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

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

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

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Aug 31, 2014 10:51 pm

Into threads on different topics David has "conveniently" inserted the matter of the deportation of Jews from France during the war years. For example, David posted this in the thread on Central European Jews:
David wrote:
Consistency is not a Believer thing.
Here we have SM claiming that, " the policy of fall 1941 (deportation to occupied territory)
and claiming that the Germans were "wiping out by far most of the Baltic Jews by the end of 1941."

Statistical Mechanic wrote: by the end of 1941.
Statistical Mechanic wrote:This isn't the "MOST IMPORTANT DETAIL" - and, of course, the reason I "fail to tell"

Besides the fact that most Austrian Jews had left the Reich by the end of 1941, we have . . . 5% or so of French/Jewish citizens being deported . . . so much for your "European-wide program to exterminate 'the Jews'"
So, I understand why you "fail to tell." You don't have a clue how your Tale really worked, or the date policy changes (allegedly) were made, or even by whom the policy changes were made. . . .

I gave David no more than very quick replies to his viewpoint on the deportations from France here and here, but we didn't explore this issue, given that the thread in which David brought up French Jews is devoted to answering what happened to Jews deported from Central Europe and to watching David twist and squirm to avoid answering that question, just as the Treblinka Transit thread is meant to get into evidence for resettlement through Treblinka and to watch David twist and squirm to avoid addressing that claim.

This new thread is meant to rectify the situation with France, our having only briefly touched on the subject. Just as I've opened a resoundingly unpopular thread on another of David's attempted obfuscations - the development of Third Reich Jewish policy - I am opening what will likely be another shunned thread to discuss the complex issue of anti-Jewish actions in France.

Here is where David and other scientists of revisionism get to explain why and under what conditions Jews were deported from France, how those deportations were carried out and why, where the Jews deported from France were taken, and what happened to the deportees when they arrived at their destinations - and, as always, how revisionists know about these deportations, their conduct, and their consequences, namely, what evidence supports the revisionist case regarding expulsions of Jews from France.
. . . 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
iwh
Poster
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

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

Postby iwh » Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:13 pm

Damn...I spent 3 weeks in France this summer and was indeed looking at some books on the Holocaust in Occupied and Vichy France. Unfortunately the rest of the family decided that the money should be spent elsewhere!!

;)
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
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 » Tue Sep 09, 2014 4:07 pm

David is apparently more comfortable repeating his dishonest catch-phrases about Treblinka than engaging on the subjects he has introduced when maneuvering to dodge questions about his case for resettlement: nothing from him on this post, for example, viewtopic.php?f=39&t=24205#p421477.

And nothing at all from David on central European transports (which he introduced to escape the dead end he'd run into on Treblinka), on western European transports (ditto), on Slovakia or Greece (which Balsamo and I thought pertinent to the Nazi Jewish policy tangents David tried using to escape his problems with Treblinka), or on Nazi Jewish policy in general.
. . . 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

res ipsa loquitur

Postby David » Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:27 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: David's attempted obfuscations


What are you babbling about? You are the one claiming there
was a secret plan to kill all European Jews (unless you deviated from the catechism)

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% (although inflationists like Mark Lilla strain to
exaggerate the figure all the way up to 11%)


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?



User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: res ipsa loquitur

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:59 pm

David wrote:The figures speak for themselves

No, they don't. They require analysis and explanation. One useful method to assess events and developments is to use comparisons. Instead of hand-waving the problems away, please tell us why the death tolls in France, the Netherlands, and Slovakia differed. You can include Belgium and Italy, even the Scandinavian countries. I've told you why I think death tolls differed. It's your turn.

David wrote:A very low percentage of French Jewish citizens were deported during the German occupation…around 5% (although inflationists like Mark Lilla strain toexaggerate the figure all the way up to 11%)

Stop repeating yourself - start explaining what happened.

David wrote: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've already given you explanations, at a high level - again, I am asking you now, it's your turn.
. . . 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

They require "explanation" and tap dancing.

Postby David » Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:31 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:David wrote:
The figures speak for themselves

No, they don't. They require analysis and explanation.


The figures do "speak for themselves." But you just
don't like what they say…so, after throwing the gauntlet down regarding the
French, you are trying to tap dance off to other subjects.


User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: They require "explanation" and tap dancing.

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:46 am

David wrote:The figures do "speak for themselves." But you just don't like what they say…

What in god's name are you going on about? The figures speak for themselves, you say.

Yet . . .

1) you haven't explained 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

2) one third of those deported were not foreign born, non-citizens

3) greater %'s of Jews were deported from other countries where, you also claim, there was no extermination policy

4) the timing of deportations varied from country to country - for reasons you don't give us

5) the French deportations ran from 1942 through 1944 - you don't tell us anything about why, where from, etc chronological list of French transports here

David, frankly, you are embarrassing yourself. "25% of the Jews of France were deported from the country to the East during WWII" is not an explanation; it is an observation. I've explained why country to country differences emerged, within a continent-wide extermination program; you haven't. Simple. If you don't want to, fine. But, as is so often the case, you're squandering your opportunity to convince readers.

For your information, the data on French deportations sits well in the explanatory framework I've laid out for you in various threads and links.

David wrote:so, after throwing the gauntlet down regarding the French, you are trying to tap dance off to other subjects.

You're a {!#%@} idiot: you want people to believe that I'm trying to tap dance off to other subjects - by reminding you that you'd ignored my OP, as I did in this post, trying to get discussion on the revisionist position on these, and comparable, deportations going. Please,
[h]ere is where David and other scientists of revisionism get to explain why and under what conditions Jews were deported from France, how those deportations were carried out and why, where the Jews deported from France were taken, and what happened to the deportees when they arrived at their destinations - and, as always, how revisionists know about these deportations, their conduct, and their consequences, namely, what evidence supports the revisionist case regarding expulsions of Jews from France.

You first brought up the deportations from France (to obfuscate discussion of resettlement), now it's time for you to explain your thinking about these deportations, put them into context, answer the questions I asked you about the deportations, and give us your evidence.
. . . 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

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

Postby David » Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:16 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:25% of the Jews of France were deported from the country to the East during WWII" is not an explanation; it is an observation.


You sure talk a lot, SM, without saying anything.
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."

But let's dissect your claim "25% of the Jews of France were deported.."
I 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."

But maybe not, so care to tell us your definition of "the Jews of France?"
Does it include recent refugees from Austria, Germany, Poland, etc?


User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
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 11, 2014 9:54 am

David wrote:The fact that 5% of French Jewish citizens were deported says it all.

Well, it does not say it all and it certainly doesn't imply that I am a
slithery Believer who needs to come up with an "explanation,"
which, when given, you complain is overly lengthy! LOL

What does the deportation of 25% of the Jews in France, 1/3 of these citizens, say, David? I've told you - and will tell you more now, but you've told us nada, just that the Nazis didn't deport as many Jews from France as they wished to.

David wrote:But let's dissect your claim "25% of the Jews of France were deported.."
I think you are a stupid clown who is caught trying to conflate French Jewish citizens

Allow me to quote an earlier post I made:
one third of those deported were not foreign born, non-citizens.
Therefore, 3/4 of those deported were non-citizens. How am I conflating by spelling out what was done?

David wrote:with non-French Jewish refugees under the rubric "the Jews of France."

No, "the Jews of France" refers to Jews living in France at the time, and 25% (76,000 out of around 350,000) were deported. Are you denying that?

Of that 76,000 deported, just over 25,000 were French citizens. You also wrote of the deportation of the foreign-born Jews from France that
were the target of a weak effort to transport them back to Eastern Europe.
Among the difficulties with you attempt to rationalize and minimize what was attempted in France is this small problem with your claim: of the non-citizens, as you should know,
Many of these individuals were refugees who had fled Nazi persecution in the Third Reich; Jews and other endangered persons fleeing oppression in German-occupied Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands soon joined them in the summer of 1940.

The deportation of Jews from France was not, as you tried passing off,
a weak effort to transport them back to Eastern Europe
but rather an attempt to expel Jews, wherever they came from, starting with the foreign-born for reasons described earlier, from France and to take them to the camps which the Nazis had established eastern Europe. The first transport was in
March 1942 [when] some 1,000 Jews were arrested and sent to the Compiègne detention camp, from where they were deported to Auschwitz. The transports took two days to arrive at their destination. Most of those who were still alive at the end of the jou[r]ney were murdered.

Spelling this out for you is hardly conflation. I want to remind you of something else I wrote about the distinction between Jews who were French citizens and the foreign-born, non-citizens:
David, you're the one who tried making some fundamental point about citizenship of French Jews. I replied to you that the issue of citizenship was tactical and political; from an ethical point of view, my friend, it matters not a whit that the Jews murdered were mainly non-citizens or citizens. In either case, they were people killed because they were Jews.

Finally, you are building an argument about Nazi Jewish policy, even within France, around a single data point: "only" 5% of Jews who were citizens were deported from France. But your argument ignores the following:

- the citizens make up 1/3 of those deported - and, if the Nazis meant no malice toward French Jews who were citizens, and were only "repatriating" eastern Jews, why were 1/3 of those deported French Jews?

- this request remains unanswered:
you haven't explained 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,
in fact you've been completely silence on the development of policy and how it was implemented in France

- your argument lacks any comparative dimension, and I've suggested cases you need to take into account if you're trying to argue that the Nazis were engaged in only removing small numbers of foreign-born Jews from various countries to return these people to their homes in the East (Slovakia, Greece, the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium and the countries of Scandinavia

- you don't deal with the chronology in the least, not one word on the fact that the French deportations ran from 1942 through 1944

- you don't tell us one thing about where these people - French citizens, emigrants from Eastern Europe, refugees from Nazi Germany and Austria, war refugees from Belgium and Luxemburg, even Jews from Greece - were deported to

So, no, I am no conflating anything, yes, I am saying a LOT more than you but it is all important to understanding what happened in France and what your pals the Nazis were up to, and, finally, no, a single data point does not say it all - your "5%" needs to be dissected, analyzed, compared, and explained.

David wrote:But maybe not, so care to tell us your definition of "the Jews of France?"
Does it include recent refugees from Austria, Germany, Poland, etc?

See above, where I also explained patiently that the term embraces all Jews living in France, whether citizens or not, since citizens and non-citizens were deported, and showed how your argument that the deportations were only sending Jews
back to the East
is bogus in that many of the foreign-born were, as you say now,
recent refugees from Austria, Germany
and one-third of those deported were French citizens.

You're free, of course, to repeat yourself some more, but I've put a bit on the table, beyond your single fact, that requires explanation. If you choose to repeat yourself and not explain anything, you weaken your case more and add to your by-now lengthy record of dodging. Your choice, friend.
. . . 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 legal status of Jews in France 1940.

Postby David » Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:38 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:No, "the Jews of France" refers to Jews living in France at the time, and 25% (76,000 out of around 350,000) were deported.


Statistical Mechanic wrote:you've told us nada, just that the Nazis didn't deport as many Jews from France as they wished to.
[/color]

25%? You are claiming that 76,000 is 25% of 350,000?
:shock:
Anyway, since the issue involves math and and understanding of legal status of
"the Jews of France," let's break it down step by step and see how it works out.

When France came under occupation by Nazi Germany in June 1940, there were about 350,000 Jews living in France, less than half of them with French citizenship; the others being foreigners, mostly exiles from Germany during the 1930s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... rld_War_II

Of the 150,000 Jewish French citizens, about 30,000, generally native from Central Europe, had been naturalized French citizens during the 1930s. ibid.
In July 1940 a government set up a committee to review 500,000 naturalisations given since 1927.

To understand understand the deportation figures one really needs to understand the status of the various groups of Jews in France.
1. Refugees and emigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe
2. Recent Citizen whose status was under legal review by the French government
3. Citizens from before 1927 and their children.

I believe that individuals in group 3 were pretty much exempt from deportation with
around 5% being deported.
Individuals in Group 1 suffered the brunt of deportations, as high as 35%

Ian Ousby (Occupation) gives the figure of 6,000 French Jews being stripped of their citizenship by the above mentioned Committee and I have not been able to find deportation figures specific to group 3 (and their children).

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. This dishonesty usually
accompanied by weak math skills as we have seen with SM.


*One Believer explanation that keeps popping up is that "Hitler was waiting to win the War to deal with French Jews." 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.



User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The legal status of Jews in France 1940.

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:32 pm

David wrote:25%? You are claiming that 76,000 is 25% of 350,000?

:oops: Oops. Brain fade: I should have written 20%. Thanks for catching my silly maths!

David wrote:I believe that individuals in group 3 were pretty much exempt from deportation with
around 5% being deported.

So, as you can now agree, the "5%" doesn't speak for itself.

"Pretty much exempt," by the way, doesn't square with about 25,000 being deported.

More importantly, we need to understand not simply the result but also the goals, the planning, and the course of the action that led to the result. You need to explain how the roundups and deportations were planned and executed. You've avoided any discussion of these factors.

You need also to be clear: of the 75,000+ deported, about 25,000+ were, according to the USHMM, French citizens (please check my maths - this is 1/3, right?). This is a standard estimate and is given here:
German authorities reinstituted transports of Jews from France in January 1943 and continued the deportations until August 1944. In all, some 77,000 Jews living on French territory perished in concentration camps and killing centers -- the overwhelming majority of them at Auschwitz -- or died in detention on French soil. One third of these victims were French citizens.

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

Racial laws in France - passed in both the occupied part and Vichy - defined Jews and placed many of the usual, under the Third Reich, restrictions on them. The Wiki article you linked to explains the roundups and deportations:
The first roundup of Jews took place on 14 May 1941, involving 4,000 foreign Jews. Another roundup took place on 20 August 1941, involving both French and foreign Jews, who were sent to the Drancy internment camp and other concentration camps in France. Roundups continued, involving lawyers, French nationals, and other professionals. On 12 December 1941, the most distinguished members of the Paris Jewish community, including doctors, academics, scientists and writers, were rounded up. On 29 May 1942, the Eighth Ordinance was published which ordered Jews to wear the yellow star. The most notorious roundup was the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup, which required detailed planning and the use of the full resources of French police forces. This roundup took place on 16 and 17 July 1942 and involved nearly 13,000 Jews, 7,000 of which, including over 4,000 children, were packed and locked into the Vélodrome d'Hiver.[40]

In the meantime, deportations from France to death camps commenced, the first one taking place on 27 March 1942. Deportations would continue until 17 August 1944, by which time nearly 76,000 Jews (including those from Vichy France) were deported, of which only 2,500 survived. (see Timeline of deportations of French Jews to death camps.) The majority of Jews deported were non-French Jews.[38]

Explaining all this is not a matter of repeating "5% of citizens" or "the figures speak for themselves."

David wrote:I have not been able to find deportation figures specific to group 3 (and their children).

See above - and below.

David wrote: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. This dishonesty usually accompanied by weak math skills as we have seen with SM.

My goof in giving the % doesn't change the absolute numbers, David, which show about 25,000 Jews with French citizenship being deported and about 50,000 non-citizens. Or the issue - or the problem with what you are arguing.

I haven't conflated anything - I have been trying to get you to do what you're now finally, after futzing around for a week or so, doing - that is, to discuss all the Jews involved and not a single data point - that is, the total population of about 350,000 Jews in France, of whom 75,000+ were deported, about 25,000 of these citizens of France. What's going on, in fact, is that you've been trying to bury this detail by waving around "5%"!

What is your evidence for the Nazis not wanting to deport those 25,000 Jews with French citizenship whom they did deport? Why, in your view, were any of those deported citizens if the actions were aimed only at the foreign born?

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?!?!?

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.

David wrote: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.

I don't believe I've attributed anything to what was going on in Hitler's mind. Please quote where I have. And, again, we've seen how useless it is for you to keep repeating that 5% of the French Jewish citizens were deported - when 1/3 of those deported were citizens, when Jewish laws affected all Jews including French citizens and Jews born in France, when higher %'s of Jews were deported from other European countries, etc.

We have further difficulties, of course, because your 5% non-citizens and my 25,000 citizens deported don't match. I am guessing that the problem is that your figure is really about foreign-born Jews, whether citizens or not, and mine included foreign-born, declared or naturalized Jews.

Looking at those deported, one source (Klarsfeld) gives the following, differing slightly from the numbers I've been quoting (mine from USHMM):

- 24,500 French Jews deported; 56,500 foreign Jews deported (estimating 80,000+ deportees, of which 30% were French) - of the 24,500 French, 8,000 were naturalized citizens and 8,000 were children whose foreign parents declared them citizens at birth - that is, 30% of those deported being defined as French citizens (but not all of them born in France or children of French natives)

But counted a different way . . . putting the 8.000 deported children of the foreign born, whom most French considered foreign even though they were in fact citizens . . . you get this picture:

- 16,500 French Jews; 64,500 foreign Jews - that is, 25% of the total deported being defined as French (this is probably the breakdown you're working with as the 16,500 figure rounds to 5% of the total number of Jews in France)

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.
. . . 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: 19776
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 11, 2014 10:13 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:16,500 French Jews; 64,500 foreign Jews - that is, 25% of the total deported being defined as French (this is probably the breakdown you're working with as the 16,500 figure rounds to 5% of the total number of Jews in France)

There. Nothing wrong with your math at all, StatMech... just a little erratum earlier. Don't we all...


Very unlike intentional baffling waffling. (Hey, that would make a good custom title :-P)
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:10 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:16,500 French Jews; 64,500 foreign Jews - that is, 25% of the total deported being defined as French (this is probably the breakdown you're working with as the 16,500 figure rounds to 5% of the total number of Jews in France)

There. Nothing wrong with your math at all, StatMech... just a little erratum earlier. Don't we all...
Very unlike intentional baffling waffling. (Hey, that would make a good custom title :-P)

I think I introduced something I recalled - 25% or so Jews of France deported and killed - into the mix. The source was undoubtedly Zuccotti's essay in Berenbaum & Peck, The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed and Reexamined, which begins
Nearly 76% of Jews of France survived the Holocaust
and goes on to use the Klarsfeld data cited above. Oh well, I admit to goofing.
. . . 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: 17390
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:18 am

Let’s focus on the famous Paris roundups and deportations, July 1942: “12,884 Jews who were stateless ‘etc.’ in the capital” were rounded up. (Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, volume 2, p 678) These Jews were held for a short while at internment camps, then deported to Auschwitz.

David:
The figures speak for themselves. . . . The figures do "speak for themselves."   But you just  don't like what they say…
As readers know, I explained that in addition to figures, the following need to be understood:
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
and
we need to understand not simply the result but also the goals, the planning, and the course of the action that led to the result. You need to explain how the roundups and deportations were planned and executed.

In addition, I told David that meaningful discussion of the “facts” needs to consider phasing and chronology as well as the
comparative dimension

and I suggested some comparative cases, including the Netherlands and Belgium, cases David has been ignoring.

Let’s look a little more closely at David’s nearly know-nothing stance that figures speak for themselves and the Paris action of July 1942 - his fantasy that all we need to know is that 12,000-13,000 stateless and foreign born Jews were deported at that time - and, presto, we understand German Jewish policy in France. And let’s consider 2 other points David has made:
1) in France, the Germans were only interested in returning Jews from the East back to the East
2) “Holocaust Believers” say that the
the Nazis didn't deport as many Jews from France as they wished to. . . One Believer explanation that keeps popping up is  that "Hitler was waiting to win the War to deal with French Jews." 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.

Here, on the other hand, is how an actual Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg, explains the July 1942 Paris action, the numbers and composition of victims, and the aftermath and next steps, free of David’s caricature and addressing the issues I told David needed discussion if we are to understand what happened (all quotations from Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, volume 2 unless otherwise noted):

Hilberg (p 675) explained the planning that prepared the way for the major deportations from the capital:
The major transport program was locked into a directive signed by the Reichsbahn’s chief of operations, Leibbrand, on June 23, 1942. Ninety thousand Jewish deportees from France, Belgium, and Holland were covered by the order. The French quota as 40,000, including 35,000 from Paris, 1,000 from Rouen, 1,000 from Nancy, 1,000 from Dijon, and 2,000 from Bourdeaux. . . .It would be desirable, said Leibbrand, to begin on July 13 with six or seven trains carrying 1,000 persons each week.

Hilberg discussed the rules set out by German authorities for the deportations and population groups intended to be involved, and his research shows a very different picture to David’s distortions (p 676):
On June 26, 1942, Dannecker drew up a set of rules (Richtlinien) for the deportation of the French Jews. He fixed the age limits at 16-45 and decided that the deportations could embrace Jews of French nationality as well as those ‘stateless’ Jews who were not effectively protected by a foreign power.

According to Hilberg (p 676), the small German force in France was dependent on French collaborators for implementation of its policies - Vichy officials and especially the French police:
for the majority of the undertaking of conducting the seizures the SS men had to draw upon the French police.

Negotiations between the Germans and French authorities paved the way for the deportations but also had an impact on their pace and how they would be carried out (p 677):
To secure the cooperation of the French police, BdS Standartenfuhrer Knochen stepped into the office of Chief of the French Government Pierre Laval and informed him that the German government had decided to deport every Jewish man, woman, and child living in France. No distinction was going to be made between the Jews of French nationality and others. . . . Laval thereupon interceded with Higher SS and Police Leader Oberg to save the situation.

Oberg made a compromise proposal. If the French police would cooperate in the operation, the seizures would be confined for the moment to stateless Jews. ‘The trains are ready,’ explained the SS man. ‘They have to be filled at any price. The Jewish problem has no frontiers for us.’ . . . Oberg then offered assurance that the Jews were being sent to Poland, where a ‘Jewish state’ would be set up for them.

Laval now had to make a ‘rapid decision.’ He decided to save the French nationals and involve the police in the roundup. . . .

As a result of this planning, and the agreements reached, 4,500 French policemen in mid-July went after
27,388 foreign Jews of specific ages, who were either stateless or from the Third Reich, Poland, or the Soviet Union. Included also were their children under sixteen, even if French born.

(Susan Zuccotti, “Surviving the Holocaust: The Situation in France,” in Berenbaum & Peck, eds., The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed and Reexamined, p 495)

Fewer than 13,000 Jews were successfully seized and eventually deported from France, the large majority of them foreign-born, stateless Jews.

The Germans also pressed, as detailed by Hilberg, for deportations that summer from the southern, unoccupied zone (pp 679-681):
As early as June 27, 1942, Hauptsturmfuhrer Dannecker mentioned in a conversation with Legationsrat Zeitschel that he would need 50,000 Jews from the Vichy zone ‘as soon as possible.’ Zeitschel communicated the matter immediately to Ambassador Abetz and Gesandtschaftsrat Rahn. The diplomats and SS men now joined forces to apply the necessary pressure. . . .Not much pressure was needed. Laval declared himself ready to hand over the foreign Jews from the unoccupied zone and proposed that the Germans also ‘take along the children under sixteen. The Germans were elated. They were also surprised. . . . [In early August] Leguay informed Darquier de Pellepois about dates of the forthcoming deportations from both zones. Still targeted were the foreign Jews, and the first to be moved out were those already interned, including the children left behind in the camps after their parents had been placed on earlier transports. [In mid-August, the] Germans then stated [to Leguay] that, as had already been made clear to Laval, this was a question of a ‘permanent Aktion’, which would eventually have to include the Jews of French nationality.

Starting in late August, large-scale raids in the unoccupied part of France were carried out, in an
effort to seize other foreign Jews eligible for expulsion. About 6,700 people were arrested. . . . Between August 28 and September 5, 5,259 were delivered to the Germans at Drancy. . . . By the end of October, the number rose to 6,392. . . . Most victims waited only briefly at Drancy, before . . . trains carried them east to Auschwitz.

(Susan Zuccotti, “Surviving the Holocaust: The Situation in France,” in Berenbaum & Peck, eds., The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed and Reexamined, p 498)

Hilberg also related how German goals were being frustrated by the French political situation and how the Germans came to a temporary compromise, for the immediate period, in order to continue deportations from France, ensure the willing cooperation of French collaborators, and continue to find ways to achieve their long-term goals with regard to the Jews (pp 685-686):
During an RSHA conference of Jewish experts in Berlin on August 28, 1942, the remark was dropped that other countries were ahead of France in ‘final solution’ matters and that the French sector would have to catch up. A few days later Untersturmfuhrer Ahnert sent Oberg a compilation of figures which revealed that up to September 2, a total of 18,000 Jews had been deported from the occupied zone and 9,000 from the unoccupied area. Although operations were to be stepped up in September, said Ahnert, the Germans faced an obvious difficulty in the French insistence upon a distinction between the French and foreign Jews. It would therefore be necessary to effect at least a French revocation of naturalizations granted to Jews after 1933.

During the following weeks, BdS Knochen talked to French Police Chief Bousquet and to Premier Laval about the possible concentration of the Jews of French nationality. The talks were unsuccessful. Petain was opposed to the deportation of French Jews. . . . Higher SS and Police Leader Oberg then informed Himmler of the situation. Himmler, backing down, agreed that for the time being no Jews of French nationality were to be deported.

On every count, Hilberg’s research shows the poverty of David’s evidence and explanations.

I think it is incumbent on David at this point to re-explain the positions he’s stated and I’ve summarized above in the light of Hilberg’s account of the summer 1942 deportations from France. Also, it is incumbent on David, if he disagrees with Hilberg, to tell us how and provide for us the basis for his objections.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:28 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

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

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

Postby David » Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:26 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:"Pretty much exempt," by the way, doesn't square with about 25,000 being deported.


I think you are are wrong that 25,000 French citizens were deported.
Depending on what happened to the 6,000 Jews stripped of their
French citizenship, only 6,000 French Jewish citizens (Group 3 were deported.)
In fact, it seems as if most of the recent citizens from Central Europe were not
denaturalized or deported. That would mean 17% of citizens were deported
as opposed to 25% for refugees.

The USHMM starts the process out by "rounding up" the numbers deported to 77,000.
It probably classifies the Jews stripped of their citizenship as "citizens" too...
to fake the numbers but that still only gets the figure up to 10%.
The highest percentage I have ever heard claimed was 11% by Robert Paxton...and
he is notorious Inflationist. The 5% figure was established in trials after the War
but I have to go look up the cites.



User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 3:30 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:"Pretty much exempt," by the way, doesn't square with about 25,000 being deported.


I think you are are wrong that 25,000 French citizens were deported.
Depending on what happened to the 6,000 Jews stripped of their
French citizenship, only 6,000 French Jewish citizens (Group 3 were deported.)
In fact, it seems as if most of the recent citizens from Central Europe were not
denaturalized or deported. That would mean 17% of citizens were deported
as opposed to 25% for refugees.

The USHMM starts the process out by "rounding up" the numbers deported to 77,000.
It probably classifies the Jews stripped of their citizenship as "citizens" too...
to fake the numbers but that still only gets the figure up to 10%.
The highest percentage I have ever heard claimed was 11% by Robert Paxton...and
he is notorious Inflationist. The 5% figure was established in trials after the War
but I have to go look up the cites.



David, read my whole post, I explain what I think is the confusion over the 25,000 figure, it depends on how you define "French" and whether you count every Jew who was a French citizen or exclude the 8000 children of the foreign born, whom most French considered foreign even though they were in fact citizens . . . It is a question of definition not "inflation," especially since my understanding is that the French and Germans essentially made a temporary compromise that targeted the foreign born first of all - even as the Germans sought to (and did) widen the net eventually. The 5% however doesn't match the letter of your limiter - non-citizens.
. . . 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

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

Postby David » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:09 am


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. See Laurent Joly, Vichy dans la "Solution finale": Histoire du commissariat général aux Questions Juives (1941–1944) (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 2006), p. 848.

New York Review of Books

Volume 53, Number 18 · November 16, 2006
Review
The Jew Hater
By Robert O. Paxton

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19776
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:37 am

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. See Laurent Joly, Vichy dans la "Solution finale": Histoire du commissariat général aux Questions Juives (1941–1944) (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 2006), p. 848.

New York Review of Books

Volume 53, Number 18 · November 16, 2006
Review
The Jew Hater
By Robert O. Paxton

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

Statistical Mechanic wrote:16,500 French Jews; 64,500 foreign Jews - that is, 25% of the total deported being defined as French (this is probably the breakdown you're working with as the 16,500 figure rounds to 5% of the total number of Jews in France)
(my bold)
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

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

5% of Citizens deported

Postby David » Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:49 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:The 5% however doesn't match the letter of your limiter - non-citizens.


Again, you are confused. Being a French citizen gave protection to Jewish citizens but the Germans deported many French citizens, Communists,
smugglers, spys, various enemies. Just look at the deportations of
Resistance fighters.

Estimates of the casualties among the Résistance are made harder by the dispersion of movements at least until D-Day, but credible estimates start from 8,000 dead in action, 25,000 shot and several tens of thousands deported, of whom 27,000 died in death camps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Res ... casualties
So, I am assuming that French Jews behaved like other French citizens if not with
a greater involvement in anti-Nazi activities.

Again it looks like you are conflating reasons WHY people would have been deported.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19776
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: 5% of Citizens deported

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:14 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:The 5% however doesn't match the letter of your limiter - non-citizens.


Again, you are confused. Being a French citizen gave protection to Jewish citizens but the Germans deported many French citizens, Communists,
smugglers, spys, various enemies. Just look at the deportations of
Resistance fighters.

Estimates of the casualties among the Résistance are made harder by the dispersion of movements at least until D-Day, but credible estimates start from 8,000 dead in action, 25,000 shot and several tens of thousands deported, of whom 27,000 died in death camps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Res ... casualties
So, I am assuming that French Jews behaved like other French citizens if not with
a greater involvement in anti-Nazi activities.

Again it looks like you are conflating reasons WHY people would have been deported.

wikipedia wrote:The Statute on Jews, which legally redefined French Jews as a non-French lower class, deprived them of citizenship.[75][76] According to Philippe Pétain's chief of staff, "Germany was not at the origin of the anti-Jewish legislation of Vichy. That legislation was spontaneous and autonomous."[77] The laws led to confiscations of property, arrests and deportations to concentration camps.[78] As a result of the fate promised them by Vichy and the Germans, Jews were over-represented at all levels of the French Résistance. Studies show that although Jews in France constituted only 1% of the French population, they comprised ~ 15-20% of the Résistance.[79] Among these were many Jewish émigrés, such as Hungarian artists and writers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance#Jews

And you, David, would find that surprising? Or even despicable? That those whose very lives were threatened would fight back? And that number does not say all of the the 15-20% were French citizens.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Lt. Dannecker sets the Rules?

Postby David » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:24 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Hilberg discussed the rules set out by German authorities for the deportations and population groups intended to be involved, and his research shows a very different picture to David’s distortions (p 676):
On June 26, 1942, Dannecker drew up a set of rules (Richtlinien) for the deportation of the French Jews. He fixed the age limits at 16-45 and decided that the deportations could embrace Jews of French nationality as well as those ‘stateless’ Jews who were not effectively protected by a foreign power.


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

Or he might have been a SS Hauptsturmführer, the equivalent of a Army captain. dixit Wikipedia.
And this is the guy Hilberg claims was the "German authorities" who set the rules for deportations? Or are you conflating again, SM?

Anyway, it looks absurd to claim that a First Lt. or a Captain is setting policies.
But that is the Believer Tale. :roll: :roll:

I don't have time right now, but SM (or Hilberg) overlook several important exclusions in the German rules.

I rush to say that I need to rely on Ian Ousby again on this since I have
never seen the actual Rules. If that" real Holocaust Scholar" Hilberg included a
copy, it would be much appreciated if you could post it.

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

Re: 5% of Citizens deported

Postby David » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:28 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:The 5% however doesn't match the letter of your limiter - non-citizens.


Again, you are confused. Being a French citizen gave protection to Jewish citizens but the Germans deported many French citizens, Communists,
smugglers, spys, various enemies. Just look at the deportations of
Resistance fighters.

Estimates of the casualties among the Résistance are made harder by the dispersion of movements at least until D-Day, but credible estimates start from 8,000 dead in action, 25,000 shot and several tens of thousands deported, of whom 27,000 died in death camps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Res ... casualties
So, I am assuming that French Jews behaved like other French citizens if not with
a greater involvement in anti-Nazi activities.


Again it looks like you are conflating reasons WHY people would have been deported.

wikipedia wrote:The Statute on Jews, which legally redefined French Jews as a non-French lower class, deprived them of citizenship.[75][76] According to Philippe Pétain's chief of staff, "Germany was not at the origin of the anti-Jewish legislation of Vichy. That legislation was spontaneous and autonomous."[77] The laws led to confiscations of property, arrests and deportations to concentration camps.[78] As a result of the fate promised them by Vichy and the Germans, Jews were over-represented at all levels of the French Résistance. Studies show that although Jews in France constituted only 1% of the French population, they comprised ~ 15-20% of the Résistance.[79] Among these were many Jewish émigrés, such as Hungarian artists and writers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance#Jews

And you, David, would find that surprising? Or even despicable? That those whose very lives were threatened would fight back? And that number does not say all of the the 15-20% were French citizens.


Hello scrm- You are slobbering on the screen. Maybe that is
what kept you from reading what I wrote above?

"I am assuming that French Jews behaved like other French citizens [b][u]if not with
a greater involvement in anti-Nazi activities."
But thank you for providing further evidence in support of my position

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19776
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: 5% of Citizens deported

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:10 am

David wrote:...

"I am assuming that French Jews behaved like other French citizens [b][u]if not with
a greater involvement in anti-Nazi activities."
But thank you for providing further evidence in support of my position

Facts are facts, no matter how they might be misused by some, David.


As to:
David wrote:So, I am assuming that French Jews behaved like other French citizens if not with
a greater involvement in anti-Nazi activities.

Again it looks like you are conflating reasons WHY people would have been deported.



b) Their self and national defense was not the reason Jews were deported to extermination and/or hard labor.
a) Jews had very good reason for their actions. A reason provided by those they defended against.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19776
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:31 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Hilberg discussed the rules set out by German authorities for the deportations and population groups intended to be involved, and his research shows a very different picture to David’s distortions (p 676):
On June 26, 1942, Dannecker drew up a set of rules (Richtlinien) for the deportation of the French Jews. He fixed the age limits at 16-45 and decided that the deportations could embrace Jews of French nationality as well as those ‘stateless’ Jews who were not effectively protected by a foreign power.


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

Or he might have been a SS Hauptsturmführer, the equivalent of a Army captain. dixit Wikipedia.
And this is the guy Hilberg claims was the "German authorities" who set the rules for deportations? Or are you conflating again, SM?

Anyway, it looks absurd to claim that a First Lt. or a Captain is setting policies.
But that is the Believer Tale. :roll: :roll:

I don't have time right now, but SM (or Hilberg) overlook several important exclusions in the German rules.

I rush to say that I need to rely on Ian Ousby again on this since I have
never seen the actual Rules. If that" real Holocaust Scholar" Hilberg included a
copy, it would be much appreciated if you could post it.


Theodor Dannecker, the SS captain who commanded the German police in France, said: "This filing system subdivided it into files alphabetically classed, Jews with French nationality and foreign Jews having files of different colours, and the files were also classed, according to profession, nationality and street." These files were then handed to section IV J of the Gestapo, in charge of the "Jewish problem."
...
What became known as the "Vel' d'Hiv Roundup" was to be more important. To plan it, René Bousquet, secretary-general of the national police, and Louis Darquier de Pellepoix, head of "Jewish Matters", traveled on 4 July 1942 to Gestapo headquarters to meet Dannecker and Helmut Knochen of the SS. A further meeting took place in Dannecker's office in the avenue Foch on 7 July. Also present were Jean Leguay, Bousquet's deputy, Jean François[4] who was director of the general police, Émile Hennequin, the head of Paris police, André Tulard, and others from the French police.

Dannecker met Adolf Eichmann on 10 July 1942, and another meeting took place the same day at the General Commission for Jewish Issues (CGQJ) attended by Dannecker, Heinz Röthke, Ernst Heinrichsohn, Jean Leguay, Gallien, deputy to Darquier de Pellepoix (head of the CGQJ), several police officials and representatives of the French railway service, the SNCF. The roundup was delayed because the Germans wanted to avoid holding it before Bastille Day on 14 July. The national holiday was not celebrated in the occupied zone but there was a wish to avoid civil uprisings.

Dannecker declared: "The French police, despite a few considerations of pure form, have only to carry out orders!"[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vel%27_d%2 ... he_roundup
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:36 am

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. See Laurent Joly, Vichy dans la "Solution finale": Histoire du commissariat général aux Questions Juives (1941–1944) (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 2006), p. 848.

New York Review of Books

Volume 53, Number 18 · November 16, 2006
Review
The Jew Hater
By Robert O. Paxton

I gave you my explanation, with details and ways to look at the question differently.

You're playing semantic games. Earlier you wrote of citizenship: you claimed
5% or so of French/Jewish citizens being deported
and
A very low percentage of French Jewish citizens were deported during the German occupation…around 5%.

Now you shift from Jewish French citizens to
5 percent of the Jews long-established in France,
ignoring the fact that some French Jewish citizens in the 1940s had been granted citizenship fairly recently.

Did you imagine we wouldn't notice your attempted deceit?

The safest conclusions, based on Hilberg, Klarsfeld, Paxton, Zuccotti, and, as we shall see in coming days, others, are that:
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

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?
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:29 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: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: 5% of Citizens deported

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:45 am

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:The 5% however doesn't match the letter of your limiter - non-citizens.


Again, you are confused.

No, I am frightfully clear, and referring to details using good secondary sources, while you're now introducing a different, but related, issue – and ignoring the sources I’m referencing.

David wrote:Being a French citizen gave protection to Jewish citizens but the Germans deported many French citizens, Communists, smugglers, spys, various enemies. Just look at the deportations of
Resistance fighters.

I'm well aware of these things, and requests like Stulpnagel's made in 1941 concerning reprisal victims (a request granted by Hitler); it's just that a) we're discussing the deportations and composition of transports of Jews and b) French citizens were included on those transports, because they were Jewish (although the Germans found pretexts for arresting Jews - minor infractions and so forth).

What % of those rounded up in summer 1942 - in Paris and in the unoccupied south - in the two actions I discussed were not Jewish?

Looking at your attempt to muddy the waters another way, let's consider your argument again that all that the Germans and Vichy were up to was returning Jews - including German, Austrian, Belgium, French, etc! Jews - to the East. Hilberg estimates 310,000 Jews were living in France early in the war (others estimate as many as 350,000; Zuccotti had 330,000). According to Zuccotti, about 135,000 of these people were foreigners. But if the chief German goal here was simply returning foreigners to their homes, as you try putting across, and not "dealing with the Jews," what about the bulk of the foreigners in France? There were, after all, at this time about 2,450,000 foreigners living in France - 7% of the total population (Zuccotti, page 492). 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?)

David wrote:Again it looks like you are conflating reasons WHY people would have been deported.

David, what it looks like - and what you're doing - is that you're trying to confuse the issue - AND ignore the argument I posted, which includes material on the Germans' goals concerning Jews in France.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:32 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: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Lt. Dannecker sets the Rules?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:09 am

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?

Don't try confusing policy and goals with tactical, implementation decisions.

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

Who cares? Address what I wrote. Hilberg, in what I quoted in my post, describes Dannecker at the time as a Hauptsturmfuhrer, which is equivalent to Captain in the Wehrmacht IIRC. (Wikipedia gives Dannecker the same rank). Do you seriously think Captains don’t make operational decisions?

David wrote: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."

And this is the guy Hilberg claims was the "German authorities" who set the rules for deportations? Or are you conflating again, SM?

Dannecker was a captain. And we're discussing guidelines and rule for the conduct of these deportations, not the general policy. David, it seems that you are unfamiliar with how the Germans operated, includingwhat their command structure was like, as well as unwilling to engage with the sources. You're incredulous, based on your misunderstanding of the way the SS operated, fine; but tell us, please on what besides your own idea of absurdity do you disagree with Hilberg. What is your evidence that Dannecker did not establish guidelines for particular roundups? Hilberg, just so you know, cites a directive of Dannecker's, issued June 26, 1942, RF-1221. Tell us about this document, what it says, and why Hilberg is wrong about it.

Anyway, it looks absurd to claim that a First Lt. or a Captain is setting policies.
But that is the Believer Tale. :roll: :roll:

Deal with the document mentioned above, as well as how the SS operated in France, unless you mistake rolling your eyes for an evidence-based argument. At this point, you've given us nothing but attempts to confuse the data, tangents to divert from the problems with your claims, and now incredulity based on your own ignorance.

I don't have time right now, but SM (or Hilberg) overlook several important exclusions in the German rules.

You seem to have time to blow smoke out your ass and post nonsense. I won't be holding my breath for you to come up with anything meaningful.

I rush to say that I need to rely on Ian Ousby again on this since I have never seen the actual Rules. If that" real Holocaust Scholar" Hilberg included a copy, it would be much appreciated if you could post it.

David, you haven't seen "the actual Rules" yet, without seeing them, you roll your eyes and claim Hilberg is wrong. Now you want me to help you with your homework. Stop trolling and posting diversionary blether. I've given you a citation to the document which Hilberg used. You've already declared him mistaken. Tell us how he is mistaken - without begging for my help, you nitwit.

Yeah, it's time now, you need to go "read up" on what you've been lecturing us about - 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: 17390
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:36 am

One more: On page 495 of her essay (cited above) Zuccotti writes about roundups of Jews in Paris that took place in early February 1943, carried out by the French police:
French police initiated a raid quite apart from any Nazi order, to arrest enough foreign Jews to replace citizens reportedly about the be deported to Auschwitz from Drancy. The police combed Jewish hospitals, old age homes, children’s centers, and orphanages, seizing 1,549 young and old foreigners hitherto exempt from arrest because of their ages. Of the raid and effort to protect French Jews, SS Colonel Helmut Knochen, chief of the Reich Central Security Office (RSHA) in France, cynically reported, ‘Obviously both categories of Jews will be deported in this case.’ That is, of course, exactly what happened.

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?
. . . 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

Lt. Dannecker Order...also missing?

Postby David » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:59 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
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. See Laurent Joly, Vichy dans la "Solution finale": Histoire du commissariat général aux Questions Juives (1941–1944) (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 2006), p. 848.

New York Review of Books

Volume 53, Number 18 · November 16, 2006
Review
The Jew Hater
By Robert O. Paxton

I gave you my explanation, with details and ways to look at the question differently.

You're playing semantic games. Earlier you wrote of citizenship: you claimed
5% or so of French/Jewish citizens being deported
and
A very low percentage of French Jewish citizens were deported during the German occupation…around 5%.

Now you shift from Jewish French citizens to
5 percent of the Jews long-established in France,
ignoring the fact that some French Jewish citizens in the 1940s had been granted citizenship fairly recently.

Did you imagine we wouldn't notice your attempted deceit?

Hello, my poor SM. You are such a dork. (again) The language is from the quote, a footnote to the article by Paxton. I have stated the details relating to pre-1927 citizenship, post-1927 citizenship, and non-citizenship. I am assuming that the quote is trying to deal with the post-1927 citizenship issue. In fact, the
quote makes citizenship less important and time in France more important.


Of course, I understand how frustrating it is to try and suss out what really
was going on but but blame that on your Believer experts who conflate the
differences between citizens and non-citizens.

Of course the German Deportation Regulations would help clarify that matter.
Any luck in finding this key documentary evidence? (Key unless you happen
to stumble onto the missing "Hitler Order, that is)

Lt. Dannecker's Orders to various French officials and German officials must have gone out to all groups involved in the deportations. Surely one of your "real Holocaust scholars" must have reproduced and translated this document. Right?

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.

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

Let's past the Blame

Postby David » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:25 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:how do you explain what I've boldfaced
Of the raid and effort to protect French Jews, SS Colonel Helmut Knochen, chief of the Reich Central Security Office (RSHA) in France, cynically reported, ‘Obviously both categories of Jews will be deported in this case.’


I would first ask Why is his statement "cynical?"
What was he cynical about? Deporting old people and young people (who were foreigners but otherwise exempt?) or "protecting French Jews (i.e.. citizens)

What were the "both categories of Jews?" Is it young Dannecker's Order that
the Colonel is flouting?
I am sorry but I can't tell from your quote.

What is the evidence of Knochen even
"cynically reported" anything.? That might help us discuss.


User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:38 pm

David wrote:I am assuming that the quote is trying to deal with the post-1927 citizenship issue. In fact, the quote makes citizenship less important and time in France more important.

Yes, it does - which is contrary to your original claims. Right?

In either case, you seem to be missing the main point of what I told you: the deportations started with and focused, for the reasons I adduced, on Jews considered by the Vichy authorities to be "foreigners."

Why do you keep ignoring Hilberg's discussion of what the sources say about German intentions and negotiations with the French? Oh, I remember why: it is fatal to your whole confusing shtick.


David wrote:Of course, I understand how frustrating it is to try and suss out what really
was going on but but blame that on your Believer experts who conflate the
differences between citizens and non-citizens.

Asked and answered. Stop lying about what I've written.

David wrote:Of course the German Deportation Regulations would help clarify that matter. Any luck in finding this key documentary evidence?

David, this is a loser for you.
1) Unaware of Dannecker's instructions, you trashed - rolling your eyes - what Hilberg wrote about them.
2) You then realized you should see the document which Hilberg used, because you look like an idiot trashing something you don't know anything about.
3) You then ask me for a copy of the document?!?!?!?
4) I tell you to {!#%@} yourself, you made a criticism of Hilberg, it's your job to back it up.
5) Except I'm a nice guy, so I clued you in to Hilberg's footnote.

So you've exposed yourself as someone who shoots his mouth off without knowing what he's talking about, as a person whose fixed beliefs rather than research into the evidence drives what he thinks, and an individual too lazy to do his own work.

David wrote:Lt. Dannecker's Orders to various French officials and German officials must have gone out to all groups involved in the deportations. Surely one of your "real Holocaust scholars" must have reproduced and translated this document. Right?

David, what grade did you complete? That is not how scholarly work is done. Scholars do research, often in many archives. They take notes, they copy verbiage, they analyze and think about the documents, etc. They then write interpretations of the evidence, based on a wide range of documents. Sometimes, for illustrative purposes, they reproduce a particularly important or interesting document in their publications. But, by and large, they don't. Think about it: Hilberg's Destruction, without extensive reproduction of documents, runs something like 1300 pages - it contains over 4700 footnotes, many of them containing references to multiple documents, some of those documents running dozens or more pages long. So your expectation, which is irrational, is that "real Holocaust scholars" will publish books that reproduce perhaps 10,000 documents, which could run 50,000 to 100,000 pages! You are simply barking mad, as well as pig-ignorant.

Look, you decided without seeing the document that Hilberg was full of {!#%@}: now it is your problem. Prove that he got the document from Dannecker wrong. It's not my claim - and it's not my error to fix. You don't think Hilberg got this right: give us evidence for your belief.

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.

No, you're not asking because you're confused. You're asking, first, because you don't know (but were dumb enough to state a firm opinion); second, because your case falls apart, you think, if Dannecker gave such instructions (you're not aware of how deeply flawed your case is and how much evidence, including evidence from people more senior than Dannecker, there is against it, so you've fixated on Dannecker; and, third, because you don't understand what Hilberg wrote or what is in the Richtlinien (e.g., you don't know that Hilberg cites instructions on what deportees could bring with them, outfitting of freight cars, provisions for guards); and, last, because you don't know anything, as you admitted in an earlier post, about Dannecker, his role, or how the Germans operated in France.

David, googling around the Internets to find something, anything to save your shredded claims is not doing history.

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? Let me leave you with this, since you stumbled over it: Dannecker's role was head of the Judenreferat in Paris. That's section IV-B-4, largely under the instructions of Eichmann. (Dannecker was party to some of the high level negotations between the Germans - with RSHA chief SS Colonel Knochen and HSSPF Carl Oberg - and the French, including Vichy police chief Rene Bousquet. 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?
. . . 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: 19776
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:43 pm

David wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
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. See Laurent Joly, Vichy dans la "Solution finale": Histoire du commissariat général aux Questions Juives (1941–1944) (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 2006), p. 848.

New York Review of Books

Volume 53, Number 18 · November 16, 2006
Review
The Jew Hater
By Robert O. Paxton

I gave you my explanation, with details and ways to look at the question differently.

You're playing semantic games. Earlier you wrote of citizenship: you claimed
5% or so of French/Jewish citizens being deported
and
A very low percentage of French Jewish citizens were deported during the German occupation…around 5%.

Now you shift from Jewish French citizens to
5 percent of the Jews long-established in France,
ignoring the fact that some French Jewish citizens in the 1940s had been granted citizenship fairly recently.

Did you imagine we wouldn't notice your attempted deceit?

Hello, my poor SM. You are such a dork. (again) The language is from the quote, a footnote to the article by Paxton. I have stated the details relating to pre-1927 citizenship, post-1927 citizenship, and non-citizenship. I am assuming that the quote is trying to deal with the post-1927 citizenship issue. In fact, the
quote makes citizenship less important and time in France more important.


Of course, I understand how frustrating it is to try and suss out what really
was going on but but blame that on your Believer experts who conflate the
differences between citizens and non-citizens.

Of course the German Deportation Regulations would help clarify that matter.
Any luck in finding this key documentary evidence? (Key unless you happen
to stumble onto the missing "Hitler Order, that is)

Lt. Cpt. Dannecker's (the SS captain who commanded the German police in France) Orders to various French officials and German officials must have gone out to all groups involved in the deportations. Surely one of your "real Holocaust scholars" must have reproduced and translated this document. Right?

I am asking because there seems to be confusion over what young Lt. Cpt. Dannecker's (the SS captain who commanded the German police in France) Orders really ordered. Did the young man really issue a carte blanche to round up all Jews French citizens. Seems amazing to me.

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?




FTFY (Smaller italics mine)

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.


And since it seems you have missed it, considering you think Dannecker was a Lt. and of no position to have any power or influence, I'll re-post this for ya:

Theodor Dannecker, the SS captain who commanded the German police in France, said: "This filing system subdivided it into files alphabetically classed, Jews with French nationality and foreign Jews having files of different colours, and the files were also classed, according to profession, nationality and street." These files were then handed to section IV J of the Gestapo, in charge of the "Jewish problem."
...
What became known as the "Vel' d'Hiv Roundup" was to be more important. To plan it, René Bousquet, secretary-general of the national police, and Louis Darquier de Pellepoix, head of "Jewish Matters", traveled on 4 July 1942 to Gestapo headquarters to meet Dannecker and Helmut Knochen of the SS. A further meeting took place in Dannecker's office in the avenue Foch on 7 July. Also present were Jean Leguay, Bousquet's deputy, Jean François[4] who was director of the general police, Émile Hennequin, the head of Paris police, André Tulard, and others from the French police.

Dannecker met Adolf Eichmann on 10 July 1942, and another meeting took place the same day at the General Commission for Jewish Issues (CGQJ) attended by Dannecker, Heinz Röthke, Ernst Heinrichsohn, Jean Leguay, Gallien, deputy to Darquier de Pellepoix (head of the CGQJ), several police officials and representatives of the French railway service, the SNCF. The roundup was delayed because the Germans wanted to avoid holding it before Bastille Day on 14 July. The national holiday was not celebrated in the occupied zone but there was a wish to avoid civil uprisings.

Dannecker declared: "The French police, despite a few considerations of pure form, have only to carry out orders!"[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vel%27_d%2 ... he_roundup[/quote]


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.

Initially. To appease those they needed for their plans. Alas, things changed in the course of time. Here's a small sample of how things were done in reality:

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]

Although the police have been blamed for rounding up children of less than 16 – the age was set to preserve a fiction that workers were needed in the east – the order was given by Pétain's minister, Pierre Laval, supposedly as a "humanitarian" measure to keep families together. This too was a fiction, given that the parents of these children had already been deported, and documents of the period have revealed that the anti-semitic Laval's principal concern was what to do with Jewish children once their parents had been deported. The youngest child sent to Auschwitz under Laval's orders was 18 months old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vel%27_d%27Hiv_Roundup
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:51 pm, edited 4 times in total.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Let's past the Blame

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:44 pm

David wrote:I would first ask Why is his statement "cynical?"

So your explanation of the quotation is to ask questions about it? LOL

David wrote:What was he cynical about? Deporting old people and young people (who were foreigners but otherwise exempt?) or "protecting French Jews (i.e.. citizens)

David, I don't think you understand how this works.

I asked you a question.

If you can't answer, say so. But, please, don't make an ass of yourself by asking my help!

David wrote:What were the "both categories of Jews?" Is it young Dannecker's Order that
the Colonel is flouting?
I am sorry but I can't tell from your quote.

Ok, that is a good answer: you're dumb.
Dannecker's Richtlinien, by the way, were issued in late June 1942, as you've been told, in preparation for the famous July roundup in Paris; this passage, as I told you, concerns a different action, one in February 1943.

You have Dannecker on the brain! You must be more rattled than even I thought - I thought you were terribly rattled.
. . . 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: 17390
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:29 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:. . . Dannecker's role was head of the Judenreferat in Paris. That's section IV-B-4, largely under the instructions of Eichmann. . . .

So who gets to tell David who Eichmann was?
. . . 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: 17390
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:32 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
David wrote:. . . Lt. Cpt. Dannecker's

FTFY . . .


Thanks, good catch: he really is a dishonest little {!#%@}, eh?

Some more stuff on the "Small Fry" Dannecker

In the occupied territories all Jewish affairs were also handled by Amt IV, the Eichmann department. The initial "IV J" on Document RF-1210, submitted by the Prosecution, shows that a department of Amt IV dealt with the Jewish questions in France. This is confirmed by the testimony of the witness Knochen and by the Laube Affidavit, SD-54, which I submitted. They show that Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker, who was sent to France by Eichmann, also belonged to Amt IV and received his instructions directly from Eichmann himself. Thus, no connection existed between Aemter III and VI and Eichmann's department.

International Military Tribunal

State Attorney Bach: Next is Prosecution document No. 361. Dannecker reports to Section IVB4. This document was shown to the Accused when he was interrogated and is numbered T37(63). The subject is a consultation between SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann and SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker on 1 July 1942, and he says:
"The negotiations with the French Government have so far yielded the following results:
All the stateless Jews in the occupied and unoccupied zones are being readied for deportation.
President Laval has proposed to include in the deportation of Jewish families from the unoccupied zone also children under the age of 16. The question of Jewish children remaining in the occupied zone does not interest him.
I therefore request an urgent decision by telegram whether children under 16 may be deported starting with the fifteenth Jewish transport from France."
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/433.

Eichmann Trial, Session 032

State Attorney Bach: It was Laval's proposal to take the children under 16, too. Later we shall see a certain change in Laval's attitude, but this, at any rate, was the situation on that day.
The next document is Prosecution document No. 699. It deals with the first meeting of what was called the "Action Committee." Participants: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dannecker and SS Untersturmfuehrer Heinrichsohn representing the SS, and representing the French Darquier de Pellepoix, Monsieur Leguay and others. Here we find very detailed planning. The subject is the arrest of the Jews in Paris in accordance with the special instructions, 28,000 Jews were to be arrested, what categories of Jews, etc. Details of the actual deportation are discussed, how many persons are to be taken from each camp - from Drancy, Compiegne, Pithiviers and Beaune-la-Rolande; the technical details of the transportation of the Jews to the East, their provisioning and equipment. All these matters are determined in coordination between the participants in that meeting.
Judge Halevi: And every week four trains were to leave carrying a thousand Jews to the East?
State Attorney Bach: Yes, this was decided already at that time. I had not intended to read this now, because later I shall show that the operation was actually carried out in this manner. But it was in fact already discussed at this meeting.
Presiding Judge: This document is marked T/434.

Eichmann Trial, Session 032

State Attorney Bach: The next document is our No. 64. There are two pages here at the beginning that are of no importance. I refer to the letter by Dannecker to the Accused, Head Office for Reich Security, IVB4, of 10 July. . Reference: The same conversation with Eichmann of 1 July. It says here:
"The arrest of the Jews will be carried out by the French Police during the period 16.7. - 18.7.1942. It is to be expected that after the arrests about 4,000 Jewish children will be left behind. At first these children must be cared for by the French social services. Since a protracted mixing of these Jewish children with non-Jewish children is undesirable and the Union of the Jews in France can accommodate 400 children at most, I ask for an urgent decision by telegram whether the children of the stateless Jews to be deported may be removed together with them, starting with about the tenth transport."
Presiding Judge: This will be T/438. Could you perhaps shorten the quotations a little?

Eichmann Trial, Session 032

Q. When did you first see the SS Officer Dannecker?
A [Wellers]. I saw him on 12 December 1941 when we were assembled in the Riding School of the Ecole Militaire in Paris, before we were taken to Compiegne, on the day of our arrest. He arrived, I think, at about four or five in the afternoon and came into the Riding School accompanied by a small group of Germans in uniform. He walked across the Riding School, and at that moment he noticed two of us who were wearing French uniforms - one was a military physician who had been arrested at his place of work where he was wearing his uniform, and the other was a fireman wearing a fireman's uniform. Then Dannecker stopped in front of them and addressed them, shouting very loudly; some curious people came up, and then Dannecker took out his revolver and shouted that he would shoot any Jew who came near him, and then he ordered the two prisoners in uniform to be removed. They were taken away, and perhaps an hour later they were brought back dressed in ordinary clothes. They had been taken home to change, because Dannecker did not want any French uniforms among these prisoners.
Q. When were the first Jews sent from Compiegne to Auschwitz?
A. On 27 March 1942.
Q. When did Dannecker first arrive in Compiegne?
A. I first saw Dannecker on the night of the 12th to the 13th of December when we were taken to the camp. He was waiting for us at the entrance to the camp. Then he returned, I think, three or four days later, and then I saw him again on 12 March 1942 when he came with a whole group of Germans, including Lieutenant-Colonel Pelzer who was commandant of all the camps at Compiegne and Captain Nachtigal who was the commandant of the camp at Compiegne in which we were. It was a German commission headed by Dannecker.
Q. When you saw Dannecker in the camp, who did you think he was?
A. We were convinced that he was the head of the Jewish section of the Gestapo for France and Belgium.
Q. In what way could you see his influence in the things that were done in the camp?
A. In the camp at Compiegne?
Q. Perhaps in a wider sense both at Compiegne and also afterwards at Drancy.
A. Well, he was a man who was perpetually under pressure, perpetually in a rage. He reached for his revolver very easily, he shouted very easily when he came to Drancy (for three months he hardly went to Compiegne at all). Several times, for instance, when he came to Drancy, the order was given that nobody was to be in the courtyard of the camp and nobody was to look out of the windows. When Dannecker was walking in the courtyard, as soon as he saw a face in a window he threatened the face which he saw. He sometimes came up into the rooms and I know, I have been personally present at the deportation of a few people who had been picked out by Dannecker at the last minute just as the convoy was leaving the camp; people were brought in on Dannecker's personal orders and added to the convoy. He was a man who was undoubtedly an evil spirit in the camps in which I saw him. . . .
Presiding Judge: Was Drancy a camp solely for Jews or also for others?
Witness Wellers: No, solely for Jews.
State Attorney Bach: Did you sometimes see Dannecker while the deportations were in progress?
Witness Wellers: Yes.
Q. Did Dannecker have any influence on conditions in the camp with regard to an improvement or worsening of conditions?
A. I think so, because Dannecker had the role, he conducted himself, as absolute master of the camp, and for us nobody was more important than Dannecker.

Eichmann Trial, Session 032, testimony of Georges Wellers

Dr. Servatius: I would like to submit another document, 445. This is a telegram from Abetz to the Foreign Ministry, dated 3 April 1941. It refers to a discussion with the Commissioner for Jewish Affairs in the Vichy Government. Efforts are being made to distinguish between French Jews of long standing and recent arrivals.
Presiding Judge: This will be N/38.
Dr. Servatius: This states in detail that a law should be promulgated in order to step up pressure. At the end it says: "The embassy has entrusted Embassy Counsellor Zeitschel with the duty of liaison with the French Commissioner for Jewish Affairs and the Jewish Affairs Specialist of the Security Service in Paris."
Witness, who was the Jewish Affairs Specialist Officer in the Security Service in Paris?
Accused [Eichmann]: The term should not be Security Service but another technical one. What it means is the office of the Plenipotentiary of the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, who was subsequently the Senior Commander of the Security Police and the Security Service. At one point that was Dannecker, whose successor was a Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Roethke. I do not believe there is anything further - that is all.

Eichmann Trial, Session 082, testimony of Eichmann

Dr. Servatius: I now turn to exhibit T/402, document No. 177. This consists of several documents, including a letter from the Foreign Ministry to Eichmann and other minutes. I would refer to page 3, a telegram from Schleier, a Foreign Ministry official, to the Foreign Ministry, in which he says: "No objections to the evacuation of a further five thousand Jews who have appeared with the State Police."
I shall omit the last documents in this file and come now to the next file. This is the second French file, F 17. Here, too, I shall omit the first seven or eight documents, and start with exhibit T/419, document No. 585.
This is a memorandum from Dannecker, the official in charge in Paris about a meeting with Eichmann held on 11 June 1942. . . .

Eichmann Trial, Session 082, testimony of Eichmann
. . . 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: 17390
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 10:54 pm

Two Birds with One Stone: Dannecker’s Role and the Reason Deportations of French Jews Began with Foreign Jews Explained – or How I Got Three Scholars to Explain the Facts of Life to David

Theodor Dannecker arrived in Paris on September 5, 1940. He subsequently served as the so-called Jewish adviser in France in the name of the RSHA. His Jewish section had its official residence in Knochen’s bureau but was in fact a field office of Eichmann’s RSHA section in Berlin, which issued Dannecker instructions. Heydrich placed great importance to the fact that Security Police and the SD in Paris actively participated in the conceptualization and implementation of the first anti-semitic measures. . . .

On . . . June 22, [1942,] Himmler spoke with Karl Oberg, the HSSPF in France, and issued orders to Gestapo head Muller on June 23 that all Jews residing in France were to be “deported as soon as possible.” On that same day Muller forwarded the orders to Eichmann’s Section IVB4. Twelve days earlier, on June 11, there had been a meeting in Berlin, at which Eichmann had consulted with “Jewish advisers” from The Hague, Brussels, and Paris as to how to proceed. The four men had agreed that starting on July 13, 15,000 Jews from the Netherlands, 10,000 from Belgium, and 100,000 from both occupied and unoccupied France would be deported to the East. Theodor Dannecker in France had been particularly encouraged by a conversation with General Otto Kohl, head of the Railway Transport Division . . . , who had promised the full support of his agencies for the planned transports. . . . [T]he French complained to Knochen and Oberg about Dannecker’s arrogance in dealing with Bousquet, insisting that this only increased the latter’s recalcitrance. This was the situation that Eichmann encountered when he arrived in Paris on June 30 to deliver Himmler’s orders for the deportation of all Jews from France.

Eichmann could not deny the apparent difficulties. . . . Bousquet and, two days later, Laval announced they were prepared to arrest all stateless and foreign Jews in both occupied and unoccupied France and turn them over to the Germans. . . .

Michael Wildt, An Uncompromising Generation: The Nazi Leadership of the Reich Main Security Office, pp 259, 342-343

In late summer 1940 the RSHA had dispatched Eichmann’s long-time associated Theo Dannecker to Paris as Judenberater, Advisor for Jewish Affairs. His task was to develop anti-Jewish policies. . . . To leading officers of the military administration and diplomats of the German embassy, Dannecker and SS-Sturmbannfuhrer Kurt Lischka presented [their] proposals and the plan to establish concentration camps in the occupied zone for non-French Jews. To support the establishment of concentration camps in the occupied part of France, Dannecker repeatedly referred to the camps that French authorities already had erected for non-French Jews in the unoccupied territory. . . . Yet, until Spring 1942, German authorities in France did not conduct a single deportation. . . .

. . . During a . . . meeting at Eichmann’s Referat at the RSHAon June 11, 1942, the Judenrefenten from Paris [Dannecker], Brussels, and The Hague learned that Himmler had ordered the transfer of “larger groups of Jews to the concentration camp Auschwitz” for work, “with the proviso that the Jews of both sexes be between sixteen and forty years old,” although “ten percent of Jews not capable of work” could be included. Dannecker worked out an agreement that 100,000 Jews were to be expelled from France, including from the Unoccupied Zone. France was to pay transportation expenses and a “head price of approximately 700 RM per Jew.” . . . Dannecker tried to persuade the French police executive Jean Leguay to arrest French as well as foreign Jews in the Occupied Zone. Leguay refused. . . . Dannecker then tried to overturn the refusal by insisting that French police had to obey German directives even in the absence of any directives from the Vichy government. A few days later Leguay informed Dannecker of the French government’s refusal to order French police to arrest the requested number of Jews in Paris. Dannecker countered by announcing that he himself would take charge of this Aktion and for two weeks “would require at least 2,500 French uniformed police daily as well as additional plainclothes detectives.” . . . Pierre Laval, the head of the government, responded by making it clear that French police would not take part in this wave of arrests. Dannecker’s SS superiors in Paris also reacted negatively to his highhandedness because they did not want to risk losing the collaboration of the French government. . . . At the end of June 1942 Eichmann rushed from Berlin to Paris to assist Dannecker. . . According to a file entry bearing his and Dannecker’s signatues, they “negotiated” the fastest possible expulsion of all Jews from France. . . . The pressure on the French government executives, however, did not proceed as smoothly as Eichmann and Dannecker had imagined. . . . During a conference . . . the SS did not risk failure, although they did make it known that French government opposition during the arrests “certainly would not find favor with the Fuhrer.” They did not insist on the arrest of French Jews, as Eichmann and Dannecker demanded. Bousquet and the SS officers agreed that French police in the Occupied and the Unoccupied Zones were to arrest only Jews of foreign nationalities.

A short time later thousands of non-French Jews fell victim to this compromise that the SS and Vichy representatives had negotiated in early July. . . .

Hans Safrian, Eichmann’s Men, pages 135, 138-140

Eichmann and Referat IVB4 stood at the epicenter of this genocide. . . . Dannecker [had] hurried back from Berlin to arrange the deportation [of the French Jews] only to run into trouble with the Vichy authorities and the Commander of the SIPO-SD. . . . Dannecker’s belligerent tactics and his unremitting efforts to increase the number of Jews available for deportation were alienating the French. Denied by Knochen and Oberg, Dannecker appealed to Eichmann.

On 30 June1942 Eichmann went to Paris to see the situation for himself and receive a briefing from his man on the spot. A memorandum recorded their discussion: “Regarding work connected with the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in France, the following points emerge: (a) Implementation of the work in the occupied part: clear and without friction. (b) Preparatory political work with a view to practical implementation in the unoccupied part not yet fully completed as the French Government causes increasing difficulties.” In view of the order from the Reichsfuhrer-SS to achieve the deportation of all Jews from France as soon as possible, “the continued speeding up of the work makes the exertion of pressure on the French government absolutely unavoidable.” However, Eichmann knew that the lack of “preparatory political work” could not be remedied instantly, so expedients were necessary. “It is clear that practical results cannot be attained in one day to the next, but in the meantime there are transports from the occupied part, so that, in view of the difficulties in the unoccupied part, the Reichsfuhrer-SS order can nevertheless be fully implemented for the moment.” . . . “In conclusion, it was decided that the pace envisaged until now (three transports of 1,000 Jews per week) would have to be speeded up considerably before long with a view to relieving France completely of Jews in the shortest possible time. The necessary preliminary technical measures connected with the transportations are now being taken in Berlin. The Paris office has to make sure that the pace originally determined is adhered to in the interests of the frictionless completion of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question.”

After hard bargaining, the French authorities agreed to the extraction of 10,000 foreign Jews from the internment camps and the round-up of 22,000 more, including, somewhat to the surprise and inconvenience of the Nazis, women and children. Consequently, five trains carrying just over 6,000 men plucked from those interned in 1939, 1940, and 1941 were dispatched to Auschwitz between 5 June and 17 July. . . .

On 16-17 July 1942 the French police in Paris conducted the great “raffle” that netted over 12,800 Jewish men, women, and children. . . . The deportations were carried out from 19 July to 31 August. They were the last achievements in France of Dannecker. In mid August Dannecker was relieved of his position by Knochen on the pretext of a traffic violation. . . . Claudia Steur, Dannecker’s biographer, has revealed that he had actually gone on a drinking binge in a nightclub and thereby violated Himmler’s strictures on consumption of alcohol by SS officers. Behind this was a series of conflicts with Knochen which threatened to undermine the authority of the BdS, but Eichmann was nowhere near powerful enough to protect his over-zealous, unruly subordinate.

David Cesarini, Becoming Eichmann, pages 140-143

Ok, David, share with us your sources that show these scholars 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.

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?
. . . 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: 19776
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 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:13 pm

:katana:



:thumbsup:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17390
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 3:35 am

On 14 April 1944, SS Standartenfuhrer Helmut Knochen, commander of the German Security Police and SD in France, in met with Alois Brunner, the RSHA's deportation specialist, sent to France in summer 1943; the two experts agreed and signed a directive concerning how the German actions against French Jews henceforth were to proceed. The key paragraph of this order reads:
1. Jews to be arrested
a. All persons who are Jews within the meaning of the law are to be arrested immediately without regard of nationality or other circumstances . . .

Jews in "bona fide mixed marriages" were generally exempted from the deportation order (para. 3a). Property to be surrendered by Jews being deported was enumerated in the directive. The people of France were enjoined to assist in the arrests through a system of rewards for denunciations of Jews (paras. 8a and 8b).

NO-1411

This 1944 order, among others, stands in contrast to David's argument that in France the Germans were only intending return of eastern Jews back to the East.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:13 pm, 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: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: The legal status of Jews in France 1940.

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:51 am

David wrote: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. This dishonesty . . .

Who is dishonest here?

The "weak argument" of two "Holocaust Believers" (I've already summarized Klarsfeld's careful breakdown of the status of deported Jews):

Peter Longerich, Holocaust, pages 272, 403-404, writing on the legal status of the various Jewish groups living in France during the war and the numbers deported:
. . there were – according to German information – in 1941 some 165,000 Jews in the militarily occupied northern zone (around 90 percent of them in Paris) and around 145,000 in the unoccupied southern zone. . . . More than half of the Jews living in France were not French citizens , and many who did have French citizenship had acquired it only in the period after the First World War; the liberal naturalization law of 1927 was significant here. . . .

. . . By then [late 1944] a total of almost 76,000 Jews had been deported from France, a further 4,000 had died in camps or been murdered in the country. This meant that, as a whole, a quarter of the Jews living in France had become victims of the Holocaust. Among the deportees were around 24,000 French nationals, including 8,000 children of foreign parents who were born in France, and 8,000 naturalized Jews.

Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews,, page 699:
The Germans had done what they could. . . . [T]he cumulative number of deportees was over 75,000, or nearly a fourth of the resident and refugee Jewish population that was in France during the summer of 1940. Two-thirds of those who were deported had been seized in the northern zone; half of all the victims had been rounded up in Paris itself. . . . At least two-thirds of the deportees were foreign-born people who did not possess French citizenship. Their nationalities were Polish, German, Russian, Romanian, Greek, Turkish, Hungarian, and so forth. The remaining third comprised French-born children of foreign and stateless Jews; naturalized Frenchmen; and old established citizens of France. . . .

Apparently David makes up whatever suits him with reckless disregard for accuracy, without sources or substantiation, and careless whether he libels respected scholars and researchers.
. . . 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: 17390
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Lt. Dannecker sets the Rules?

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:56 am

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!
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:14 pm, 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


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Im_Not_Creative_Enough and 2 guests