbitrary terror, permissible on the ground that it furthers Germany's long-term objectives in the East.
4. Those in the uniformed services of the Third Reich were to be afforded leeway to determine the application of corporal force and infliction of violence on subject people and to be given benefit of legal doubt in cases involving violence against "native populations."
5. Legal judgments of German men stationed in the East should reflect, as well as the special situation in the East (its subjugation for use by Germany), the "mental attitude" and training of these men. The situation/goals of the Third Reich in the East and the mental outlook of Germans stationed there trump the law and rights of subject peoples - in fact, the law itself should advance the German cause and the German race and not offer protection to peoples identified for subjugation by the Germans.
6. The East belongs to Germany and that which advances German settlement there is to be protected by the justice system; genocidal measures against the native population are in keeping with this goal and on their face legitimate - those Germans involved in genocidal actions in keeping the Third Reich policies and goals are to be protected by the courts. The native population is itself undesirable and is only temporarily accepted "as a currently necessary evil" whose existence contradicts the long-term goals for Eastern settlement by Germans.
7. Acts of excessive terror and violence against native people in the East in the pursuit of the German policy of genocide and resettlement should not even be investigated by legal authorities, with any discipline left up to the agencies themselves.
8. The occupation agents of Germany nonetheless can, however, commit punishable offenses - but only by taking actions that do not advance the Volk's interests but their own, which are against the German national community's interest, or which demonstrate perverse individual will and self-gratification. Such transgressions are against Germany - not the rights of local people; excessive violence against locals is, at the same time, understandable and not deserving of punishment of the transgressor.
Brutal. This really personifies the beast. I feel physically ill at the notion of whole populations basically rendered as "things" for use and disposal. Nazism in sum.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:23 pm

Balsamo wrote:Brilliant, StatMec,
Many thanks.

PS: I guess that the last post might belong to the other thread (I did the same mistake) yesterday.
Thanks, as to the WUF post, I quoted from the other thread but, as it was based on Morgen, meant it for here.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:44 am

Jeff_36 wrote:Brutal. This really personifies the beast. I feel physically ill at the notion of whole populations basically rendered as "things" for use and disposal. Nazism in sum.
Perhaps most important in this case is the point made by Pauler-Studer and Velleman when they later return to the case of this German policeman, Paul Kleesattel, and compare what Morgen wrote about it to later investigative notes Morgen wrote. Their conclusion is that Morgen, himself, did not fully adhere to the SS position on racial hierarchy, legal action aiming only to keep the SS ranks pure, and the complete absence of protections for eastern locals, etc.

In fact, in late winter 1942 Morgen was drummed out of the SS judiciary and sent to the front in the "Wiking" division. His offense: leniency in a case of race mixing involving a German and a Polish woman. (His enemies, that is, SS officials who were threatened by his zeal and suspicious of his unorthodoxy, used Morgen's leniency - toward the German man - to remove him as a threat; Morgen's comment on the crisis is telling - he felt that no one higher up would check cases acquittals.)

Returning to a judicial role in spring 1943, this time with the Reich Criminal Police, headquartered in Berlin and with a broad remit to tackle corruption in the SS, Morgen got involved in some interesting cases. He opened a lengthy investigation, for example, of Karl Otto Koch and corruption in KL Buchenwald (more on this later). In the course of this work, Morgen looked into theft of property by Koch and his underlings from Jews seized during the Kristallnacht action in 1938. He also looked at "irregular" murders committed at the camp, that is, executions not approved by Himmler and covered up by camp leaders in various ways. Morgen didn't take on "legal," state-sanctioned murders (Pauler-Studer and Velleman give T4 killing as an example, along with Jewish actions). However, his eventual indictment of Buchenwald camp personnnel listed an illegal killing of a Jew named Goldstein by SS-Hauptstrumführer Sommer. This killing is quite interesting: Sommer strangled Goldstein at Goldstein's request, thus, assisting a suicide. Assisted suicide, Pauler-Studer and Velleman explain, was a violation of section 216 of the Reich penal code, which prohibited killing a person, as Morgen put it, "without a state order."

In the instance of Goldstein's murder, Morgen specifically wrote that section 216 governed no matter "what value the depressed person has for society." Pauler-Studer and Velleman say that Morgen departed from SS thinking, in his written indictment, in two ways when he made this argument: 1) "Morgen explicitly rejects a tenet of Nazi ideology - namely, that the life of a particular person should be valued in accordance with his value to the Volksgemeinschaft" and 2) Morgen explained the "devaluation" of Goldstein's life, which nevertheless was in his view to be protected, in terms of his depression and urge to suicide, not his being a Jew, by which Morgen was "implicitly refusing to value [Goldstein's life] in racial terms." (p 57)

Thus, by the time he filed his Buchenwald indictment, Morgen was asserting his own values and thinking, rather than reflecting more directly SS thinking, as he did in the Kleesattel case in early 1942. This fact is important because it shows that Morgen's subsequent work, undertaken when his prestige and authority were stronger than in 1942, has a degree of independence to it (after the war Morgen would say of himself, that he liked testing limits and was unafraid to take on matters "auf eigene Faust") and it shows that the exposition Morgen gave in the Kleesattel case was reflective of the values and thinking which surrounded Morgen at the time, that is, his explanation revealed the dominant viewpoint of the SS and eastern authorities. Thus, what we learn from Morgen's explication of the Kleesattel case is less about Morgen's attitudes and more about the Nazi approach toward the East and its "native population."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:39 am

Jeff_36 wrote:Here is the testimony of the SS judge. Some things do not add up.
Pauer-Studer and Velleman agree, clarify what’s wrong, and offer some explanations. Let’s begin with their conclusion:
In late summer [1943] Morgen met the of the industrialized extermination centers in Aktion Reinhard, Christian Wirth, who may have told him about the “Final Solution,” though Morgen seems to have embellished his later testimony about the meeting with information that he learned only afterwards.
In short, Morgen’s IMT testimony does not add up because it includes exaggerations and it collapses information which Morgen received over months, not in his first meeting with Wirth.
Jeff_36 wrote:1. He paints Wirth as the commander of the Lublin extermination camps when in fact he was #2 to Globicnik
Pauer-Studer and Velleman do not directly address this, although what we’ve posted in this thread fits in with their discussion. Wirth, reporting to Globocnik, was the inspector of three extermination camps (BST) as well as having responsibility for a number of other camps (p 76).

The authors explain, in line with what we've argued in this thread, that
It was Globocnik who received the order for the "Final Solution" from Himmler and passed it on to Wirth, who then oversaw the Aktion Reinhard extermination centers.
(p 93)

However, see items 3-4 below.
Jeff_36 wrote:2. He assigns the Totenjuden a much more active role in the process then what was factual.
Earlier we recognized that “Morgen’s IMT testimony on the way in which Jews were used in the AR system was a gross distortion.” Pauer-Studer and Velleman make a compelling point , which we will get into further below, about the obverse of this issue. That is, in assessing why Wirth would have permitted his men to participate in the revelry with Jewish slave laborers, they decide that
Morgen’s Nuremberg testimony . . . seems incoherent. Referring to the Jewish wedding, he says, “I asked him [Wirth] why he permitted members of his command to do such things, and Wirth then revealed to me that on the Führer’s order he had to carry out the destruction of the Jews.” This revelation would have been a non sequitur. Wirth had permitted the Jewish wedding as means of bolstering morale at the airfield camp, which was not an extermination facility.
(p 78) Pauer-Studer and Velleman add that “Morgen goes to great lengths to distance the SS from the mass murder of Jews” (p 81) - as we will see below (methods used were to exaggerate the part Jews were forced to play, to omit organizational details, to highlight how volunteers from the Baltics fit in, and to play up the roles T-4 and Führer’s Chancellery.
Jeff_36 wrote:3. He states that the orders came from the Fuhrer's Chancellery, when in fact they were transmitted from Himmler. The FC allocated the personnel, but did not give the orders.

4. He paints Wirth as being totally responsible for T4 as well
In the view of Pauer-Studer and Velleman, Morgen had an agenda at the IMT, as we’ve said, in testifying on behalf of the SS - and this agenda fit in with his self-image, as ensuring justice within the SS, and his overall view of the SS.

- Morgen exaggerated Wirth’s role by playing up the T-4 connections while suppressing SS connections to the Final Solution; Wirth was a convenient vehicle here as Morgen said in his pre-trial affidavit, “Wirth was not a member of the SS.”

- Morgen added to this picture with comments on T-4, its being part of the Führer’s Chancellery and being “outside an SS organization or office”

- Morgen claimed that T-4 personnel involved in the extermination of the Jews wore Security Police uniforms only for tactical reasons, not because of affiliation

- Morgen spoke as if “the extermination of the Jews” was conducted entirely outside SS auspices and ran through Wirth, the Führer’s Chancellery, and euthanasia staff

- Morgen’s IMT testimony is an outlier, conflicting with what he said in his interrogation by the CIC about Aktion Reinhard (where he described AR solely in terms of theft of property from Jews and said he knew of AR only in passing), his testimony at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial in 1964 (where he created the impression that he’d not known about gas chambers until his Auschwitz investigation), and his testimony in the WVHA trial (at which he said he’d first come across “traces’ of the program to exterminate the Jews about 4 or 5 months after he started his new assignment, that is, 4 or 5 months after June or July 1943)

- Morgen did not learn during his first, late summer 1943 meeting with Wirth about the Final Solution
Shifting responsibility from the SS onto Wirth was thus a primary motive of the defense in putting Morgen on the stand. Morgen’s story of hearing about the “Final Solution” from Wirth fits this strategy too well to be credible, given the contrary evidence his testimony about having discovered the mass extermination at the turn of the year [the end of 1943].
(p 81) Here Pauer-Studer and Velleman underscore that Morgen had learned of the extermination of the Jews, not from Wirth in late summer 1943 (see below), but at the end of 1943, about the time he “started his inquiries at Auschwitz.” (p 79)

There’s another problem with Morgen’s IMT story, too. Reading that Pauer-Studer and Velleman have identified the clothing sorting camp at the old Lublin airfield as the site of the Jewish wedding leads to the question, why on earth would Wirth discuss the extermination program when the camp involved was a slave labor camp? Pauer-Studer and Velleman find this not credible:
It seems implausible that Wirth responded to Morgen’s inquiries about the wedding at the airfield camp by launching into a complete description of the “Final Solution,” but it is impossible to know exactly what Morgen did learn on this visit.
(p 79)

What of the statements, then, which Morgen made at the IMT? According to Pauer-Studer and Velleman believe that Morgen’s IMT testimony collapses into the first meeting with Wirth what Morgen learned over a few months in a series of visits to Lublin. One such visit was as late as the end of the year when, under Georg Wippern, a final accounting of AR property and finances was being completed for Globocnik’s early 1944 report to Himmler. Thus,
In his testimony at the Nuremberg trial of major war criminals, Morgen appears to be summarizing what he knew by the turn of 1943-1944 and placing it in the mouth of Christian Wirth several months earlier.
(p 80) Morgen took this approach as part of the defense strategy, and his own defensiveness about the SS, as discussed above.
Jeff_36 wrote:5. He states that this happened in late 1943, when the Lublin camps were being dismantled and were no longer in use.
As above, yes, Morgen first visited Lublin when “Aktion Reinhard was winding down.” Morgen’s first visit to Lublin was prompted by a complaint he received about the Jewish wedding - “some months later” than when the wedding had occurred. Wirth left Lublin, per Stangl’s 1971 testimony, before the middle of September. Thus, Morgen’s visit was before then, in late summer, when Aktion Reinhard was basically complete. Pauer-Studer and Velleman do not get more precise than this about the timing of the first visit. (pp 76-77) See above for information on other visits which Morgen made to Lublin; an important visit to KL Lublin came the day after Operation Harvest Festival, which he researched and on which he filed a report, for Kaltenbrunner, with his findings. I will summarize what Pauer-Studer and Velleman maintain about this important event in a post in the Majdanek thread. (This timing for Morgen’s first visit matches what we earlier worked out.)

But what about the “Jewish wedding”? Pauer-Studer and Velleman determine the timing of the “Jewish wedding.” It was held 27 June 1943 - the same day, according to prisoner testimonies, that a Dutch prisoner was hanged. This hanging pinpoints the day of the wedding. Morgen first thought that the wedding had taken place at the DAW facility (armaments slave labor camp) near the cemetery on the other side of Lublin to Majdanek. Investigation revealed that the wedding had been held at the clothes sorting labor camp (Bekleidungswerke) near the old airfield in Lublin. Wirth kept his small headquarters at this same camp. (p 76)

Who was the police commander who contacted Morgen?

Pauer-Studer and Velleman do not address this question. Since the report sent by “the commander of the Security Police in Lublin” informed Morgen of excesses involved in the “Jewish wedding” at the old airfield camp, it is likely that the complaint came from rivals of Globocnik and Wirth, making likely our earlier identification of KdS Johannes Müller, who didn’t exit until about the time of Erntefest, as the complainant.

What about Odilo Globocnik?

Morgen would investigate Globocnik later, even visiting him in Trieste during early 1944. Morgen's conclusion was in keeping with his view of the law in the Third Reich and his remit - and very damning at the same time:
He laid out . . . what he had accomplished for the Reichsführer with Aktion Reinhard . . . And from that I saw that because these killings had been ordered, the thing was legal in the sense of National Socialist law, and so as for doing anything directly against this sector, my hands were tied. And so my efforts turned to find another way out.
( p 94) What Morgen is saying here is that, as the Final Solution was conducted according to an order of the Führer, the supreme legal authority in the Third Reich, it had the backing of both the law and the most powerful leaders of the Third Reich. In that sense, within the context of the regime, Morgen had no remit to investigate the legal, state-sanctioned murders. Also, Aktion Reinhard had been concluded. But by 1944 Morgen could see that Auschwitz and Aktion Reinhard were different aspects of a single program, in his view (Pauer-Studer and Velleman write that Morgen now understood that Auschwitz "was a mass murder operation ordered by Himmler and Hitler" and part of "a far larger complex, encompassing at least three other extermination centers," those under Globocnik in AR. All of this "was off-limits to prosecution," including Globocnik's having carried out the mass extermination action in the General-Gouvernement. So Morgen attacked, legally, related aspects of the Final Solution where he couldn't proceed frontally. (p 94)

A last important note: Pauer-Studer and Velleman clarify some dates in Morgen's career in the context of the Final Solution and what Morgen would have known when. They conclude, his having investigated Fegelein (whose cavalry unit participated in the murder of 14,000 Jews in the Pripet Marshes) and for other reasons, that Morgen knew fairly early on about the open-air massacres. OTOH,
As for the gas chambers, Morgen was not in a position to learn of them before it was almost too late. The first gas chambers in Poland started up in March 1942, and . . . Morgen was dismissed from the SS judiciary that same spring. Between July 1942 and May 1943, he was an army private, at first in basic training and then on the Soviet front. When he took up his new assignment as a judge, in July 1943, the last deportations to Belzec were over and deportations to Treblinka and Sobibor were soon to end. Thus, Morgen had little access to information during the period when Aktion Reinhard was in full swing.
We can quibble with this - based on definitions of Poland at the time and how to view gas vans - and point out Chelmno was operating as early as December 1941, about 3 months before Bełzec went into service. But, even so, the authors' point is correct in that Chelmno didn't come to Morgen's attention, his first visit to Auschwitz was in early 1941 and thus before gas chambers were used in the camp, and his military duty coincided with when most of the Aktion Reinhard deportations and murders were carried out.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Jeff_36 » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:30 pm

Lots of info here. It seems that I was right in that Morgen's testimony, while generally true, must be read in the context of his role as a defence witness for the SS. Balsalmo's extrapolations on the complexity of SS organization are irrelevant: the IMT honchos would not have known that and Morgen knew that they would not have known - thus the focus od his testimony.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:46 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:Lots of info here. It seems that I was right in that Morgen's testimony, while generally true, must be read in the context of his role as a defence witness for the SS. Balsalmo's extrapolations on the complexity of SS organization are irrelevant: the IMT honchos would not have known that and Morgen knew that they would not have known - thus the focus od his testimony.
But I think Balsamo is right that those complexities enabled Morgen to divert away from the SS as an organization since the IMT was not knowledgable enough about the intricacies. In other words Morgen used the complexity to trim his testimony.

I also think that the testimony itself is more complex - especially what Morgen knew when vs how he reported his knowledge to the IMT - than any of us said.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Jeff_36 » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:05 pm

Could you extrapolate on his talk with Glibus in Trieste? That is key here.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:26 pm

That's all I've got
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Balsamo » Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:21 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:Lots of info here. It seems that I was right in that Morgen's testimony, while generally true, must be read in the context of his role as a defence witness for the SS. Balsalmo's extrapolations on the complexity of SS organization are irrelevant: the IMT honchos would not have known that and Morgen knew that they would not have known - thus the focus od his testimony.

Actually, StatMec made me want to order the book as soon as possible.
The theoretical aspects of the Judicial law as developed by the Nazis quite confirm the little theory about the variability of the "legal" systems depending on the territories, Poland and the eastern territories being Himmler's personal kingdom. Indeed, Himmler could count on tremendous levers of power there: A Fuhrer's befehl giving him all authority in order to prepare the political administration of those territories (1940) in addition to his competences as RKF, powers he did not have in the old Reich.
The application of the laws was thus different, ineffective in Poland, still usable in the Buchenwald case.
In the east, there was a "State order" allowing to kill any natives, and were thus "legal".

And this is also confirmed by the fact that for the real dirty Job, Himmler's used the Main SS organization as little as possible, recruiting a disgraced felon - Globo - from his active service on the eastern front to use his corrupt skills for his planned mass murders, as well as personal from the T4 operation - among whom few were SS veterans - as we know that T4 continued even after his official interruption, most of them were indeed official criminals even by Nazi standards. The perfect "dirty hundreds" (like in the movie except that there were more than a dozen), supported by Ukrainian watchdogs to cross the Rubicon to Genocide. And even then, Himmler was careful enough to seek the support of the local Nazi kings (Greisler and co).
It is then no wonder that SS officials like Morgen, especially since he was in his own purgatory during those times, had no ideas on what was going on and could considered, after having discovered it, this operation as outside the Allgemeine SS traditional structures. The situation will later evaluate once more when Himmler would add another lever of power to the ones he already had, his nomination as Reichsminister of the interior in August 1943.

StatMec, any hint on why Morgan was recalled from the front?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:30 pm

Balsamo wrote:StatMec, any hint on why Morgan was recalled from the front?
Good question. Yes, covered on pp 41-42. Morgen was known for going after corruption and his own high standards, almost the model of probity, which rubbed some people the wrong way, of course. Himmler had an ambiguous relation to Morgen's work - and protected some of Morgen's targets (e.g., Fegelein, but also others including Herr Dirlewanger). Morgen had quite a reputation, positive to some, negative to others, for going after people taking advantage of the system for their own gain. According to the authors, by spring 1943 Himmler faced a problem in the SS on account of corrupt practices so widespread as to damage its reputation. Who better to clean up the worst and to lend his good name to things than the high-minded, incorruptible Morgen? Himmler himself had Morgen recalled specifically to use him in cleaning up the SS with a focus solely on "crimes of corruption." The authors even quote Himmler's Posen speech, the notorious and dishonest passage on decency of the SS, to explain Himmler's state of mind on this and what he was after.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Jeff_36 » Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:20 pm

So the timeline:

Late summer 43: visits Wirth, does not find out about AR yet.

October: begins investigation of A-B, finds out about gas chambers for the first time, finds traces leading to Lublin.

Later in October: Goes to Lublin around the Erntfest shitshow, finds out about AR, Globus, the wedding, ect. ect. Maybe has another talk with Wirth as Wirth was temporarily back at this time.

January 44: meets Globus in beautiful Trieste, gets more details.

Does that sound about right?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 21, 2015 4:24 am

Jeff_36 wrote:So the timeline:

Late summer 43: visits Wirth, does not find out about AR yet.
Correct although on p 86 the authors qualify this, saying Wirth "may have told him about the 'Final Solution.'" Also, "it is impossible to know exactly what Morgen did learn on this visit." In any case, at the time Morgen's focus was on the wedding at the old airfield camp and sniffing around for corruption.
Jeff_36 wrote:October: begins investigation of A-B, finds out about gas chambers for the first time, finds traces leading to Lublin.
He started his inquiries into Auschwitz, p 79, in November 1943. The authors believe he learned about the FS that same month. His visits to Auschwitz followed, not preceded Erntefest, which took place 3-4 November (see below). "Morgen went [to Auschwitz] immediately after seeing the aftermath of the massacre in Lublin," the Erntefest shootings (p 87). Also, Morgen sent a commission to Auschwitz at the beginning of his investigation, visiting the camp only after they did preliminary work there. The authors believe that Morgen learned of the gas chambers at Birkenau from the commission, before he went to Auschwitz.
Jeff_36 wrote:Later in October: Goes to Lublin around the Erntfest shitshow, finds out about AR, Globus, the wedding, ect. ect. Maybe has another talk with Wirth as Wirth was temporarily back at this time.
1. No, this visit was in early November. He arrived the day after Erntefest, when he was told by Kriminalkommissar Dennerlein (who headed a commission for Morgen which had removed Florstedt as KL Lublin commandant in October) that the prisoners had been executed the day before his arrival. So that means 5 November is when Morgen came to KL Lublin on this occasion.
2. During this trip, according to the authors, Morgen met at least with Dennerlein and new commandant of KL Lublin Martin Weiss - no other names are mentioned (it seems he met with other people who gave him details about Erntefest). Morgen's investigation at the time focused on the economic impact caused by the loss of the slave laborers who were murdered in the massacres.
3. As noted above, this visit took place prior to Morgen's visit to Auschwitz. You've got it out of sequence here.

Also, Morgen visited Lublin at the end of 1943, when he met with Wippern and observed the write-up of AR loot/valuable - and and saw some of the remaining loot.
Jeff_36 wrote:January 44: meets Globus in beautiful Trieste, gets more details.
Yes and no. Morgen flew to Trieste at the beginning of '44 but he seems to have gotten limited details about AR - just enough to enable him to understand the interconnected nature of the FS. After speaking with Globocnik, Morgen determined that he could not investigate AR directly because the extermination of the Jews had been ordered by Himmler and Hitler and was thus legal. Globocnik acquainted Morgen with what AR had accomplished, but there was no digging in, no investigation, no AR report. Morgen turned in other directions (executions at Auschwitz he thought to be illegal), given the legality issue, which, in his mind, made proceeding on AR impossible. In any event, after the war, Morgen had the audacity to mix up chronology - and much else - and claim that his Auschwitz investigation had caused Wirth to shut down AR - which was winding down already when he'd first visited Lublin months before the Auschwitz investigation! (pp 94, 96-97)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:02 pm

Balsamo wrote:. . . The theoretical aspects of the Judicial law as developed by the Nazis . . .
The best treatment of the “special law” for the East developed by the National Socialist state that I've seen is Diemut Majer, "Non-Germans" under the Third Reich: The Nazi Judicial and Administrative System in Germany and Occupied Eastern Europe, with Special Regard to Occupied Poland, 1939-1945, first published in the '60s. Pauer-Studer and Velleman address the issue directly, assessing law in the Third Reich in a number of places.

But even this "special" legislation was exceeded by the SS and Gestapo, in order to destroy purported enemies people in the East. Especially germane here is their assessment of Morgen’s testimony at the Buchenwald trial, when Morgen was asked about the legality of reprisal killings: On account of the brutal nature of war in the East,
Morgen says that these killings were legal if they targeted war criminals or qualified as “reprisals in that form permissible under International Law.
However, at this point Morgen was testifying about executions of Soviet POWs at Buchenwald - an action which is totally irrelevant to Morgen’s explanation as these men had not been convicted of war crimes and international law did not permit murders of POWs.

Morgen testified further about an execution he witnessed at Buchenwald - the killing of eastern laborers who’d been convicted of serious crimes.

Pauer-Studer and Velleman explain that again Morgen gave an explanation that was inaccurate - I’d call it a sophisticated irrelevancy. Morgen pointed to legal authority stemming from the Decree for the Punishment of Jews and Poles (1942), which called for the death penalty for all sorts of cases, including minor lawbreaking, in the East. Morgen added comments that confused this decree with a very different policy, namely, the removal from the courts of cases involving Jews, Roma, Poles, and Russians and assigning handling of these cases to the Gestapo. He argued that the eastern laborers fell under this policy, which made the Gestapo responsible for the disposition of their cases. But, as Pauer-Studer and Velleman write,
Contrary to Morgen’s testimony . . . , this transfer of authority was effected not by the Decree for the Punishment of Jews and Poles, but by a personal agreement between Himmler and the Justice Minister, Otto Georg Thierack. Thierack justified giving the Gestapo jurisdiction over defendants from undesirable races “on the principle that the administration of justice can only make a small contribution to the extermination of these races.”
Morgen clarified to the court that he did not mean “defend the law,” only to explain the legal basis for the executions in the Third Reich. However, by conflating the 1942 law with the even more sinister Thierak-Himmler agreement, he was misrepresenting Reich law to present killings patently illegal (under international law and dubious, at best, under German law) as legal. (pp 70-73)
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 21, 2015 5:38 pm

This is revealing. In pursuing a case against Maximilian Grabner, head of the Political Department (Gestapo) in Auschwitz, Morgen (according to testimony he gave at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial) ran afoul of Gestapo Müller who summoned him to Gestapo headquarters to chew him out for his having "no understanding of state police matters." Morgen had been pressing various senior officials about legal but corrupting murders (e.g., the extermination of the Jews) as well as pursuing the Grabner case. Faced with a not-so-senior SS judicial official questioning the state policy of murder of the Jews, Müller went ballistic and threw Morgen out of his office in the midst of his tirade against him.

Morgen was able to calm the situation and, continuing discussion with the Gestapo chief, took this tack with Müller:
I excused myself for my unmilitary demeanor and said to him, "Gruppenführer, in fact I've come to ask your advice and instructions for the ongoing investigations. . . . Gruppenführer, is it not true that in the personnel file of every concentration camp commandant, or leader of the political department in a concentration camp, there is a copy of a declaration, signed by him, saying that the Führer decides about the life of an enemy of the state?" "Yes," he said, "That's correct." I said, "It's also correct to assume, isn't it, that this power has been delegated to you, as Chief of the Secret State Police, and to no one else." He said, "Indeed, that's correct." Then I said, "What would you think, then, if someone far below you killed prisoners without reporting it to you, on his own initiative, at his own discretion?" "Well, that's impossible, it doesn't happen." So I said to him, "You see, Gruppenführer, that's how people are disregarding your authority in the concentration camps. That's what Untersturmführer Grabner has done, and that's why I've arrested him." He said, "But that's a different matter. I hadn't seen it that way."
Referring at the Pohl-WVHA trial in Nuremberg to this same interview with Müller, when asked to explain whether Müller had been surprised when Morgen told him he knew of the extermination policy against the Jews, Morgen further explained that Müller had in fact been "surprised to hear about the illegal executions in the concentration camps" and the scope of these breaches of policy/law. Morgen added - and this is a very important bit of testimony - that Müller
was not at all surprised that there was an extermination of the Jews, that there were inhuman treatments which had been ordered, and he said to me, ironically, "Why don't you arrest me[?]"
(pp 98-99)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 21, 2015 7:39 pm

The evaluation of Ilse Koch made by "Believer" scholars Pauer-Studer and Velleman shows the extent to which deniers lie about what is in the "mainstream," "orthodox" work by serious historians and scholars:
Ilse Koch's postwar reputation has far exceeded her husband's tenure as commandant. Few today have heard of Waldemar Hoven, who killed hundreds with phenol injections, but many have heard of Die Hexe von Buchenwald - the Witch of Buchenwald - who supposedly made lampshades out of human skin.

Morgen himself already in 1943 debunked the lampshade story.

So here we have two scholars decrying the very sensationalistic accounts of KL history which deniers claim that Holocaust scholars accept and promote.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Balsamo » Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:27 pm

StatMec:
The best treatment of the “special law” for the East developed by the National Socialist state that I've seen is Diemut Majer, "Non-Germans" under the Third Reich: The Nazi Judicial and Administrative System in Germany and Occupied Eastern Europe, with Special Regard to Occupied Poland, 1939-1945, first published in the '60s. Pauer-Studer and Velleman address the issue directly, assessing law in the Third Reich in a number of places.

But even this "special" legislation was exceeded by the SS and Gestapo, in order to destroy purported enemies people in the East. Especially germane here is their assessment of Morgen’s testimony at the Buchenwald trial, when Morgen was asked about the legality of reprisal killings: On account of the brutal nature of war in the East,
Hi and thanks,
I have a fair knowledge of the situation of Non-germans judicial status especially in the occupied European territories, and over there calling them "special legislation" is almost a joke as far as the term legislation is concerned. Exceeded is the term, and not only by the Gestapo and the SS, but also by the local Nazi masters, Gauleiters and Reich Governors all the way down to a local untersharfuhrer.
But I thought that "Non germans under the third Reich" was from the 80's.

As you might remember, my original personal interrogation is why the transfer to the east to kill the Jews versus kill them on the spot. Even in France, it would have been possible to settle a small killing camp in an isolate area, as it was in Germany.
Special courts and legislation were later put in place within the Reich, especially for the non Jewish Slave labour working in Germany, but that is outside the scope of the Jewish Genocide, IMHO.

I am well aware that the eastern territories served as the perfect spot for experiments, legal experiment and of course plain murder, and it is those nuances (methods, legal background, relation with traditional authorities, etc.) between the two which interested me since a couple of time.

To sum up, I don't think that there are obvious links between those Special laws and the holocaust, between a new social order between different populations within an new empire (the Nazi one in this case) and the destruction of one of them, except the principle you shared representing a murder ordered/wished by the state as legal.
But what is interesting in your rendition of the book - and makes me whish to buy it - is the lack of concrete and undisputable norms at least within the Reich versus the absence of need of such norms in the eastern territories.
However, at this point Morgen was testifying about executions of Soviet POWs at Buchenwald - an action which is totally irrelevant to Morgen’s explanation as these men had not been convicted of war crimes and international law did not permit murders of POWs.


Yes, but a SS jurist in Nazi Germany most certainly defended the view that the USSR having not signed the Geneva Convention, and was not allowing any Red Cross visit in their own camps, the soviet Pows were just not covered by international law, so outside the scope of a Jurist like him.
Morgen clarified to the court that he did not mean “defend the law,” only to explain the legal basis for the executions in the Third Reich. However, by conflating the 1942 law with the even more sinister Thierak-Himmler agreement, he was misrepresenting Reich law to present killings patently illegal (under international law and dubious, at best, under German law) as legal. (pp 70-73)
Misrepresenting or misinterpretation, or a mix of both, which would not be so surprising considering how laws were enacted in the third Reich. One just have to remember that the status of the Jews was not settled by the Nurnberg law, but was followed by a multitude of Additional restrictions, a common problem with not law-abiding States.

Anyway, it is obvious that we should take his court testimonies carefully.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28663
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:00 pm

Balsamo wrote:As you might remember, my original personal interrogation is why the transfer to the east to kill the Jews versus kill them on the spot. Even in France, it would have been possible to settle a small killing camp in an isolate area, as it was in Germany.
This might seem like a silly and uneducated question but you mean still in keeping with the "resettlement" narrative? And I have to say, besides all kinds of other considerations, unnoticed massive transport to those possible dead end camps - and which would have raised all kinds of questions - seems unlikely to my mind?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:41 pm

Balsamo wrote:. . . calling them "special legislation" is almost a joke as far as the term legislation is concerned.
In almost the sense of "special treatment," however, it works. "Special law" ("special legislation," "special courts," etc) is the terminology Majer uses, so I picked it up. Indeed, it is brutal.
Balsamo wrote:But I thought that "Non germans under the third Reich" was from the 80's.
You're right, 1981. My memory let me down on that one.
Balsamo wrote:To sum up, I don't think that there are obvious links between those Special laws and the holocaust, between a new social order between different populations within an new empire (the Nazi one in this case) and the destruction of one of them, except the principle you shared representing a murder ordered/wished by the state as legal.
The authors' discussion, which I summarized as a tangent to your comment, is not focused on the Final Solution.
Balsamo wrote:But what is interesting in your rendition of the book - and makes me whish to buy it - is the lack of concrete and undisputable norms at least within the Reich versus the absence of need of such norms in the eastern territories.
. . . not sure I grasp this: the authors argue that the National Socialist ideology and practice - including its legal doctrine, its policies toward minorities and groups deemed dangerous to the state, its inhuman and dehumanizing treatment of its subjects - meant that the state, in the form of the people leading it and carrying out NS policies, failed morally across the board.
Balsamo wrote:Yes, but a SS jurist in Nazi Germany most certainly defended the view that the USSR having not signed the Geneva Convention, and was not allowing any Red Cross visit in their own camps, the soviet Pows were just not covered by international law, so outside the scope of a Jurist like him.
Morgen didn't make such an argument that I am aware of.
Balsamo wrote:Misrepresenting or misinterpretation, or a mix of both, which would not be so surprising considering how laws were enacted in the third Reich. One just have to remember that the status of the Jews was not settled by the Nurnberg law, but was followed by a multitude of Additional restrictions, a common problem with not law-abiding States.
The authors make a very different argument - that Morgen's failure here was a failure of his own vision, in which he placed too much faith in the law, in the context of the Third Reich, and was unable to lift his head up to see beyond "law breaking" and individual criminality - to recognize social and political injustice. Further, they argue that Morgen held such a strongly idealized view of the SS that he was sometimes blind to its reality. They see him as a complex case - who fought hard for justice, as he saw it, and even took on, at tremendous risk to himself, the most powerful people in the Reich. The biases and shadings in his testimonies were, as presented by the authors, not attempts to mislead but the result of Morgen's somewhat circumscribed and inadequate view of the world - and especially what the extreme events of the time. They make the point that in many periods, Morgen's professionalism coupled with his quest to protect people from having their rights violated and from wrongs done to them would be successful and admirable - however, in a state characterized by inhumanity - inhumanity on a "colossal" scale - his frame of reference was not up to the challenge.

Pauer-Studer and Velleman compare Morgen's focus on what "shouldn't be done," which they see as legalistic and tepid, to the clarity of what Arendt wrote "to" Eichmann:
just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of a number of other nations - as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world - we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you.
For the authors, it was this kind of expression that Morgen could not make: Arendt's notion, they say, "comes a bit closer to expressing the immorality of the 'Final Solution' than mere talk of violated rights." (p 124)

The authors write, "The National Socialist state interpreted morality as a parochial ideological enterprise." (p 125) This was about putting individuals and populations in service to the state; it was endemic in the Third Reich - and it meant that those individuals who did not or would not subject themselves to such a condition became fair game for the SS and other agents of the NS state. Morgen got glimpses of the monstrosity that was NS but never fully understood it. They write (p 122) that his view of himself in his world "allowed him to indulge in a self-deceptive complacency" that it would be possible to get true justice in a system so perverted as National Socialism, which, they argue, was "a radically unjust system." Further, he didn't intuit that as an official who was part of that system, he helped maintain it.

So the authors come down hard that Morgen indeed "misinterpreted" his world in critical ways - that is, saw it from a myopic point of view - and pretty much dismiss the charge that Morgen misrepresented. They see his failings as those of an imaginative/moral dimension and perhaps somewhat of intellect, not of dissembling.
Balsamo wrote:Anyway, it is obvious that we should take his court testimonies carefully.
I think the authors' approach is very sound: they examine his war-time records, his personnel files, letters he wrote in the 1940s, postwar interrogations, and courtroom testimonies from the point of view of intertextuality, using his own documents, and of course other sources, to interrogate whichever testimony they're investigating and find the most probable interpretation. That is, they do not read a document or testimony at a time, they proceed very carefully, they do not make leaps and assume facts but patiently examine the sources.The authors are philosophers and so quite interested in moral issues and lessons - what they call an understanding of human flourishing vs inhumanity, but they use a very sound methodology to uncover the moral failings, and successes of real individuals in a real context.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:48 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Balsamo wrote:As you might remember, my original personal interrogation is why the transfer to the east to kill the Jews versus kill them on the spot. Even in France, it would have been possible to settle a small killing camp in an isolate area, as it was in Germany.
This might seem like a silly and uneducated question but you mean still in keeping with the "resettlement" narrative? And I have to say, besides all kinds of other considerations, unnoticed massive transport to those possible dead end camps - and which would have raised all kinds of questions - seems unlikely to my mind?
The effectiveness of this "out of sight" approach to western Europe can be seen in the fact that even late in the deportations to Auschwitz, Dutch Jews did not understand what going to Poland would mean for most Dutch Jews taken there. Not to trivialize or dismiss questions about the mechanics and logistics of the implementation of the Final Solution - which are critical to understanding it - in this instance that the slaughter-houses were in the East - and western and southern European Jews were taken to those slaughter-houses - does not speak to the National Socialists' intentions regarding the scope of the extermination.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Jeff_36 » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:25 pm

OK revised timeline.

August 43: Goes to Lublin to investigate Wirth and the wedding. May have had an inkling that something was going on but no dice.

November: Goes to Lublin again to investigate the aftermath of the Erntfest shitshow (and it really was a shitshow), finds traces leading to A-B and the other Lublin Camps. At this point he is aware of extermination but not of gas chambers.

Later in November: Goes to A-B, finds out about the gas chambers.

November/December: returns to Lublin, observes the loot. Understands the full scope.

January 44: goes to Treiste, talks with Globus about what was going on, Globus pulls his dick out and says "{!#%@} you it was legal/I had orders". At which point Morgen shifts focus to illegal killings and corruption.

sounds right?

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Balsamo » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:58 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Balsamo wrote:As you might remember, my original personal interrogation is why the transfer to the east to kill the Jews versus kill them on the spot. Even in France, it would have been possible to settle a small killing camp in an isolate area, as it was in Germany.
This might seem like a silly and uneducated question but you mean still in keeping with the "resettlement" narrative? And I have to say, besides all kinds of other considerations, unnoticed massive transport to those possible dead end camps - and which would have raised all kinds of questions - seems unlikely to my mind?
It is a good question.
Not the "resettlement narrative", the bogus "resettlement pretext", actually.

Basically, I took the track on reverse, if you understand my poor English :D . Most, if not all the real genocidal actions took place eastward of the river Neiss. Sonderzuge crossed all over Europe to reach those not so numerous killing sites. Those trains were not so noticeable in some cases, especially from France were the number transports were huge and constant. Anyway, I just wonder why there and not elsewhere?
That was my starting point from which I went into well deeper thoughts I just cannot summarize here.
But one of the reason was the legal jurisdiction, or the legal opportunities offered by the location of the killing, among others of course, while most of Eichmann office's efforts were to bring those Jews from across Europe to those locations.
The main question of course is WHY?

I currently reading a book on the UGIF and its role in the deportation of the Jews from France, that is looking at the French side of the case, StatMec doing a great job summarizing the German side. And in addition, I should receive Brayard work tomorrow or Tuesday at the latest.

More on all of this later. ;)

PS: I am not sure to have understood all the depth of your question. But if it is to keep the secret, then Poland offered no more advantage than any other location. I mean, if the Nazi have managed to have secret site like Peenemunde to build V2, they could have build many hidden killing centers elsewhere in Germany, or in another logic go further east to make their resettlement pretext more plausible. Poland had to be crossed by every single soldiers, material, supply transport heading to the eastern front. It also the main resettling destination for ethnic Germans ( Volksdeutschen), the place of the most important Ghettos from which Jews were supposed to be taken eastward... Secrecy is not an argument that seduces me...

Anyway, as I said, more later

StatMec:
In almost the sense of "special treatment," however, it works. "Special law" ("special legislation," "special courts," etc) is the terminology Majer uses, so I picked it up. Indeed, it is brutal.
If I remember Majer work, it is really about the judicial status of all "non Aryan" people within the Nazi empire and I remembered it as very good. But to define an untermensch is one thing, to organize his extermination is another. IIRC, she precisely outlines how little was change to the accepted standards in the Reich when it came to justice and the police, acting from behind so to speak, while none of those precautions were taken in the eastern territories.
But even then, the "special treatment" as understood as "killing the Jews" were never covered by a law (contrary to T4), it was the result of a legal status of a given territory (or territories, that is the East), where the existing legal frame were blurred by extra-legal imperatives which allow extra-legal justifications for extra-legal measures, which are "legal" for a SS judge like Morgen, but not necessarily to someone else. Legal because of the accepted doctrine that the State has the right of life and death on its citizens or sub-citizens ( both proved to be right), but that was certainly not a legality that had been published in the Official Journal.
. . not sure I grasp this: the authors argue that the National Socialist ideology and practice - including its legal doctrine, its policies toward minorities and groups deemed dangerous to the state, its inhuman and dehumanizing treatment of its subjects - meant that the state, in the form of the people leading it and carrying out NS policies, failed morally across the board.
I meant the legal norms, which had less meanings than practices in Nazi Germany. Nothing more. My point of interest being the difference between those practices depending on the territories and jurisdictions.
Morgen didn't make such an argument that I am aware of
Maybe not ( I don't have the book yet), but many Nazis and even non Nazi Germans would have make it.
If your quote was from a trial, maybe he had just not been asked the question. Pure speculation from my part, but nevertheless an possible explanation of why he did not considered himself being concerned by the murder of soviet Pows or at least did not see it as a crime covered by IT.
The authors make a very different argument - that Morgen's failure here was a failure of his own vision, in which he placed too much faith in the law, in the context of the Third Reich, and was unable to lift his head up to see beyond "law breaking" and individual criminality - to recognize social and political injustice. Further, they argue that Morgen held such a strongly idealized view of the SS that he was sometimes blind to its reality. They see him as a complex case - who fought hard for justice, as he saw it, and even took on, at tremendous risk to himself, the most powerful people in the Reich. The biases and shadings in his testimonies were, as presented by the authors, not attempts to mislead but the result of Morgen's somewhat circumscribed and inadequate view of the world - and especially what the extreme events of the time. They make the point that in many periods, Morgen's professionalism coupled with his quest to protect people from having their rights violated and from wrongs done to them would be successful and admirable - however, in a state characterized by inhumanity - inhumanity on a "colossal" scale - his frame of reference was not up to the challenge.
I do not contest their arguments, but I just do not develop arguments as those ones.
I personally don't consider Morgen as a hero, or even a resistant, just as someone who did his job. He certainly has more merits as many others who were in his position, but neverless he was a law abiding citizen of Nazi Germany.
I tend to refrain myself to let judgment influenced my thinking, that is not an historian's job, but the one of a philosopher like Arendt. Not that I am against the approach, but in my opinion what people should or should not have done, and why he did or did not, is not my field, only what he did or did not is, without a post-facto moral stance.
Morgan was a plain member of the SS, that is he was a member of the NSDAP, what he did and what he did not, the way he did and why he did not allow us to grasp some nuances of what the NSDAP State was for the majority of the Germans and even some foreigners. And for me, he has the merit to point out the limit of knowledge of some aspects - the worst - of the Nazi policy. That is about all of it.
I am not defending him.
Yes, he fought hard to what he believed to be the Nazi Justice, he believed in National Socialism the same way some believed in the Good deeds of Stalin, he never challenged the based of that Regime, but thought that it was a good one until discovering the dark side in full. He is just an example that even within the more rude and abject regime, there are people that made it their everyday normality, trying to do their job the best they can, etc. I see no heroism in there, but I see some element that might confirm my views, hence my willing to get it ;)

AS I fully agree with what you wrote next, I have nothing to say, but ordering the book.

Keep on sharing

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:30 am

Jeff_36 wrote:OK revised timeline.

August 43: Goes to Lublin to investigate Wirth and the wedding. May have had an inkling that something was going on but no dice.

November: Goes to Lublin again to investigate the aftermath of the Erntfest shitshow (and it really was a shitshow), finds traces leading to A-B and the other Lublin Camps. At this point he is aware of extermination but not of gas chambers.

Later in November: Goes to A-B, finds out about the gas chambers.
Only slight change here is that P-S & V say that he found out about the gas chambers from members of the commission that went to Auschwitz in November before Morgen himself traveled to the camp.
Jeff_36 wrote:November/December: returns to Lublin, observes the loot. Understands the full scope.

January 44: goes to Treiste, talks with Globus about what was going on, Globus pulls his dick out and says "{!#%@} you it was legal/I had orders". At which point Morgen shifts focus to illegal killings and corruption.

sounds right?
I am not 100% sure that Globus made that gesture and said those words. He well may have. And, yes, he deflected Morgen by arguing that he'd been ordered to carry out AR, his actions were legal, and Morgen would thus get nowhere with his investigation. Morgen's reaction was as you say.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5233
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:41 am

Didn't his 1964 testimony say otherwise?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:46 am

Balsamo wrote:But one of the reason was the legal jurisdiction, or the legal opportunities offered by the location of the killing, among others of course, while most of Eichmann office's efforts were to bring those Jews from across Europe to those locations.
But enemies of the Reich were killed in KLs and elsewhere within the Reich, which explains why Morgen familiarized himself with the murders of Soviet POWs in Buchenwald (he came to a conclusion about this program repugnant to me, but he looked at it because it was being conducted) and the so-called 99 executions, also his investigations into 14f13 (again reaching conclusions with which we may disagree) and what he considered irregularities in the conduct of the euthanasia program, killings of Buchenwald prisoners deemed lebenswert, the falsification of death notices for murdered prisoners in the KL, Hoven's killing of prisoners using phenol injection, etc. Some of this stuff concerned him and he went after it, some concerned him and he couldn't go after it, and some he didn't find problematic.

The clear, clean distinction you're trying to make between east/Reich - almost an internationalization of the normative/prerogative concepts - leaves a lot of evidence unaccounted for. And it is decidedly not what Pauer-Studer and Velleman have in mind.
Balsamo wrote:If I remember Majer work, it is really about the judicial status of all "non Aryan" people within the Nazi empire and I remembered it as very good.
Yes - and I agree.
Balsamo wrote:But to define an untermensch is one thing, to organize his extermination is another. IIRC, she precisely outlines how little was change to the accepted standards in the Reich when it came to justice and the police, acting from behind so to speak, while none of those precautions were taken in the eastern territories.
I am adding that the authors of the book on Morgen, whilst they would agree that special policies and law were directed at the East, argue that the entire Third Reich justice system and along with it the conception of the law were deeply effed up. They give as the very first example Gürtner's retroactive "legalization" of the Röhm murders in 1934 (p 13). Majer would, no doubt, agree. But, in any event, there is no sense in which, by pointing out some special features of Nazi law in the East, that P-S and V are arguing anything like a normative state existing in the Reich (and/or west) and a terrorist state being restricted to the East. Even, to move off of murder, Kristallnacht, the Aryanization program, forced emigrations, resettlements and deportations - all these features of the National Socialist state combine to signal its exceptional quality and its break with liberal democratic law (e.g., as I've written the substitution of "no crime without punishment" for the liberal principle of "no crime or punishment with a law," the Nazi "use of analogy in adjudication," the infusion of law with Nazi concepts of morality, legal decisions made on the basis not of statutes but rather from the healthy instincts of the Volk as attributed by justices, the role of the Führer as supreme law-maker, chief justice, and chief executive, the interpretation of individual's will and character, protective custody, the lack of transparency in law, etc. - whilst some of these elements, of course, antedated the Third Reich, taken together and intensified, the made for a new departure). This is what P-S and V argue. They refer to National Socialist justice - already in the '30s - as featuring a "new conception of law," a "new approach to adjudication," and a rejection of liberal principles.

Reading your comments makes me feel you're trying to shoehorn into their book your own very different interpretation of things. Where you're going is clear - you just can't use P-S and V to get there, since their argument is very much opposed to yours.
Balsamo wrote:But even then, the "special treatment" as understood as "killing the Jews" were never covered by a law (contrary to T4),
Which differs to what the authors argue - their point is that given that the Führer was the ultimate law-giver, in the National Socialist conception the killings were legalized. That is why Morgen backed off from certain lines of investigation. The authors say that they "credit" Morgen's account of what he did in this regard.

T-4 also undermines your argument about the East: the first mass murder program, one covered by a written Führer document making it law, took place within the Reich against Germans. Surely, killing Jews - and Jews in the KL were targeted for execution under 14f13 as Jews - was not too big a problem for a State killing other of its declared enemies, the Jews being deemed the worst enemies.
Balsamo wrote:it was the result of a legal status of a given territory (or territories, that is the East), where the existing legal frame were blurred by extra-legal imperatives which allow extra-legal justifications for extra-legal measures, which are "legal" for a SS judge like Morgen, but not necessarily to someone else. Legal because of the accepted doctrine that the State has the right of life and death on its citizens or sub-citizens ( both proved to be right), but that was certainly not a legality that had been published in the Official Journal.
Honestly, I am trying but have no idea what you are arguing in this instance. The existence of a number of murder and other "special" programs within the Reich, from the early '30s onwards, makes your focus on the East in these terms seem mystifying.
Balsamo wrote:Maybe not ( I don't have the book yet), but many Nazis and even non Nazi Germans would have make it.
Of course, and it has become a denier favorite. But it has nothing to do with Morgen.
Balsamo wrote:If your quote was from a trial, maybe he had just not been asked the question. Pure speculation from my part, but nevertheless an possible explanation of why he did not considered himself being concerned by the murder of soviet Pows or at least did not see it as a crime covered by IT.
Morgen explicitly discussed these murders in terms of reprisals, not in terms of the Geneva Convention terms on treatment of POWs. In fact, the authors argue that in other testimony Morgen alluded to Hague Convention of 1907, having framed his arguments against mass extermination actions to his superior in terms of violations of international law - "and that is the reason why I left no doubt that if a State committed such crimes, that those things can have a direct and horrible result against the State as such." (pp 99-100) I am sorry - if Morgen made the argument you want him to have made, it is not covered in this book, and the authors of this book make a totally different argument.
Balsamo wrote:I do not contest their arguments, but I just do not develop arguments as those ones.
Well, you seem to be trying to stretch comments made in this thread, summarizing arguments in the Morgen book, into support for very different arguments that you want to make. You will not find, IMO, much in this book to support your argument about the Final Solution in he west.
Balsamo wrote:I personally don't consider Morgen as a hero, or even a resistant, just as someone who did his job. He certainly has more merits as many others who were in his position, but neverless he was a law abiding citizen of Nazi Germany.
The authors would respectfully, and strongly, disagree with this evaluation of Morgen, as I've explained above and will say more on below. After all, there are many ways of doing one's job, and they try to understand exactly how Morgen approached his job and did it.
Balsamo wrote:I tend to refrain myself to let judgment influenced my thinking, that is not an historian's job, but the one of a philosopher like Arendt. Not that I am against the approach, but in my opinion what people should or should not have done, and why he did or did not, is not my field, only what he did or did not is, without a post-facto moral stance.
As I explained, the focus of this book is different to yours - but to get where they wanted to go, the authors had to get deeply rooted in the history and the sources. They tried, doing this, to understand Morgen in the context of his times.
Balsamo wrote:Morgan was a plain member of the SS, that is he was a member of the NSDAP, what he did and what he did not. . . . Yes, he fought hard to what he believed to be the Nazi Justice, he believed in National Socialism the same way some believed in the Good deeds of Stalin, he never challenged the based of that Regime, but thought that it was a good one until discovering the dark side in full. He is just an example that even within the more rude and abject regime, there are people that made it their everyday normality, trying to do their job the best they can, etc. I see no heroism in there, but I see some element that might confirm my views, hence my willing to get it ;)
All I can say is good luck with your last point - I feel certain you will be disappointed.

As to the rest, the authors don't see Morgen as a hero at all, but they would not describe him either as a true-believing National Socialist. They describe him foremost as a jurist in a National Socialist context - his main commitments were not to the Party or Hitler or NS ideology - but to fighting crime and injustice (given his imperfect understanding of these things). They describe him as a fanatic - about his work, pursuing justice, rooting out corruption, professionialism. According to the authors, he came to deplore such key features of NS as the KL, he was not motivated by racial matters, and he tried to find indirect ways to "do something" about the FS. Morgen was frequently one step ahead of being arrested and thrown into a KL himself. OTOH he was subject to the failures I posted about above, and others. A mixed bag.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:04 am

Jeff_36 wrote:Didn't his 1964 testimony say otherwise?
Without going through what he said in each of his testimonies, that is the whole point: the authors studied Morgen's time line in the context of all his testimonies and other documents and determined the chronology they believe most supportable.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Balsamo » Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:46 am

Hi Statmec, and thanks for your comments. It is to late to digest all of them, but just about this one:
Reading your comments makes me feel you're trying to shoehorn into their book your own very different interpretation of things. Where you're going is clear - you just can't use P-S and V to get there, since their argument is very much opposed to yours.
I don't really know what "shoehorn" means, but as I said, I just feel that there are stuff to learn in this work, so I have ordered it.
As I have not read it yet, I only rely to what you share about it and I never felt like contesting their conclusions, as I don't know them yet. I still don't myself my own conclusions,,, :lol: But it is like there's something I feel, like I felt when I was actually doing this job, one element here, another there, you know...which put together would open a new door...well this kind of stuff.
Anyway, I would not even think to use any work, by P-S and V (as you say) before having read it and digest it.
Of course I know you know - after our chats - where I tend to go, but I still have not reach any target yet. :lol:

But the more I read, the more it appears to make sense.
I'll address your further points tomorrow...
And I am enjoying it. ;)

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Balsamo » Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:56 am

Just let me add,
It is a real pleasure and informative thing to chat/debate with you...in French I would say something which could be translated to "enlightening", it forces me to check and double check, and of course, as a consequence, you'll be responsible for any delay to when my hypothetical conclusions will come out.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:07 am

En Anglais, thanks and feelings are mutual. And . . . I will take the blame for all delays! LOL.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27688
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Konrad Morgen: what the {!#%@} was he smoking?

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:29 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Didn't his 1964 testimony say otherwise?
Without going through what he said in each of his testimonies, that is the whole point: the authors studied Morgen's time line in the context of all his testimonies and other documents and determined the chronology they believe most supportable.
Specifically, at Frankfurt Morgen explained his coming to Auschwitz as being prompted by receiving stolen dental gold a guard had sent through the mail, finding Auschwitz on the map, and traveling there - in short, knowing almost nothing concrete - but surmising from the amount of dental gold something big going on at Auschwitz. At Auschwitz, then, he told the court he saw a crematorium and had the gassing process described to him.

This account, of course, conflicts with his IMT testimony saying that Wirth told him in late summer about gas chambers in AR, etc., so that gas chambers, according to that testimony, shouldn't have been news to him. Also, P-S & V quote from other testimony – Morgen’s Nuremberg interrogation in 1946 - where he told his interviewer that he'd sent a commission to Auschwitz prior to his traveling there himself - making his story about getting out a map and locating Auschwitz a bit of drama and making his "discovery" of gas chambers during his trip to Auschwitz unlikely. The authors point out that Morgen had even visited Auschwitz in early 1941, before gassings had occurred, in the course of his investigation of Georg Sauberzweig.

P-S and V also make note of an incongruous moment in Morgen's Frankfurt testimony - a recollection that doesn't put Morgen in the best light. What he told the court he found shocking - his "real shock" - was not the gas chambers or gassing process or the amount of valuables taken from arriving Jews on the ramp but his coming across SS men after a night they’d spent "dispatching" a large number of Jews from several transports; the shocking thing was to see these German SS-men consorting with Jewish females, being fed potato pancakes, and addressing the women informally (du rather than Sie). The authors find this reaction to be confirmation of Morgen’s earlier knowledge of the gas chambers, given his matter-of-fact account of the gas chambers that he saw at Auschwitz, but also to reveal a certain moral blind spot on Morgen's part.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .