France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Lt. Dannecker Order...also missing?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:05 pm

David wrote:From what Ousby writes, there seem to have been exemptions for people married to
non-Jews, pregnant women, nursing mothers, age limits of between 19-40 (originally) and several other limitations on who would/could be deported.
Why would Lt. Dannecker put that in his Order?

I have re-checked RF-1221 (Dannecker's "Instructions for Deporting Jews") - and, guess what, no, the directive does not mention pregnant women, nursing mothers, or an age limit between 19-40. The order does specify that for the upcoming deportation being planned Jews
of both sexes, between 16 and 45 years old

were to be eligible for deportation, this being the same age range that Hilberg mentioned; also, as Hilberg alluded, the order excepted
Jews of the following nationalities: Great Britain, US, Mexico, enemy states of Central and South America, as well as neutral and allied states.

As for David's bizarre question
David wrote:Why would Lt. Dannecker put that in his Order?

I can only guess that, David isn't quite sure what Dannecker's role in Paris was. After all, David - who presumes to lecture us on events in France - apparently only learned about the authority of Dannecker, one of the central figures in these events during 1940-1942, by reading this thread, as he told us when he wrote earlier that
David wrote:You seem to be referring to Theodor Dannecker as making some very important decisions. What was the rank of this key decision maker?

I am not quite sure what David means by his question - what is it that he wonders about Dannecker putting in the Richtlinien? - but it would be hard to contemplate the Nazis' preparing for the July roundups without having put in place some rules of the road, and doing so was Dannecker's responsibility.

In RF-1221, I should add, Dannecker also set out some specific rules for the orderly conduct of the deportation, as I alluded to in my replies to David, dealing with items which the deportees were forbidden to bring. Dannecker also order the Jews to be searched before trains left, that one car in each convoy was to have “food for 15 days,” with food specified as “bread, flour, barley, beans, etc.” He ordered that “sanitary supplies” on the trains include “at the very least one ‘hygenic bucket’ . . . per wagon” and that there be guards at the ratio of 1:40. Also, 4 copies of the list of those on each train were to be made and the lists were to include information on relatives of those deported as well as “the professions of the deportees."

David, with his wittering about nursing and pregnant women and whatever Ousby says, is either confused - or trying to confuse us.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1571
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:27 pm

Given that the subject is spread across different threads i think that i am not the only one who fails to see what point David is trying to make.
No one here denies that the French Jews – as opposed to the Jews of France – were relatively spared, along with the Belgian Jews (not the Jews of Belgium), the Bulgarian and of course the Danish.
This reality could be a very good subject of debate, because different interpretations and explanations exist but I don’t see how deniers can make a denier’s point out of it. Because there is a number that has not been mentioned until now:
Granted, by memory, I guess that around 150.000 people were deported from France, half of them were Jews. The difference is that if the death rate among the “Nacht und Nebel” was at 50%, this rate raised to 97% for the deported Jews – deported AS Jews.
It would be a good thing if David could clarify its positions and hypothesis.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19748
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Lt. Dannecker sets the Rules?

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:43 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:You seem to be referring to Theodor Dannecker as making some very important decisions. What was the rank of this key decision maker?

The Yad Vashem only refers to him as an "SS officer." Hmmm, vague. Wonder why?

The Online Encyclopedia has him as
an SS-Obersturmführer..."An SA-Obersturmführer was typically a junior company commander in charge of between 50-100 soldiers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obersturmf%C3%BChrer

Such a mystery. During 1942, SS Hauptsturmfuhrer Dannecker signed his orders, notes, memoranda, etc as follows:
Dannecker
SS Hauptsturmfuehrer

According to David's logic, perhaps he was inflating his title in the hope that his superiors, such as Eichmann and Himmler, would not catch on!

:lol:


And, besides offering the information about a SA-Obersturmführer, he overlooked (or was confused about) the position and power of "the SS captain who commanded the German police in France".

Wikipedia wrote:SS and police leaders
Main article: SS and Police Leaders

During World War II, the most powerful men in the SS were the SS and Police Leaders, divided into three levels: regular leaders, higher leaders, and supreme leaders. Such persons normally held the rank of SS-Gruppenführer or above and answered directly to Himmler in all matters pertaining to the SS in their area of responsibility. Thus, SS and Police Leaders bypassed all other chains of command.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaf ... ce_leaders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel

David wrote:I am asking because there seems to be confusion over what young Lt. Dannecker's Orders really ordered. Did the young man really issue a carte blanche to round up all Jews French citizens. Seems amazing to me.
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=24228#p422535
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19748
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Lt. Dannecker Order...also missing?

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:08 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
David wrote:From what Ousby writes, there seem to have been exemptions for people married to
non-Jews, pregnant women, nursing mothers, age limits of between 19-40 (originally) and several other limitations on who would/could be deported.
Why would Lt. Dannecker put that in his Order?

I have re-checked RF-1221 (Dannecker's "Instructions for Deporting Jews") - and, guess what, no, the directive does not mention pregnant women, nursing mothers, or an age limit between 19-40. The order does specify that for the upcoming deportation being planned Jews
of both sexes, between 16 and 45 years old

were to be eligible for deportation, this being the same age range that Hilberg mentioned; also, as Hilberg alluded, the order excepted
Jews of the following nationalities: Great Britain, US, Mexico, enemy states of Central and South America, as well as neutral and allied states.

As for David's bizarre question
David wrote:Why would Lt. Dannecker put that in his Order?

I can only guess that, David isn't quite sure what Dannecker's role in Paris was. After all, David - who presumes to lecture us on events in France - apparently only learned about the authority of Dannecker, one of the central figures in these events during 1940-1942, by reading this thread, as he told us when he wrote earlier that
David wrote:You seem to be referring to Theodor Dannecker as making some very important decisions. What was the rank of this key decision maker?

I am not quite sure what David means by his question - what is it that he wonders about Dannecker putting in the Richtlinien? - but it would be hard to contemplate the Nazis' preparing for the July roundups without having put in place some rules of the road, and doing so was Dannecker's responsibility.

In RF-1221, I should add, Dannecker also set out some specific rules for the orderly conduct of the deportation, as I alluded to in my replies to David, dealing with items which the deportees were forbidden to bring. Dannecker also order the Jews to be searched before trains left, that one car in each convoy was to have “food for 15 days,” with food specified as “bread, flour, barley, beans, etc.” He ordered that “sanitary supplies” on the trains include “at the very least one ‘hygenic bucket’ . . . per wagon” and that there be guards at the ratio of 1:40. Also, 4 copies of the list of those on each train were to be made and the lists were to include information on relatives of those deported as well as “the professions of the deportees."

David, with his wittering about nursing and pregnant women and whatever Ousby says, is either confused - or trying to confuse us.

He might have meant this?


Dannecker declared: "The French police, despite a few considerations of pure form, have only to carry out orders!"[5]

The roundup was aimed at Jews from Germany, Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and those whose origins couldn't be determined, all aged from 16 to 50. There were to be exceptions for women "in advanced state of pregnancy" or who were breast-feeding, but "to save time, the sorting will be made not at home but at the first assembly centre".[5]

The Germans planned for the French police to arrest 22,000 Jews in Greater Paris. The Jews would then be taken to internment camps at Drancy, Compiègne, Pithiviers and Beaune-la-Rolande. André Tulard "will obtain from the head of the municipal police the files of Jews to be arrested... Children of less than 15 or 16 years will be sent to the Union Générale des Israélites de France, which will place them in foundations. The sorting of children will be done in the first assembly centres."[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vel%27_d%2 ... he_roundup

Looks like just another big fat of lie of "civility" to appease... and then off to the "first assembly centers".
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:13 pm

Balsamo wrote:Given that the subject is spread across different threads i think that i am not the only one who fails to see what point David is trying to make.
No one here denies that the French Jews – as opposed to the Jews of France – were relatively spared, along with the Belgian Jews (not the Jews of Belgium), the Bulgarian and of course the Danish.
This reality could be a very good subject of debate, because different interpretations and explanations exist but I don’t see how deniers can make a denier’s point out of it. Because there is a number that has not been mentioned until now:
Granted, by memory, I guess that around 150.000 people were deported from France, half of them were Jews. The difference is that if the death rate among the “Nacht und Nebel” was at 50%, this rate raised to 97% for the deported Jews – deported AS Jews.
It would be a good thing if David could clarify its positions and hypothesis.

Good point, Balsamo, I assume David will contest (deny) the comparative death tolls, as he contests (denies) what was going on at Auschwitz-Birkenau. We will wait and see . . .

In the meantime, another instructive comparison exercise is this one involving David’s attempt to confuse a goal/policy with its practical “realization” (using the word used by Eichmann and Dannecker). David has taken pains to argue that because, by his dubious count (as we've seen) 5% of French Jews were deported, therefore there was no wider deportation policy - and especially no policy of deporting French Jews, given that so many of those deported were foreign.

We've seen, in contrast to David's claim, that it was the Germans' aim to deport all French Jews and render France judenrein.

But - as an analogy - let's think a bit more about the foreign Jews on whom David is myopically focused and who, David thinks, because it was mainly they who wound up being deported, disprove the final solution in general and a German intent to deport all French Jews in particular:

1. According to David, the German’s goal was to return the eastern Jews to the East - and nothing more, proven, David claims, by the fact that in the end mostly foreign Jews were deported.
2. However, just as the Germans were unable to deport all French Jews by war’s end, they were frustrated in achieving their goal of deporting the 135,000 or so Jews without French citizenship from France. (They deported only about 37% of the foreign Jews by war's end - David can check my math, 50,000 out of 135,000 I believe is 37%). David hasn't stopped to explain why the Germans stopped expelling foreign Jews if their goal was to return these Jews to the East.
3. So just as my argument shows the Germans to have been unable to complete their plan (ridding France of its Jews), so does David's claim show the Germans not completing their aims (returning foreign Jews to the East). David doesn't like to talk about the fact that the Germans failed to expel all foreign Jews, but, in both cases, that of the foreign Jews and that of all the Jews in France, an explanation for why the aim wasn't achieved is called for, and, no, no single number speaks for itself, in contrast to what David has said.
4. The evidence shows that the German's various efforts to expel the foreign Jews from France encountered repeated obstacles, some of these the same obstacles in fact that thwarted expulsion from France of all Jews, regardless of nationality and citizenship: French officials like Petain and Bousquet gave limited cooperation, Oberg hesitated as he opted for French political stability at crucial junctures, Dannecker and Eichmann became overly aggressive and caused backlash, reprisal actions and the round-ups repelled large and important strata of the French population, “resistance” efforts aided the Jews (hiding, flight, placements with French families), the Church and the Italians, especially the Italians, sided with the Jews, France's size and terrain were made actions more difficult, the small size of the German police force in France and therefore its dependence on the French made fast, unilateral action against the Jews difficult, besides Italy other Germany's allies and neutral states protected their Jewish nationals in France, etc.

So it is easy to understand that obstacles to the practical implementation of any policy can prevent its full, immediate completion.

David, why if the Germans wished to return the foreign Jews in France to the East were so few actually sent to Poland?

In this case, contrary to David's insinuations, the Germans' inability to complete the French deportations is readily explained, not by David's fantasy of the lack of a policy of ridding France of Jews as part of the final solution, but rather by political, diplomatic, and practical problems that the Germans encountered and that delayed and in the end short-circuited the planned implementation of the final solution. Just as such considerations also prevented completion of phase 1 – the expulsion of the foreign Jews from France. To, as you note, meet their deaths, most of them, in the East.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Lt. Dannecker Order...also missing?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:44 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:He might have meant this?

Thanks, seems to be a different document with variant orders or clarifications, whether from Dannecker or someone else, possibly issued at another time?

Perhaps in reference to this (note name Tulard appearing here as well as in Wiki article)?
The technical details of the Round-up were set on July 7 in Dannecker’s office at 31 bis avenue Foch, Paris. The following were present:

his Deputy Ernst Heinrichsohn,
Louis Darquier de Pellepoix and his Cabinet Director Pierre Galien,
Jacques Schweblin, the Director of Police for Jewish Affairs in the Occupied Zone,
Jean François, Director of the General Police at the Prefecture of Police,
Garnier, Assistant-Director of the Supplies Service of the Seine Prefecture of Police,
André Tulard, Director of the Foreigner and Jewish Affairs Service of the Prefecture of Police,
Emile Hennequin, Director of the Municipal Police, accompanied by Commissioner Georges Guidot.

At the meeting, Tulard agreed to make his Jewish files available to Hennequin. The Jews were to be arrested in their homes, authorized to bring a single suitcase, and “sorted” at mustering centers. A second preparatory meeting took place on July 10 at Darquier de Pellepoix’s Paris office, located at 1, place des Petits-Pères. It was attended by Dannecker, Heinz Röthke (who would succeed Dannecker at the end of the month), Heinrichsohn, Leguay, Galien, as well as representatives of French State Railways (SNCF), the Municipal Police, and the Paris Public Health Service (Assistance Publique). At this second meeting, the age limits were changed to 60 years of age for men and 55 for women. Other issues at hand were the organization of toilet pans for deportee convoys (to be supplied by the Union Générale des Israélites de France – UGIF) and the fate of Jewish children.

http://www.massviolence.org/The-Vel-d-H ... p?cs=print
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1571
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:40 pm

StatMec
1. According to David, the German’s goal was to return the eastern Jews to the East - and nothing more, proven, David claims, by the fact that in the end mostly foreign Jews were deported.


Well that is funny as there is no way to deny that all the efforts was dedicated to make the East as judenfrei as possible. Unless, he means the other “East” – the magic space between the German and the Russion frontline, home of million happy Jewish settlers.

2. I will leave the number game behind.

3. So just as my argument shows the Germans to have been unable to complete their plan (ridding France of its Jews), so does David's claim show the Germans not completing their aims (returning foreign Jews to the East). David doesn't like to talk about the fact that the Germans failed to expel all foreign Jews, but, in both cases, that of the foreign Jews and that of all the Jews in France, an explanation for why the aim wasn't achieved is called for, and, no, no single number speaks for itself, in contrast to what David has said.


As I understand it, David says nothing so to speak…except this “Come back home” theory.

But for my part, I admit that I am still not convinced of the existence of a Pan-European plan common to all European Jews. This is why I still raise an eyebrow (old British expression) when on says “the Germans” failed in their western Jewish policy. There are too many conflictual elements and the fundamentals of the pan-european plan are quite weak.
That does not mean that there was not a branch of the Nazi authorities that did not have this vision. But the reasons why it failed are the reasons why I doubt that they was a supreme order to handle the Jewish question the same manner as in the East. As usual, it does not change the fate of the Jews caught in the net – contrary to what deniers tend to dream of – but my position is that there is still room for debate in this matter. The case of Eggert Reeder in Belgium comes to mind. I have no time to dig deeper right now, but if you want, one could start a gentlemen disagreement like the one we had on rodoh.

The evidence shows that the German's various efforts to expel the foreign Jews from France encountered repeated obstacles, some of these the same obstacles in fact that thwarted expulsion from France of all Jews, regardless of nationality and citizenship: French officials like Petain and Bousquet gave limited cooperation, Oberg hesitated as he opted for French political stability at crucial junctures, Dannecker and Eichmann became overly aggressive and caused backlash, reprisal actions and the round-ups repelled large and important strata of the French population, “resistance” efforts aided the Jews (hiding, flight, placements with French families), the Church and the Italians, especially the Italians, sided with the Jews, France's size and terrain were made actions more difficult, the small size of the German police force in France and therefore its dependence on the French made fast, unilateral action against the Jews difficult, besides Italy other Germany's allies and neutral states protected their Jewish nationals in France, etc.


I basically agree with that summary…although Oberg was one of those hardcore Nazi who managed to deport like 40.000 people…
But all in all, would all this really have mattered if there was a clear order from the top expressing a Reich policy that had to be obeyed at all cost? Whatever the answers to this question, it still raises issues on who was responsible for what and why it structurally failed.
Again, I am not denying that some Nazis had a vision to treat the western Jews the way they were treated in the East, but I think that the explanations given to why it did not work are insufficient . By western Jews, I mean Jews from countries that were not supposed to be annexed by the Reich – and this excludes the Jews from the Netherlands.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:08 am

Balsamo wrote:Well that is funny as there is no way to deny that all the efforts was dedicated to make the East as judenfrei as possible. Unless, he means the other “East” – the magic space between the German and the Russion frontline, home of million happy Jewish settlers.

The other flaw in David's reasoning is that a sizable number of the Jews being deported from France were not being "returned" to the East at all - these people had come to France from central and western Europe, many of them as refugees from the Nazis!

Balsamo wrote:As I understand it, David says nothing so to speak…except this “Come back home” theory.

I will be the first to agree that David comes across pretty much in pure negationist mode and without a coherent argument. That said, I think that we can extract an "argument" from his posts and that doing so will show that he does claim that the low total of French Jews deported equates to their not being included in the deportation program and that the deportation program was almost solely focused on the foreign-born and stateless Jews in France.

One reason I draw that conclusion is David's repetition that the figure of 5% (French Jews) deported "speaks for itself," that is, few French nationals were deported, therefore, in David's view, the Germans did not have their sights on French Jews.

There are some major problems with the position David's taken (its lack of logic, which I explained in my post; documents from German planning showing that the Germans wanted to deport all French Jews but backed down due to domestic politics and diplomacy; and the course of events in France, including that 25,000 Jews who were French citizens were deported).

But let me quote from David's "explanations" of his position to illustrate why I think he's making the argument I attributed to him. David wrote at the very outset, on introducing France into the discussion of central Europe, that
David wrote:You are conflating non-citizen Jewish refugees from eastern Europe with French/Jewish citizens. The refugees were the target of a weak effort totransport them back to Eastern Europe.   French citizens were largely exempt . . . Obstacles?  "explained above?"    That is a ipse fixit  pronouncement not an explanation.    Why would German policy be any different in Poland than in France?

Here David takes the strange position that German policy didn't differ in different places and times - to shoot this down right off the bat, let's take Himmler's chastisement of Jeckeln for the slaughter Jeckeln carried out of 1,000 Reich Jews sent to Riga - at a time when massacres of eastern Jews were ongoing and no longer, in Nazi eyes, even controversial. As a logical and empirical matter, the policy toward the Jews was not the same through time and, at times, across Europe. Where you and I differ is really - taking away the polarizing language in which the debate is sometimes presented/framed - whether the policy did or did not finally cohere into something continental - and focused on an overriding goal for the continent.

David wrote:Your "explanations" don't make much sense, SM. The Germans occupied France for 4 years. What do you think the "timing issue" was for carrying out the "Final Solution" in France, 1947? In fact, it seems that French Jewish citizens were exempt from deportation.

Here David is clearly arguing that the low number of French Jews deported was because there was no goal or plan to deport them. But (a) some French Jews were deported during this period and (b) documentary evidence for high-level German intentions to deport all the Jews of France, foreign and French citizens, exists.

Now we will see David start supporting his claim with the idea that the 5% is self-explanatory, a prima facie case that the Germans hadn't wanted to deport French Jews:
David wrote:The figures speak for themselves regarding German policy toward Jews in France.
A very low percentage of French Jewish citizens were deported during the German occupation…around 5% . . . I have heard various Believer excuses…things like the Germans didn't have enough trains…so what is your "explanation" that I am trying confuse?

I think we can all agree that I've given a (rather long, somewhat detailed) quote explanation end quote for the low % of French Jews deported - one that doesn't involve a policy of long-term exemption of these Jews from deportation to the East. My explanation doesn't depend on (see below) my views on the Europe-wide program - but is based in evidence about France (as you know, following Longerich and others as I do, I of course think that the French program was in fact part of a larger program).

I find this explanation from Longerich, although I have quibbles with it, very compelling on this issue:
One important clue to the existence of such a programme is a minute from the office of the Slovakian Prime Minister, Tuka, dated 10 April, concerning a visit from Heydrich on the same day. On this occasion Heydrich explained to Tuka that the planned deportation of the Slovakian Jews was ‘only part of the programme.’ At that point a ‘resettlement’ of a total of ‘half a million’ Jews was occurring ‘from Europe to the East.’ Apart from Slovakia, the Reich, the Protectorate, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France were affected. . . . But the quota of 100,000 Jews to be deported from France, cited on 11 June, could not be reached, as Dannecker wrote to the RSHA, saying that there was no ‘definitive clarity about the number of Jews to be taken from the unoccupied zone and he was now only in a position’ ‘of being able to name departure stations for c.40,000 Jews.’ Eichmann informed Rademacher about the new changes in the deportation plans on 22 June 1942. According to these, from mid-July or early August, in daily transports of 1,000 people each, ‘first of all 40,000 Jews from the French occupied zone, 40,000 Jews from the Netherlands, and 10,000 Jews from Belgium are to be transported for the work programme to Auschwitz camp.’ . . . However, the next day, 23 June, the RSHA Jewish desk received a new instruction from Himmler, as Dannecker learned in Paris from Eichmann at the beginning of July. This stated: ‘all Jews resident in France are to be deported as soon as possible.’ The ‘previously planned rate (3 transports each of 1,000 Jews every week’) must be ‘significantly raised within a short time . . . with the goal of freeing France entirely of Jews as soon as possible.’ This order from Himmler to implement the ‘Final Solution’ in France completely and as quickly as possible must be seen as part of the escalation policy directed against Jews throughout the whole of Europe . . . .

Longerich, Holocaust, page 328

More:
David wrote:The fact that 5% of French Jewish citizens were deported says it all.
You are the slithery Believer who needs to come up with an "explanation." . . . think you are a stupid clown who is caught trying to conflate French Jewish citizens with non-French Jewish refugees under the rubric "the Jews of France."

Again, clearly, following Klarsfeld, Hilberg, Longerich, Zuccotti, and others, I conflated nothing. In fact, my understanding of what was happening (and not happening) in France is every bit as dependent as David's view on the fact that the deportations, for the reasons adduced previously, devolved on the foreign born and stateless Jews, beginning with them and, given the end of the occupation in France, never obtaining the result the German authorities hoped for in terms of all the Jews of France.

David wrote:. . . individuals in group 3 [Citizens from before 1927 and their children] were pretty much exempt from deportation with around 5% being deported. . . . Holocaust Believers tell us that "the Nazis didn't deport as many Jews from France as they wished to."* They attempt to bolster their weak argument by conflating the legal status of the various Jewish groups. . . . Believers seem to have amazing ability at reading Hitler's mind nunc pro tunc. I prefer to look at what actually happened.
5% of French Jewish citizens were deported.

Again, David repeats the logically flawed claim that the final 5% deportation rate for French Jews equates to their being exempt - rather than that rate's being the eventual result of how the Germans balanced political, diplomatic, public relations, logistic, and internal factors and considerations.

Balsamo wrote:But for my part, I admit that I am still not convinced of the existence of a Pan-European plan common to all European Jews. This is why I still raise an eyebrow (old British expression) when on says “the Germans” failed in their western Jewish policy. There are too many conflictual elements and the fundamentals of the pan-european plan are quite weak.

Solution and implementation, goal and tactics, policy and plans: these are sometimes, IMHO, confused, and even by Longerich. Politics and diplomacy, both being the art of the possible, I find most of the "conflictual" evidence to lie on the plane of implementation, tactics, plans, and progress - not solution, goal, or policy. France, in fact, is a good case study for this. I am aware (at last) of Bloxham's counter argument but not convinced of it (Confino's Corfu example being just a small sample of why).

Balsamo wrote:That does not mean that there was not a branch of the Nazi authorities that did not have this vision. But the reasons why it failed are the reasons why I doubt that they was a supreme order to handle the Jewish question the same manner as in the East.

David wrote of me that
David wrote:You are the one claiming there was a secret plan to kill all European Jews (unless you deviated from the catechism).

I don't think in terms exactly of a "supreme order" or "secret plan" in the sense of something hatched in Hitler's head and commanded in one "swell foop." That's why David's claim
David wrote: that Believers have been fumbling around since Nuremberg . . . trying to find a "Hitler Order" authorizing mass exterminations
is both mistaken and irrelevant.

You know, you've read enough of my pondering, that my understanding is that the policy came together reflecting both top-down goal setting (and meddling in details) and implementation actions, trials or proofs of concept, and reinforcement of goals and policies - the radical drive to rid (finally) the continent of Jews became a complexly ramified program (the final solution) by winter 1941-1942. That doesn't mean, given the interplay of conjunctural (local, tactical, diplomatic, political, logistical, bureaucratic, military, etc) factors with the overriding desire to be rid of the Jews, that everything was uniform; given this framing, we should expect the evidence to look lumpy and uneven over space and time, but driving in a direction, that is, elimination of the Jews across Europe.

Balsamo wrote:. . . my position is that there is still room for debate in this matter. The case of Eggert Reeder in Belgium comes to mind. I have no time to dig deeper right now, but if you want, one could start a gentlemen disagreement like the one we had on rodoh.

Indeed, that is why I opened the Judenpolitik thread. With high hopes. Yes, that would be the same thread that David, after trying to debate local evidence and actions by diverting to global policy, has utterly ignored.

Balsamo wrote:I basically agree with that summary…although Oberg was one of those hardcore Nazi who managed to deport like 40.000 people…

Although, with Oberg, it has to be acknowledged that he incurred Himmler's displeasure (Mazower has Himmler angered by Oberg's caution and political realism and castigating him as playing the "diplomat" to an excess) and took on the Marseille "project" in part to redeem himself by proving his mettle.

Balsamo wrote:But all in all, would all this really have mattered if there was a clear order from the top expressing a Reich policy that had to be obeyed at all cost?

Again,an extermination policy can look muddy in implementation.

Balsamo wrote:Again, I am not denying that some Nazis had a vision to treat the western Jews the way they were treated in the East,

Except that the most powerful and effective Nazis had this vision and drove it, with a great deal of success, murdering over 5 million of Europe's Jews.

Balsamo wrote:By western Jews, I mean Jews from countries that were not supposed to be annexed by the Reich – and this excludes the Jews from the Netherlands.

This strikes me as essentially Bloxham's argument (concerning the imperial cone), which we can take up in the Judenpolitik thread, keeping the focus here on France, evidence about what happened in France, and discussion of David's claims about France.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Mon Sep 15, 2014 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1571
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:13 am

Good answers,

see you tomorrow

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1571
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:06 pm

David Wrote:
Your "explanations" don't make much sense, SM. The Germans occupied France for 4 years. What do you think the "timing issue" was for carrying out the "Final Solution" in France, 1947? In fact, it seems that French Jewish citizens were exempt from deportation.


Proving once again his lack of knowledge about how things were organized…There were just no legal authorities that could have ordered and organized such a transfer – outside judicial processes. The RKV authority will only be expanded in February (?) 1942. And as you say, plans already existed, since early 1941.

Which is paradoxically I have problem with the Longerich quote you posted, at least as a proof the cohesion of a pan-European plan to deal with the Jewish question the same way in all German zones of influence, even though the plan would have to be adapted under the circumstances.

I am not sure that I am up to the task to express my understanding of things in a foreign language and in a concise manner. So where should I start?
Hum…
It is a fact that a project to “evacuate” all the Jews from France – at some point in a future – existed as early as January 1941. Christopher Browning mentions an “Endlösungprojekt” drafted by Dannecker, approved by both the military and the foreign office in Paris (Abetz), the plan will be endorsed by Heydrich in a letter to Luther. (page 200).

It is what I call a perfect consensus even if on a theoretical plan as – as I said – there were still no legal authority to execute it. Note that it was not submitted to the French as far as I know. Still why this consensus that will not be found the following year? Probably because of the nature of the plan which was “total dejudaization” of France through “deportation to a territory to be determined in the future”. A typical expression of the “Final Solution how it was thought between 1939 and early 1941”, still full of theories, inspired by those times strong belief into a German victory.

Up to 1942 ( i mean until 1942 in the west), the by then defined “Final Solution” had not only been accepted by all branches of the German government, it had been implemented without double thought – or very few – That is the solution defined by Goering and co which implied confiscation, expulsion from offices, registration, and as a final goal emigration.

One of the first measures taken in France – I don’t think it was needed in Belgium – was to lift clear Anti-Semitic publication and from that point every authorized press in both the occupied zone as well as in the free zone will publish hundreds of AS article, promoting the Nazi vision, the jewish responsabillities in the War, etc. There is no need to insist on the influence of mass media on any population – let’s just say that it is quite efficient, so that not even the population would have objected “en masse”, and if any dispute would have occurred with the Vichy regime it would have been on who gets the pie left by the Jews.

In my “Wannsee post” I explained, or at least I try to, why the genocide in the east was so efficient, and could without difficulties develop into mass murders. The Consensus was broader and unanimous, because of the perception of what an eastern Jew was. Their high presence in Poland, the war with the USSR, this presence being an obstacle to an already approved plan – the deportation of the greater reich Jews into the new eastern territories… Even there, my opinion is that the mass murder imposed itself more than was imposed by some “Supreme order”… that a dynamic appeared and will later get further impetus due to the deterioration of the military situation, the fear of the revenge of surviving Jews as clearly expressed in Goebble’s dairies…

But none of those elements did exist on the other side of the continent. Basically the consensus was limited to the pre-war concept of the final solution, and there were no impetus to push the policy to mass murder, nothing to make external parties closing their eyes easily.

Now that does not mean that the SS officials involved in the genocide in the east had no project to spread their new concept to the west. On the contrary, they tried the best they could…they did cross the line so saw no reason to act differently everywhere.

The main question still is : were those attempts because of an official Reich policy or not?

There are many points left unanswered here: What was clear for the eastern policy is not in the west: for example, why did Hitler waited three years to extend the authority of the RKV? Why did Himmler not receive a “Fuhrer Befehl” similar to what he got in the east which gave him a full power over all authorities (civilians as well as military) in the west?
One cannot promote a theory that states that the policy was basically the same and that only circumstances and particular obstacles made the difference when obviously the authority responsible for implementing this policy had not been given the same means and power to fullfil the mission.

Now, going back to the Belgian case and Eggert Reeder, a prominent SS civilian civil servant attached to the MBH of von Falkenhausen. Just as in France, there were no trouble to implement AS laws, and all the elements of the Final Solution 39-41…Apatrides and foreigners being what there where, there was nothing to be done legally and one could even say that no one really bothered to help them as shown as the “Ghost train” episode.

The Ghost train episode refers to to the arrest of 10-12000 German Jews – fugitives from the 38 progroms – who were arrested by the Belgians and secretly deported to France where they were imprisoned in camps…the death rate of this expedition was about 25-30%...not really sure, but in any case extremely high.

Now back to Reeder, here comes 1942, pressures for deportation comes, mainly from Luther (I am oversimplifying here, telling this by heart)…Reeder first decision, with the support of the MBH, will enlist 2.250 Belgian Jews able to work for the Todt organization (knowing that there was no more than 3500 or 4000 Belgian Jews) that is quite decisive.
More than that, after some SS zealots organized the round-up in Antwerp, resulting in a couple of hundreds of being arrested and gathered in maline, he will order their immediate release, and released they were, writing a report to denounce “abuses of power”.

Now one would think that he would have shared the fate of the general Blaskowitz, and get muted to another unimportant post, but no he would be promoted SS-Gruppenfuhrer in 1943…And indeed, only 6% of the Jews with Belgian citizenship did not make it through the nightmare, but 25000 foreign Jews were indeed sent East.

This episode raises a couple of question nevertheless regarding the driving force of a Nazi genocidal policy in the west. Again that does not mean that there were no initiative nor that deportation were not promoted as working contracts. Among those questions, who among the multitude of actors needed to deport thousands of people were in the known of the true destination of those transports? In another world, at what level of power was the killing of the western Jews a “official policy”, should one speak of a Supreme order – I doubt otherwise Reeder would have been punished – or more of a secret plan involving the staff responsible for the eastern killing?

I getting tired so I will wait for your reaction to develop some additional points.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Believer tap dancing around the 5%

Postby David » Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:47 am

scrmbldggs wrote:After all, David - who presumes to lecture us on events in France

The only thing I am doing is reminding you Believer tap dancers
that the percentage of deportations for French Jewish citizens (as defined by the French government was 5%.
Please stop squirming and try to explain the facts.


David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

And Can you explain the Fact?

Postby David » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:09 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: And we're discussing guidelines and rule for the conduct of these deportations, not the general policy. {snip drivel} Hilberg, just so you know, cites a directive of Dannecker's, issued June 26, 1942, RF-1221….

David, you haven't seen "the actual Rules" yet, without seeing them, you roll your eyes and claim Hilberg is wrong.
Yeah, it's time now, you need to go "read up" on what you've been lecturing us about -


And I was discussing the general policy that led to only 5%
of French Jewish citizens being deported. I was hoping you would offer an explanation from the Believer perspective. None yet.

Yes, I have not seen a copy of RF-1221, which is why I suggested that it would
be a useful indication of German intent. I asked you if you could post a copy.




User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1571
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Balsamo » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:25 am

twice your 5% in two poor posts after all that has been said...

Would you please give more details about where those 5% come from...I usually don't play the number games as it does not matter... As for a copy of RF-1221, as this forum is not a registered public library, if StatMec or anyone else can provide you a copy, that would mean that you can provide it by yourself.
We are on Internet, remember, though i am pretty sure that there are much more books around me while you post from your office or a "cyber café"...

As far as i have read from you, you were not "discussing" anything, just babling your 5 %, wo please, enlight me, what does that mean to you...

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19748
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Believer tap dancing around the 5%

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:30 am

David wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:After all, David - who presumes to lecture us on events in France

The only thing I am doing is reminding you Believer tap dancers
that the percentage of deportations for French Jewish citizens (as defined by the French government was 5%.
Please stop squirming and try to explain the facts.


David, really. Please stop misquoting users. I didn't say that.

See: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=24228&p=422866#p422866
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19748
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: And Can you explain the Fact?

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:36 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: And we're discussing guidelines and rule for the conduct of these deportations, not the general policy. {snip drivel} Hilberg, just so you know, cites a directive of Dannecker's, issued June 26, 1942, RF-1221….

David, you haven't seen "the actual Rules" yet, without seeing them, you roll your eyes and claim Hilberg is wrong.
Yeah, it's time now, you need to go "read up" on what you've been lecturing us about -


And I was discussing the general policy that led to only 5%
of French Jewish citizens being deported. I was hoping you would offer an explanation from the Believer perspective. None yet.

Yes, I have not seen a copy of RF-1221, which is why I suggested that it would
be a useful indication of German intent. I asked you if you could post a copy.





Your "only 5% of French Jewish citizens being deported." still are approximately 16.5% of all French Jewish citizens at that time and approximately 33% of all that were deported. :roll:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Believer tap dancing around the 5%

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:52 am

David wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:After all, David - who presumes to lecture us on events in France

The only thing I am doing is reminding you Believer tap dancers
that the percentage of deportations for French Jewish citizens (as defined by the French government was 5%.
Please stop squirming and try to explain the facts.


You are playing a silly game.

I've explained to you - you only get to the 5% by excluding the foreigners who'd gained citizenship. That is, you get there by chicanery. You set out saying "citizens." And the 25,000 were the citizens. (Klarsfeld spells out this out, and Zuccotti summarizes it. You are free, of course, to keep ignoring facts and continue playing childish games.)

And you're forgetting that my account assumes that the deportations focused on the foreign born and stateless.

Now, get busy answering all the questions you've been dodging.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: And Can you explain the Fact?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:56 am

David wrote:And I was discussing the general policy that led to only 5% of French Jewish citizens being deported. I was hoping you would offer an explanation from the Believer perspective. None yet.

You may {!#%@} disagree with my explanation. You may not {!#%@} like my explanation. You may {!#%@} well not understand my explanation.

But do not try saying I haven't {!#%@} well given one!

I am not going to repeat my explanation or re-summarize it here. Balsamo had no trouble finding it, understanding it, disagreeing with it, and citing reasons for his disagreement.

Why are you so bereft you can't do the same?

(Balsamo will get a reply tomorrow - almost done!)

David wrote:Yes, I have not seen a copy of RF-1221, which is why I suggested that it would be a useful indication of German intent. I asked you if you could post a copy.

And, first, I told you that you have stated an answer without seeing the document needed to get to an answer. You've condemned "Believer" historians without having seen the documents they use. No, I am not doing your work for you. If you want to make a case, {!#%@} make it. But do not keep asking my help.

What would be useful is for you to do your homework before forming firm views and before opening your big mouth.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: And Can you explain the Fact?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:01 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: And we're discussing guidelines and rule for the conduct of these deportations, not the general policy. {snip drivel} Hilberg, just so you know, cites a directive of Dannecker's, issued June 26, 1942, RF-1221….

David, you haven't seen "the actual Rules" yet, without seeing them, you roll your eyes and claim Hilberg is wrong.
Yeah, it's time now, you need to go "read up" on what you've been lecturing us about -


And I was discussing the general policy that led to only 5%
of French Jewish citizens being deported. I was hoping you would offer an explanation from the Believer perspective. None yet.

Yes, I have not seen a copy of RF-1221, which is why I suggested that it would
be a useful indication of German intent. I asked you if you could post a copy.





Your "only 5% of French Jewish citizens being deported." still are approximately 16.5% of all French Jewish citizens at that time and approximately 33% of all that were deported. :roll:

This is correct, and he gets to 5% by changing from non-citizens to foreign born and thus excluding foreign born citizens - as Balsamo says he is both playing a game and saying nothing . Otoh , this thread has explained why Himmler's 1942 order to deport all French Jews was not carried out, the pressures and issues that led the Germans to start with foreign and stateless Jews - with efforts still ongoing in 1944 (NO-1411) to deport all French Jews.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

The 5% and definitions of French citizenship.

Postby David » Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:09 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:You are playing a silly game.

I've explained to you - you only get to the 5% by excluding the foreigners who'd gained citizenship. That is, you get there by chicanery.

You set out saying "citizens." And the 25,000 were the citizens. (Klarsfeld spells out this out, and Zuccotti summarizes it. You are free, of course, to keep ignoring facts and continue playing childish games.)

And you're forgetting that my account assumes that the deportations focused on the foreign born and stateless.

You are very confused, SM. And very defensive. We are discussing the 5% figure. Using the German and French definitions, French
citizens were clearly protected.
End of Story
You are screaming at me regarding the definitions the French and the Germans used to classify people as French citizens. YOU hysterically try and insist that anyone NOT using your definitions of who hold French citizenship circa 1942 is "playing childish games."

You even have the actual numbers and the status of post-1927 citizens confused.
It was shown to you above that only 30% of post-1927 citizens later had their
citizenship revoked. Dishonestly you try conflate who was a citizen in Vichy France to fake the numbers.

It is also worth pointing out that the definition of who was a French citizen was
left in the hands of the French and based on French legislation.

So, using the real definitions of the French Vichy government, please give us the
real figure of French Jewish citizens deported.



David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

25%-20% - 5%

Postby David » Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:19 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:And you're forgetting that my account assumes that the deportations focused on the foreign born and stateless.


I am not forgetting that the deportations focused on the foreign born and stateless. It is your account that is dishonest and confused.

Using the definition of citizenship of the French Vichy government, the Germans deported 25% of Jewish refugees, about 20% of post-1927 citizens, and 5% of
pre-1927 citizens.




David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Lying vs. giving an explanation.

Postby David » Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:30 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:But do not try saying I haven't {!#%@} well given one!

I am not going to repeat my explanation or re-summarize it here.


Lying about who the Vichy government considered a citizen is
NOT an explanation, SM. It is just sneaky. Given what is known about Vichy citizenship policies, it just make you look stupid as well as sneaky.


An explanation is something like,
"The Vichy government wanted to protect its Jewish citizens and the German government deferred to the French." Wrong but logical.

Or "The Germans didn't have enough manpower to arrest Jewish citizens in the
countryside and concentrated only on the big cities where non-citizens were concentrated." Interesting but probably not true.





David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

The Point.

Postby David » Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:41 am

Balsamo wrote:No one here denies that the French Jews – as opposed to the Jews of France – were relatively spared, along with the Belgian Jews (not the Jews of Belgium), the Bulgarian and of course the Danish.
This reality could be a very good subject of debate, because different interpretations and explanations exist but I don’t see how deniers can make a denier’s point out of it.

Hello Balsamo- You are confused about Revisionism. Revisionism
is scientific and rational. It's "points" follow the events.

In this case we have a wide range of Believers who ARE trying to deny the reality of the actual deportation figures by conflating the status of various groups of Jews
in France. I think that most Believers in the thread are Denying "that the French Jews – as opposed to the Jews of France – were relatively spared, along with the Belgian Jews (not the Jews of Belgium), the Bulgarian and of course the Danish."

This is what the actual percentage figures seem to be (depending on the status of
children)
Using the definition of citizenship of the French Vichy government, the Germans deported 25% of Jewish refugees, about 20% of post-1927 citizens, and 5% of
pre-1927 citizens.


User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19748
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:04 am

In this post, all blue font is actually not David's Offtopic blue, but links.



Maybe that's because the other 70 percent of Jewish immigrants to France since 1930 perished.




And what kind of citizen were the French Jewish citizens?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_Fran ... te_on_Jews wrote:On 3 October 1940, the Vichy government voluntarily promulgated the first Statute on Jews, which created a special underclass of French Jewish citizens, and enforced, for the first time in France, racial segregation.[61] The October 1940 Statute excluded Jews from the administration, the armed forces, entertainment, arts, media, and certain professions, such as teaching, law, and medicine...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_Fran ... reality.3F wrote:"French Jews vs. foreign Jews": myth or reality?

Although this claim is rejected by the rest of the French population and by the state itself, another myth remains more widespread than this one. This other myth refers to the alleged "protection" by Vichy of French Jews by "accepting" to collaborate in the deportation—and, ultimately, in the extermination—of foreign Jews.

However, this argument has been rejected by several historians who are specialists of the subject, among them US historian Robert Paxton, who is widely recognized and whose foreign origin permits a more distant and objective judgment on the matter, and historian of the French police Maurice Rajsfus. Both were called on as experts during the Papon trial in the 1990s...




Then what exactly was your problem with the 25% of French Jewish citizens mentioned earlier in the thread?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19748
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:25 am

Btw, David, it seems you missed this post by Statistical Mechanic.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

French evidence vidicates the French Hitler was to blame

Postby David » Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:38 am

Balsamo wrote:As for a copy of RF-1221, as this forum is not a registered public library,

Statistical Mechanic wrote:And, first, I told you that you have stated an answer without seeing the document needed to get to an answer. No, I am not doing your work for you. If you want to make a case, {!#%@} make it.


Gee, thanks guys. BTW, you would post the document so that
everyone can learn what they say, not to help me.

For any normal people following this discussion RF 1221 was one of a series of French produced documents at the Nuremberg Tribunal on days 51 - 53 of the Trial.
They show it was the Germans and NOT the French who wanted to deport Jews living in France. RF-1221 was one of them...
The prosecutor, M. FAURE, summed it all up when said,
I should like to read, if the Tribunal pleases, the first paragraph of this document, which is very revealing, as regards both the collaboration with the transport services and the horrifying mentality of the Nazi authorities.

It is actually hard to get a look at the document submitted to the court.

But of them specifically states that
"Jews of French nationality must be deprived of their nationality before being deported, or at the latest on the day of the deportation itself." if only on the
day of deportation. This document implies that there was an agreement with
the Vichy to protect French Jewish citizens but the agreement was flouted by
cynical Germans.

The documents were only briefly described as they were entered into the Tribunal
record.

One amazing document concerns the deportation of 50,000 Jews from the Vichy area was based on a demand by the amazing Captain Dannecker
"Following my conversation with Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker on 27th June, during which he stated that he needed as soon as possible 50,000 Jews from the free zone for deportation to the East,"
Exhibit RF 1220







David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

How Quickly did Vichy act against Jewish citizens?

Postby David » Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:44 am

scrmbldggs wrote:And what kind of citizen were the French Jewish citizens?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_Fran ... te_on_Jews wrote:On 3 October 1940, the Vichy government voluntarily promulgated the first Statute on Jews, which created a special underclass of French Jewish citizens, and enforced, for the first time in France, racial segregation.[61] The October 1940 Statute excluded Jews from the administration, the armed forces, entertainment, arts, media, and certain professions, such as teaching, law, and medicine...


Hello scrm- You have a wonderful way of provided support for my arguments.
The French argument at Nuremberg was that the Germans were the sole cause
of the deportation of Jews in France. In fact, you have cited evidence showing that
the contrary is significantly true...it was the Vichy French who quickly passed their
own anti-Semitic legislation

David
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

in August 1941, Hitler decided

Postby David » Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:47 am

The war then became "total", and in August 1941, Hitler decided on the "global extermination of all European Jews."

You Believe that, scrm?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19748
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: How Quickly did Vichy act against Jewish citizens?

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:01 am

David wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:And what kind of citizen were the French Jewish citizens?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_Fran ... te_on_Jews wrote:On 3 October 1940, the Vichy government voluntarily promulgated the first Statute on Jews, which created a special underclass of French Jewish citizens, and enforced, for the first time in France, racial segregation.[61] The October 1940 Statute excluded Jews from the administration, the armed forces, entertainment, arts, media, and certain professions, such as teaching, law, and medicine...


Hello scrm- You have a wonderful way of provided support for my arguments.
The French argument at Nuremberg was that the Germans were the sole cause
of the deportation of Jews in France. In fact, you have cited evidence showing that
the contrary is significantly true...it was the Vichy French who quickly passed their
own anti-Semitic legislation


Opportunistic playing along not a cause makes.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26758
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Brainwashing and holocaust deniers.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:16 am

David the absolutely insane holocaust denier wrote: Hello Balsamo- You are confused about Revisionism. Revisionism is scientific and rational.
David looks at a photo of eighteen skulls excavated from Treblinka II and says.......
Golden-Harvest Treblinka skulls.jpg
David the absolutely insane holocaust denier wrote:However I agree that the Germans left human bones from two or three adults at Treblinka II.
You can't even count past three, you complete brainwashed loony.
fingers.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The 5% and definitions of French citizenship.

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:44 am

David wrote:You are very confused, SM. And very defensive. We are discussing the 5% figure. Using the German and French definitions, French
citizens were clearly protected.
End of Story

That's not true, David. We were discussing your claim that
You are conflating non-citizen Jewish refugees from eastern Europe with French/Jewish citizens,
which you also put this way
The fact that 5% of French Jewish citizens were deported says it all
and like this
A very low percentage of French Jewish citizens were deported during the German occupation…around 5%.
When the numbers didn't add up, you changed from non-citizens, as you'd clearly been arguing to
group 3 . . . Citizens from before 1927 and their children
adding into your claim a time element (and grant of citizenship) and thus subtracting a number of foreign-born citizens.

I explained what you were doing here, citing Klarsfeld and Zuccotti and, hoping we could discuss something besides your numbers game, adding
The issue at hand is not a single number that doesn't speak for itself but the question why the French Jews were deported in the numbers, manner, and sequence they were. Again, that requires looking at documents, decisions, police actions, etc, none of which you've so much as mentioned. Also, if you want to generalize about Nazi aims in western Europe, or draw conclusions about the final solution, you need to compare the numbers and processes for different countries, something you refuse to do.

You tried to argue that the French deportations were about Jews being sent back to the East but we've seen that this notion doesn't hold water.

At this point, other than your trying to fool yourself and readers into thinking that a tiny number of people were affected, I really can't piece together what your argument is.

You've not yet dealt with what I wrote last week in that post.

David wrote:You are screaming at me regarding the definitions the French and the Germans used to classify people as French citizens. YOU hysterically try and insist that anyone NOT using your definitions of who hold French citizenship circa 1942 is "playing childish games."

Actually, David, I'm not screaming at you about this. I screamed at you about your claim I hadn't offered an explanation about how the French deportations went down and for your laziness regarding RF-1221, a minor issue at best, by the way.

It isn't my definition I'm insisting upon - in the post linked to above, I actually said you could count in various way - but rather also insisting on honesty, which you're lacking, and transparency, which you don't provide. Basically, I was taking you to task for writing about "French citizens" and then excluding certain French citizens without your being honest that you goofed when you first wrote "French/Jewish citizens" and then kept insisting on that.

David wrote:You even have the actual numbers and the status of post-1927 citizens confused.
It was shown to you above that only 30% of post-1927 citizens later had their
citizenship revoked. Dishonestly you try conflate who was a citizen in Vichy France to fake the numbers.

I can't follow you here at all. Also, please walk us through the revocation, including reminding me where you told us 30% of the citizen grants were revoked (I can't find that . . .). As you've been told, I'm relying on Klarsfeld and Zuccotti. I gave you a summary of the figures. Show me where I'm wrong and stop simply stating I'm wrong.

And, again, I am lost as to where you're going: my view depends on the fact that mostly the foreign-born and stateless Jews in France were deported.

David wrote:So, using the real definitions of the French Vichy government, please give us the real figure of French Jewish citizens deported.

See link above. You should (a) reply directly to what I wrote last week, (b) stop repeating yourself without dealing with earlier posts, and (c) explain how you derive your figures. If you really want to pursue this non-issue further - I say non-issue because my case depends on a very high % of those deported from France being foreign born and stateless Jews, as I've explained now at length.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: 25%-20% - 5%

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:56 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:And you're forgetting that my account assumes that the deportations focused on the foreign born and stateless.


I am not forgetting that the deportations focused on the foreign born and stateless. It is your account that is dishonest and confused.

How so? Saying something is so, over and over, without explaining why it is so, doesn't make it so.

And, do you really understand that I insist mostly foreign-born and stateless Jews were deported from France? You don't seem to.

David wrote:Using the definition of citizenship of the French Vichy government, the Germans deported 25% of Jewish refugees, about 20% of post-1927 citizens, and 5% of pre-1927 citizens.

Well, that's fine - I haven't checked - but it is not what you said in the first place.

Let's get back to (a) my explanation for why the French deportations affected so many foreign-born and stateless Jews, which you've ignored and (b) your claim that the affected Jews
were the target of a weak effort to transport them back to Eastern Europe.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Lying vs. giving an explanation.

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:07 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:But do not try saying I haven't {!#%@} well given one!

I am not going to repeat my explanation or re-summarize it here.


Lying about who the Vichy government considered a citizen is NOT an explanation, SM. It is just sneaky.

In the first place, I didn't lie about which people the Vichy-ites considered Jewish. I didn't directly address the issue, since we were discussing your assertion that "French/Jewish citizens" were barely affected. And so I replied to your claims, clearly stated, as I've described, concerning formal citizenship and not place of birth or timing of grant of citizenship. I used a figure of 25% of the Jews in France being deported and 1/3 of these having French citizenship, because that's what you wrote about - and that's what we were discussing. As to what the French thought, I wrote about
the 8.000 deported children of the foreign born, whom most French considered foreign even though they were in fact citizens,
trying somehow to see how you got to your 5% number, since you wouldn't share your maths with us. In fact, unlike you I spelled out and sourced my data. Nothing sneaky, nothing dishonest.

Second, my explanation isn't restricted to a % (I've said you can look at the number in different ways) but to why the Germans and French wound up agreeing to start with the foreign-born and stateless. That is what you're ignoring in favor of some strange, obsessive "debate" over the % of French citizens affected, a % that only turns out to be 5% if you exclude certain, er, French citizens.

David wrote:An explanation is something like,
"The Vichy government wanted to protect its Jewish citizens and the German government deferred to the French." Wrong but logical.

How about like this?
1) the % of deported French Jews who were not citizens and who were foreign born or had foreign-born parents was very high
2) the Germans wanted to deport all Jews from France regardless of citizenship or other categorization
3) Vichy authorities were eager to expel Jews whom they didn't consider French (including some Jews who had become citizens recently) but, especially early on, were leery about deporting those deemed French
4) "foreign" Jews, whether citizens or not, had few defenders in France, but "French" Jews were integrated into French culture and society and thus public opinion was sensitive about expelling them; in addition, French Jews were supported by long-standing social welfare and other organizations
5) the Germans, albeit with divisions among themselves, adapted their tactics for implementing the final solution in France to French local conditions, settling in 1942-1943 on starting with the expulsion of the easiest target, Jews considered foreign, in the interests of keeping their Vichy partners supportive
6) the German tactics shifted during the course of the war, mindful of retaining the cooperation of French collaborators in a country where they depended on local government, police, and others to implement their policies including racial policy

from this post of mine, which you ignored

Or this?
1. According to David, the German’s goal was to return the eastern Jews to the East - and nothing more, proven, David claims, by the fact that in the end mostly foreign Jews were deported.
2. However, just as the Germans were unable to deport all French Jews by war’s end, they were frustrated in achieving their goal of deporting the 135,000 or so Jews without French citizenship from France. (They deported only about 37% of the foreign Jews by war's end - David can check my math, 50,000 out of 135,000 I believe is 37%). David hasn't stopped to explain why the Germans stopped expelling foreign Jews if their goal was to return these Jews to the East. . . .
4. The evidence shows that the German's various efforts to expel the foreign Jews from France encountered repeated obstacles, some of these the same obstacles in fact that thwarted expulsion from France of all Jews, regardless of nationality and citizenship: French officials like Petain and Bousquet gave limited cooperation, Oberg hesitated as he opted for French political stability at crucial junctures, Dannecker and Eichmann became overly aggressive and caused backlash, reprisal actions and the round-ups repelled large and important strata of the French population, “resistance” efforts aided the Jews (hiding, flight, placements with French families), the Church and the Italians, especially the Italians, sided with the Jews, France's size and terrain were made actions more difficult, the small size of the German police force in France and therefore its dependence on the French made fast, unilateral action against the Jews difficult, besides Italy other Germany's allies and neutral states protected their Jewish nationals in France, etc.

So it is easy to understand that obstacles to the practical implementation of any policy can prevent its full, immediate completion.

David, why if the Germans wished to return the foreign Jews in France to the East were so few actually sent to Poland?

In this case, contrary to David's insinuations, the Germans' inability to complete the French deportations is readily explained, not by David's fantasy of the lack of a policy of ridding France of Jews as part of the final solution, but rather by political, diplomatic, and practical problems that the Germans encountered and that delayed and in the end short-circuited the planned implementation of the final solution. Just as such considerations also prevented completion of phase 1 – the expulsion of the foreign Jews from France. To, as you note, meet their deaths, most of them, in the East.

from another post I made and which you also ignored
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The Point.

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:16 am

David wrote:In this case we have a wide range of Believers who ARE trying to deny the reality of the actual deportation figures by conflating the status of various groups of Jews in France.

In point of fact, we are arguing that the deportations from France affected mainly foreign-born and stateless Jews. But we are trying to bring some rigor and transparency to the data and not posting nonsense like the figures speak for themselves.

David wrote:I think that most Believers in the thread are Denying "that the French Jews – as opposed to the Jews of France – were relatively spared, along with the Belgian Jews (not the Jews of Belgium), the Bulgarian and of course the Danish."

Go back and read my explanation. I explained why most French Jews were not deported - and spelled out not only the factors involved in the decision-making but gave examples of how the decisions were negotiated. You are talking out your ass.

David wrote:This is what the actual percentage figures seem to be (depending on the status of children)

Which point, about the foreign-born children, I raised!

David wrote:Using the definition of citizenship of the French Vichy government, the Germans deported 25% of Jewish refugees, about 20% of post-1927 citizens, and 5% of
pre-1927 citizens.

Blah blah blah - why? Because, as you argued, the Germans and French only wanted to transport the foreign-born Jews back to the East? LOL.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:17 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Btw, David, it seems you missed this post by Statistical Mechanic.

It seems he's missed a lot of posts - and is stuck on "repeat."
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: French evidence vidicates the French Hitler was to blam

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:28 am

David wrote:
Gee, thanks guys. BTW, you would post the document so that everyone can learn what they say, not to help me.

David,

Let me help you out here.

First, you set out arguing that a document you haven't seen doesn't say what Hilberg wrote it says. If you don't see the comedy in that, I can't help you.

Second, this point is extremely minor - nevertheless, I've summarized the document for you and explained why your doubts are based on mistaken premises.

Third, I am not going to type out a minor document that you started whining about when I've summarized and explained it enough that people reading this thread can understand. I am not your typist. I don't have a copy I can post, and I am not going to take the time to type over something so minor.

David wrote:For any normal people following this discussion RF 1221 was one of a series of French produced documents at the Nuremberg Tribunal on days 51 - 53 of the Trial.
They show it was the Germans and NOT the French who wanted to deport Jews living in France. RF-1221 was one of them...
The prosecutor, M. FAURE, summed it all up when said,
I should like to read, if the Tribunal pleases, the first paragraph of this document, which is very revealing, as regards both the collaboration with the transport services and the horrifying mentality of the Nazi authorities.

This is gibberish. What are you trying to say? Yes, the Germans wanted to deport French Jews. But that is seen in RF-1223; RF-1221 is, as I've summarized, where Dannecker gave instructions for how the summer 1942 deportations should be carried out.

David wrote:But of them specifically states that
"Jews of French nationality must be deprived of their nationality before being deported, or at the latest on the day of the deportation itself." if only on the day of deportation. This document implies that there was an agreement with the Vichy to protect French Jewish citizens but the agreement was flouted by
cynical Germans.

There was an agreement between the Germans and the French regarding which Jews should be deported at this time, which I've spelled out in posts above.

David wrote:One amazing document concerns the deportation of 50,000 Jews from the Vichy area was based on a demand by the amazing Captain Dannecker
"Following my conversation with Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker on 27th June, during which he stated that he needed as soon as possible 50,000 Jews from the free zone for deportation to the East,"
Exhibit RF 1220

So what? Are you still trying to demote poor Dannecker with your sarcasm, which, by the way, your sarcastic remark, reveals, as Balsamo has said, that you don't understand how the Germans operated in France and that you haven't understood what's been posted in this thread explaining to you what Dannecker's role was, from where he got his authority, and how the deportations were negotiated.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: How Quickly did Vichy act against Jewish citizens?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:30 am

David wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:And what kind of citizen were the French Jewish citizens?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_Fran ... te_on_Jews wrote:On 3 October 1940, the Vichy government voluntarily promulgated the first Statute on Jews, which created a special underclass of French Jewish citizens, and enforced, for the first time in France, racial segregation.[61] The October 1940 Statute excluded Jews from the administration, the armed forces, entertainment, arts, media, and certain professions, such as teaching, law, and medicine...


Hello scrm- You have a wonderful way of provided support for my arguments.
The French argument at Nuremberg was that the Germans were the sole cause
of the deportation of Jews in France. In fact, you have cited evidence showing that
the contrary is significantly true...it was the Vichy French who quickly passed their
own anti-Semitic legislation

David, please, stop being stupid. No one here denies that Vichy was anti-semitic, willingly and on its own passed anti-semitic laws, and collaborated with the Germans. We are discussing how the deportations, starting in 1942, were planned and carried out. That Vichy was taking actions against Jews in 1940 doesn't really explain the topic, deportations in 1942.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:33 am

Balsamo, a quick reply, best I can do trying to deal with so many posts where David repeats himself:
Balsamo wrote:There were just no legal authorities that could have ordered and organized such a transfer – outside judicial processes.  The RKV authority will only be expanded in February (?) 1942.  And as you say, plans already existed, since early 1941.

But those plans were different - preceding the final solution, in the sense I’m using the term, by about a year.

Balsamo wrote:Which is paradoxically I have problem with the Longerich quote you posted, at least as a proof the cohesion of a pan-European plan to deal with the Jewish question the same way in all German zones of influence, even though the plan would have to be adapted under the circumstances.

Here are some points in Longerich’s passage that shouldn’t be overlooked:
1) the explanation was made by Heydrich, head of the RSHA (on which more below) to the prime minister of Slovakia - this speaks in part to the question you raise about levels at which policies were propounded,
2) Heydrich referred to actions that were in planning in April (some of which had begun and others that weree to begin in the coming months); the start of these deportations came in a relatively narrow time band (within months) in France, Slovakia, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Protectorate, and the Reich,*
3) during this period France got a quota of 100,000 to be deported along with those deported from the other countries,
4) many of the transports were directed to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and
5) Himmler’s order regarding French Jews, cited in the Dannecker-Eichmann note (RF-1223, July 1942) also dates from this same period, the order itself from 23 June 1942.

Balsamo wrote:I am not sure that I am up to the task to express my understanding of things in a foreign language and in a concise manner.  So where should I start?

You wouldn’t want me to try this in French, believe me!

Balsamo wrote:It is a fact that a project to “evacuate” all the Jews from France – at some point in a future – existed as early as January 1941.  Christopher Browning mentions an “Endlösungprojekt” drafted by Dannecker, approved by both the military and the foreign office in Paris (Abetz), the plan will be endorsed by Heydrich in a letter to Luther. (page 200).

I understand this to be something very different to what was going on in 1942 - and, in early 1941, speculative. For one thing, Barbarossa was in the future.

Browning includes the point that not only is the deportation something contemplated for the future but this “later total solution” would involve, it was hoped, “deportation to a territory to be determined in the future.” This expressed intention, lethal and repugnant though it may be, is different to ongoing deportations as part of specific plans, albeit evolving and imperfect, to identified places, such as Izbica, Auschwitz, Maly Trostinets, and so on. Recall that in France arrests of foreign born and stateless Jews had indeed been underway since 1940, with Jews intermed in camps (“reception” or “sojourn” camps per Vichy) for months at a time, well before the 1942 deportation regime (this program involved, also, three deportation steps - roundup, internment in France, and transport to the East, again, to identified sites in the East, not vague territories to be selected in the future. You know I argue, too, that the fates awaiting would-be deportees in 1941 and actual deportees in 1942 and after were different. (Many of these early internees later filled the trains sent to the East during the final solution.) Additionally, by 1942, but not in early 1941, the war with the Soviet Union was well on - and the police units, Wehrmacht, Waffen SS, and local collaborators had been exterminating masses of Jews throughout former USSR territory.

Balsamo wrote:It is what I call a perfect consensus even if on a theoretical plan as – as I said – there were still no legal authority to execute it.  Note that it was not submitted to the French as far as I know. Still why this consensus that will not be found the following year?  Probably because of the nature of the plan which was “total dejudaization” of France through “deportation to a territory to be determined in the future”.  A typical expression of the “Final Solution how it was thought between 1939 and early 1941”, still full of theories, inspired by those times strong belief into a German victory.

But, as noted, with different contours from those of the final solution by 1942.

Balsamo wrote:Basically the consensus was limited to the pre-war concept of the final solution, and there were no impetus to push the policy to mass murder, nothing to make external parties closing their eyes easily.

Yet Himmler ordered deportation of all French Jews in 1942 - noted in RF-1223 as follows
As per the order of the Reichsfuehrer SS (addressed to the office IV B5 by the head of Service IV on 23 June 1942), all Jews residing in France must be deported as soon as possible -

and, then in 1944, trying to get things back on course (with the southern part of the country and Italy more or less sorted out), Knochen and Brunner issued a deportation directive (NO-1411) specifying
“1. Jews to be arrested
a. All persons who are Jews within the meaning of the law are to be arrested . . .

The consensus, which in France embraced Eichmann’s men, the HSSPF, and the German embassy, was not restricted to the FS of 1941, as you spell it out, but acted to achieve the Hitler-Himmler goal of the elimination of the Jews - foreign and national - by sending the Jews to Auschwitz and other such places, selecting some for labor of course, the impetus for this coming from the top but also from RSHA officials stationed in the western countries, operating under orders from the RSHA. (apologies for the long sentence, I’ve been thinking of Faulkner lately!)

Balsamo wrote:The main question still is : were those attempts because of an official Reich policy or not?  

I’m not sure I grasp the significance of this sentence. In the first place, these were not merely attempts - 25% of the Jews of France were deported, all but a few 1000s dying in the East (or in French internment camps); 75% of Dutch Jews would perish; a similar percentage of the Jews of Slovakia; 40% of the Jews of Belgium, most of them foreign born, died in the Holocaust; and most of the Reich Jews deported after 1941 died in the East. Second, this policy was executed by the RSHA, subservient to Himmler, who reported directly to Hitler.

Balsamo wrote:why did Hitler waited three years to extend the authority of the RKV?

The key agency was Himmler’s RSHA, with Amt IV (Gestapo) IV-B (Eichmann’s office) playing an important role, as described in ”Treblinka II - was it a trasnit camp? Eichmann placed his men in the western and southern European countries, where they worked with other Reich agencies and officials as well as local authorities, to organize round-ups and transports, deporting, as we’ve seen, significant numbers of Jews from these countries and trying to get at even larger numbers of them. Special SS squads like Alois Brunner’s were also sent in as needed (Vienna, France - where he ruled at Drancy, Salonika, Slovakia) to carry out the deportations. In France, Ambassador Abetz was frequently involved in the planning and in negotiations with the French, applying pressure to move things along. We also know from been-there’s belly-flop with Luther’s office and his “famous” memo that the foreign office played a role in working with foreign governments to extract Jews and get them to the East.

Balsamo wrote:Why did Himmler not receive a “Fuhrer Befehl” similar to what he got in the east which gave him a full power over all authorities (civilians as well as military) in the west?

Himmler did not have full power in the East. Ask, well if you could, Albert Forster Gauleiter and Reichstatthalter of Danzig-West Prussia. Himmler had to take into account and arrange affairs with the civil officials and the Wehrmacht in the East. That said, in the west and in southern Europe, the countries of which were ruled differently to those of the East, and not on account of the Jews, Himmler’s forces were empowered to act on the Jewish question - and did so with Jewish experts, local collaborators, police and government officials, etc, working with the differing situations as best they could (Belgium’s military government, as you note, under von Falkenhausen and Reeder; Axis ally Slovakia; the military administration in northern France and Vichy in the south; Mussolini’s officials where the Italians were in power; and in the Netherlands Seyss-Inquart’s occupation authority. Given this variety, Himmler’s apparatus was not deployed in a uniform way across Europe.

Balsamo wrote:all the elements of the Final Solution 39-41

But in both Belgium and France, the authorities went beyond this. The organizing agency was the RSHA, but, as we’ve seen in the example of France, Eichmann’s men had to and did coorindate with other German offices and with locals.

Balsamo wrote:Among those questions, who among the multitude of actors needed to deport thousands of people were in the known of the true destination of those transports?

Again, you will have to explain the significance you see in this. Certainly, those with the need to know in the RSHA, as well as the Transport Ministry, were aware of where deportees were being taken. Himmler ordered the deportations and, as we know, even visited some of the camps, at which his men were stationed and which agencies within his apparatus managed.

—————————

* The first deportations from the Reich and Protectorate came, as Longerich summarized for us, in mid-October 1941; from Slovakia, in March 1942 (as was the case with France); the Netherlands, in July 1942; Slovakia, and Belgium, in July and August 1942. The first transport going directly to Auschwitz from the Greater Reich traveled from Vienna in mid-July.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:36 am

Has anyone noticed that David's fanciful claims always rely on a belief he holds but which he refuses to support with evidence - for which he won't even discuss the question of evidence? - Malikinia, TII transit role, Dannecker's role in Paris, Soviet chicanery and fabrications, the fate of the deported Austrian Jews, and so on.

Anyway, this belongs in this thread, updated: direct questions about the Final Solution in France which David has ignored (there are 31 questions I've counted in a thread consisting of just 78 posts - say 60 without David's posts, which means that David ignores about a question every other post, which frustrates and undermines our attempt to understand his claims as well as to have a coherent dialogue):

Give an explanation of what happened to French Jews and provide evidence -explain how the deportations came about, what the goals of the deportations were, who ordered and who conducted the deportations, public and officials' reactions, the Jewish response, the methods used, the destinations to which deportees were taken - etc etc - none of which is apparent from reading the figures, that 1/4 of the Jews of French were deported between 1942 and 1944, (Balsamo, me)

Explain the significance of your claim that only 5% of French Jews were deported (me)

If the authorities were not interested in deporting Jews with French citizenship, why were 1/3 of those deported French citizens? (me)

What is your evidence for the Nazis not wanting to deport those 25,000 Jews with French citizenship whom they did deport? (me)

Why, in your view, were any of those deported citizens if the actions were aimed only at the foreign born? (me)

How can you maintain a straight face at this point - having started in arguing that the deportations were only returning Jews to the East - when we now see that about 25,000 of those deported were French citizens and a sizable number of the non-citizens were refugees from Germany, Austria, Belgium, and Luxembourg - and not from the East at all?!?!? (me)

David wrote:*One Believer explanation that keeps popping up is that "Hitler was waiting to win the War to deal with French Jews."
Did I provide this explanation? Whom are you quoting? Please provide a citation. (me)

it is incumbent on David, if he disagrees with Hilberg, to tell us how and provide for us the basis for his objections. (me)

What does "long established" mean to you, David? Is it possible they were citizens?(scrmbldggs)

Do you still maintain that a) the 5% figure speaks for itself, b) the only German goal was weak idea of returning Eastern Jews to the East, and c) Holocaust historians make only arguments such as Hitler wanted to wait until the end of the war to deal with French Jews? (me)

What % of those rounded up in summer 1942 - in Paris and in the unoccupied south - in the two actions I discussed were not Jewish? What % of non-Jewish foreigners were in the transports of the summer of 1942? Tell us again - whom did the Germans want on those transports, and who was on those transports? (And how do you know?) (me)

Do you seriously think Captains don’t make operational decisions? (me)

I've given you a citation to the document which Hilberg used. You've already declared him mistaken. Tell us how he is mistaken . . . (me)

David, using your "interpretive" framework - the Germans were only interested in sending Eastern Jews back home, the 5% figure speaks for itself, French politics and public opinion apparently were not considered in German tactics and actions - how do you explain what I've boldfaced - and then, please, the rest of Zuccotti's discussion of this roundup? (me)

Why do you keep ignoring Hilberg's discussion of what the sources say about German intentions and negotiations with the French?(me)

David wrote:From what Ousby writes, there seem to have been exemptions for people married to
non-Jews, pregnant women, nursing mothers, age limits of between 19-40 (originally) and several other limitations on who would/could be deported.
Why would Lt. Dannecker put that in his Order?
David, please have the courtesy to provide a page number and some explanation. I am not engaging, blindfolded, in a game of darts with you. What does Ousby write, pray tell? (me)

Why on god's green earth wouldn't the head of the Judenreferat in Paris be issuing guidance on how Jewish operations were to be carried out? (me)

David, are the ones in bold the ones deported back to their homeland?
David wrote:While about 70 percent of Jewish immigrants to France since 1930 perished, the losses drop to about 5 percent of the Jews long-established in France.(scrmbdlggs)

Ok, David, share with us your sources that show these scholars [Cesarini, Wildt, Safrian] to be wrong – tell us your evidence for Dannecker’s role and why you think that the Germans didn’t go ahead with their stated aim, deporting all the Jews from France. Let’s have it. (me)

Oh, and David, are you still claiming Jews in France were being returned home to the East? Tell us, who was being sent eastward – and to where in the East were Jews being sent? (me)

I guess that around 150.000 people were deported from France, half of them were Jews. The difference is that if the death rate among the “Nacht und Nebel” was at 50%, this rate raised to 97% for the deported Jews – deported AS Jews.
It would be a good thing if David could clarify its positions and hypothesis. (Balsamo)

I am not quite sure what David means by his question - what is it that he wonders about Dannecker putting in the Richtlinien? - but it would be hard to contemplate the Nazis' preparing for the July roundups without having put in place some rules of the road, and doing so was Dannecker's responsibility. (me)

David, why if the Germans wished to return the foreign Jews in France to the East were so few actually sent to Poland? (me)

Would you please give more details about where those 5% come from (Balsamo)

As far as i have read from you, you were not "discussing" anything, just babling your 5 %, wo please, enlight me, what does that mean to you... (Balsamo)

Then what exactly was your problem with the 25% of French Jewish citizens mentioned earlier in the thread? (scrmbldggs)

I explained what you were doing here, citing Klarsfeld and Zuccotti and, hoping we could discuss something besides your numbers game, adding
The issue at hand is not a single number that doesn't speak for itself but the question why the French Jews were deported in the numbers, manner, and sequence they were. Again, that requires looking at documents, decisions, police actions, etc, none of which you've so much as mentioned. Also, if you want to generalize about Nazi aims in western Europe, or draw conclusions about the final solution, you need to compare the numbers and processes for different countries, something you refuse to do.
You tried to argue that the French deportations were about Jews being sent back to the East but we've seen that this notion doesn't hold water.
At this point, other than your trying to fool yourself and readers into thinking that a tiny number of people were affected, I really can't piece together what your argument is.

You've not yet dealt with what I wrote last week in that post. (me)

I can't follow you here at all. Also, please walk us through the revocation, including reminding me where you told us 30% of the citizen grants were revoked (I can't find that . . .) (me)

And, do you really understand that I insist mostly foreign-born and stateless Jews were deported from France? You don't seem to. (me)

David wrote:An explanation is something like,
"The Vichy government wanted to protect its Jewish citizens and the German government deferred to the French." Wrong but logical.
How about like this? < two summaries snipped > (me)

David wrote:Using the definition of citizenship of the French Vichy government, the Germans deported 25% of Jewish refugees, about 20% of post-1927 citizens, and 5% of
pre-1927 citizens.
Blah blah blah - why? Because, as you argued, the Germans and French only wanted to transport the foreign-born Jews back to the East? (me)

For discussion with him to be productive of anything, David needs at the very least to reply to what he's been asked. His persistent lack of response causes confusion, as noted a number of times by Balsamo, as to David's claims and the basis for them; leads to repetition as David re-states positions without taking into account arguments made against them; and has the revisionist position shot full of holes as it apparently lacks answers to key questions about what happened and about how revisionists explain what happened. Also, this pattern of dodging makes David appear cowardly as well as ill-informed.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19748
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:53 pm

While it seems David mostly prefers to load up this forum with unsubstantiated claims and statements in support of his cause, here he appears to claim that the purpose of those deportations was merely to rid France of unwanted Jews (unwanted by the French themselves, of course) and the few true French Jewish citizens™ that got caught up in the mix, did so on behalf of their own, traitorous behavior.

So, what all this was about is that the nice Nazis committed to help (kicking and screaming) the awful French to clean up their country at their own behest.

Can you not see, and have you no heart for those poor Savior Saints? And their valiant defender.


The French wanted them gone, so the Germans "took them to a farm" in the East. That simple.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17318
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: France '42-'44: La Grande Rafle & beyond

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:10 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:While it seems David mostly prefers to load up this forum with unsubstantiated claims and statements in support of his cause, here he appears to claim that the purpose of those deportations was merely to rid France of unwanted Jews (unwanted by the French themselves, of course) and the few true French Jewish citizens™ that got caught up in the mix, did so on behalf of their own, traitorous behavior.

So, what all this was about is that the nice Nazis committed to help (kicking and screaming) the awful French to clean up their country at their own behest.

Can you not see, and have you no heart for those poor Savior Saints? And their valiant defender.


The French wanted them gone, so the Germans "took them to a farm" in the East. That simple.

And that is as good a guess as any about what David is trying to allege . . .

Of course, your saying the Bad Jews from the East were helped back to farms in their homelands is your own creative license. For all we know from David they might have gone back to Maly Trostinets, well, that was a country estate, so kind of a farm . . . back to Lodz, maybe . . . or perhaps back to Moscow or Murmansk, Molotov-Perm or Miami. Or Gorki. I just don't know.

David is so silent on where the Bad Jews from the East were taken when they went back to their homes in the East that it is impossible to guess where he thinks they turned up . . . we should note, again, that the Bad Jews from the East included, in David's view, those Bad Jews who had come to France from the not-East of Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, etc . . . also, David fails to offer a single clue as to what happened to the Bad, Unwanted Jews when they got back home . . . although we can be pretty sure from his tone and lack of worry about this issue that nothing really bad happened . . .
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: istellabot [Bot], OutOfBreath and 1 guest