Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Discussions
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue May 15, 2018 9:15 pm

Good reminder: Here Sergey Romanov raised with Jon Harrison the problems with Table Talk - I thought we'd discussed this unreliable, often used, source in this subforum but it seems that I confused us with ISF (also noted here).
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9214
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Tue May 15, 2018 9:25 pm

This is my comment so I can follow along and not miss anything.


Carry on.... :D
A joke going around Moscow during The Great Terror:

The NKVD knocks on a door.
The inhabitants ask who it is.
“NKVD.”
“You’ve got the wrong apartment. The Communists are upstairs.”

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9214
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Tue May 15, 2018 9:29 pm

Just as an aside, I downloaded a PDF copy of “Table Talk” but never read it. Onkel Dolfie did have a tendency to drone on and on. I read Mein Kampf so I paid my Dolfie dues.
A joke going around Moscow during The Great Terror:

The NKVD knocks on a door.
The inhabitants ask who it is.
“NKVD.”
“You’ve got the wrong apartment. The Communists are upstairs.”

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat May 19, 2018 8:14 pm

Concluding his chapter on the Shoah in Greece, Mazower writes of the cooperative, interagency effort mounted by the Germans - with the Wehrmacht playing an especially significant role due to the dearth of Greek supporters for German Jewish policy - that "The Final Solution in Greece provides a powerful argument against drawing too sharp a distinction so far as the attitudes of the occupation bureaucracy are concerned between the SS, the regular army and, for that matter, the Foreign office. Despite their differences, they worked together to maintain the authority of the Reich over its enemies - real and imagined." (Inside Hitler's Greece, p 260)
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:25 pm

In testimony at his trial (session 106), Eichmann testified about the statistical tables on Jewish population in the Wannsee protocol and how they were prepared, telling the court that

- the statistics were ”prepared about two weeks, three weeks, I would reckon today, before the beginning of the date originally scheduled in December 1941”
- to compile the statistics, “the sources, as far as I remember, were at that time first of all Jewish annuals, but above all they were also the reports from all sorts of places, teletype enquiries to the various offices, where there were no figures, and then further enquiries to local offices; in short, at that time I used all the possibilities available to me...whether this was all of them, I am not sure, but at least I used the possibilities available to me to obtain the statistical material.”
- “every country was taken as a whole, not divided up by regions”
- after some grilling, “these places, these countries, the Baltic countries, Estonia, Latvia, and so on - this definitely - this can in fact only be from the Operations Units. Yes, that is in fact right.”

In his recent article on whether the Jews of North Africa were included in the concept of the Final Solution, Dan Michman reviews the Wannsee statistics and adds to this picture:

- the statistical work used for the conference actually was begun as early as 6 August 1941, when Eichmann’s Central Office for Berlin sent a letter request [Bundesarchvi Berlin R 8150, 25, 1] to the Reichsvereingigung der Juden in Deutschland, the Nazi-approved umbrella organization for German Jews (RV), asking for the organization to submit data on the size of Jewish communities around the world as part of an effort to unify terminology and usage around the world in defining who were “Jews”
- this request came less than a week after Göring’s letter commissioning Heydrich to develop “a comprehensive solution to the Jewish question in areas of German influence in Europe”; it came three weeks after a high-level meeting (Göring, Lammers, Bormann, Rosenberg, Keitel) that Michman sees as initiating upcoming developments in Jewish policy
- probably through oral instructions, the RV shifted its focus from definitions to data in submitting a reply on 7 August; the RV’s 7 August reply included an appendix with statistics on the Jewish population around the world
- the RV submitted a 2nd, updated response on 13 August (even the US and Palestine were included - and here regional breakdowns were also included, for example, for Palestine)
- “Eichmann continued to gather and update the figures” completing the statistical work, as he testified, in late November or early December 1941
- on the day after Pearl Harbor, the RV was told to submit some additional figures, which was done, e.g., using the UGIF’s statistics for Jews in France
- in contrast to the requests to the RV, and what the RV submitted to Eichmann’s office, the Wannsee protocol does not focus on Jews across the world, or even overseas possessions of European countries, but rather on Jews in Europe: ”Throughout the Wannsee minutes, the emphasis is on a Final Solution of the Jews solely in Europe.”

Michman, “Were the Jews of North Africa Included in the Practical Planning for the ‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’?” in Kay & Sahel, eds, Mass Violence in Nazi-Occupied Europe, pp 64-68
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:52 pm

So I wanted to share Michman's thesis, which turns Bloxham's on its head.

Recall that Bloxham took the view that the Germans concluded that they had crushed the power center of the European Jews by destroying Polish Jewry through a series of different extermination actions: Jewish power was neutralized, in their view, when its home in what Bloxham calls "the imperial cone," especially the Polish heartland, had been taken down.

Michman's point of departure is what he calls the consensus view of the Final Solution: the mass murder of the Jews that "developed not in accordance with any organized plan but rather in a gradual, constantly expanding fashion," feeding on the "internal dynamics" of the actions undertaken. The overall approach - mass murder of the Jews - was a "crystallization" from Hitler's world-view and based on his concept of the Jewish danger and the war.

As to Wannsee, Michman is of the opinion that the meeting was not convened to make basic decisions or even to elaborate a master plan - much as we've discussed in this thread - but to establish/confirm Heydrich's authority and to coordinate high level officials in support of the coming operations. The meeting had a preliminary aspect to it, not a final disposition.

With this background, here is Michman's provocative conclusion about the Final Solution putting the Wannsee conference into a larger context: at the time of the Wannsee conference, the Final Solution embraced European Jews - but the Final Solution was not a fixed plan and it involved "circles of killing [that] gradually widened." For Michman, the ultimate widening embraced Jews across the world:
After all, Hitler's struggle was in the final analysis with world Jewry . . . and not against European Jewry. . . . In January 1942, only preliminary preparations for the execution of the Final Solution had been made; however, the decision to kill Europe's Jews had already been taken.
The Jews of North Africa - Michman's focus in his paper - "had not been included at this point" but there are indications that the Final Solution was proceeding to "a global solution to the Jewish question":

1] the work of Mallman and Cüppers on Einsatzkommando Ägypen shows, first, that there was an intent to deploy the task force behind Rommel's assumed advance, which was blocked, across Egypt into Palestine and, second, with this failure, the task force proceeded to Tunisia and initiated then-typical anti-Jewish measures
2] a statement in a report by a German diplomatic official in May 1942 on
the "Jewish question in Libya" that "there is no doubt that, when the time comes, the Jewish question will also be solved in Tripolitania.
3] the figures gathered by Eichmann's office, as we saw above, were for world Jewry (as the goals for the Wannsee meeting came into focus, and narrowed to Europe, the statistics were likewise edited for the narrower focus)
(Michman also quotes a scholar who organized an academic conference at the University of Jena in 1943 on the Jewish question and stated there that the Jewish question was to be viewed from a global perspective.)

Michman in Kay & Sahel, Mass Violence in Nazi-Occupied Europe, pp 59-60, 69-70, 78
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Balmoral95 » Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:14 am

Danke... If the quiet remains I'll post in response here... otherwise we'll chat about it elsewhere.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Balsamo » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:39 pm

OK, back to business i see...
Recall that Bloxham took the view that the Germans concluded that they had crushed the power center of the European Jews by destroying Polish Jewry through a series of different extermination actions: Jewish power was neutralized, in their view, when its home in what Bloxham calls "the imperial cone," especially the Polish heartland, had been taken down.
To do justice to Bloxham, if i recall correctly, regarding the "imperial cone", he speaks about the Eastern Jews, not only the Polish ones. And as a matter of fact, the East - Poland, Hungary, Romania, and of course Russia, was indeed the center of Jewish life in those days.
Again, one should always take into consideration the fundamentals of Nazi/European Antisemitism: internationalism with two faces: capitalism in the West and Bolshevism in the East.
I know there is a persistent reluctance to accept the possibility of a distinction among the "Jewish Question" and the "Jewish People".

Now it has been a couple years i have read Bloxham - and i still insist that it is a "must read" even if one disagree with him - and i have also taken some distance from some of his points.
Nevertheless, he based his theory on an obvious observation: the Genocide was much more effective in the East than in the West, for various reasons, but also because the East was given am obvious priority.
I know it is one of our main disagreement.
Bloxham also seem to rely on a admission by Eichmann - if my memory is correct - although i never managed to find any confirmation in other works. (I have not Bloxham on hand right now).

From my point of view - that is that the Nazis were sincere in their conviction - it is obvious that the three HHH (Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich) were convinced that by eliminating the Jewish elements in the East would weaken the Bolshevik threat, if not destroyed it in the long run.

Now that does not mean that H.H.H had more sympathy for the western Jews than from the Eastern one, as it seems that such theory is too often understood, but that it is a matter of what can be done and what cannot.
The Capitalist side of the Jewish threat - i speak in a Nazi PoV, of course - was based in London and NY, and basically out of reach anyway, except in the lunatic dream of a "World Nazi domination", which would have implied Japan landing and conquering California, and the Wehrmacht invading Great Britain in the West, and reaching Vladivostok in the East. Seriously, not even the most fanatical Nazi would have taken this possibility into consideration.
Meanwhile, in their dreams, there was still an option Eastward, hence the priority, hence Bloxham observation and theory.

It is also not a mystery that Hitler and the Nazis main focus to create the "Lebensraum" always had been the East.
Nazi Germany - even after their conquests - lacked the commodities to be truly a World Power, as dreamed by Hitler. The East had everything it needed to become one, after victory: Oil, various rare materials, wheat/food, etc. Which means that if there was a place on earth were Jews HAD to be eliminated, that was East, and again, in their mind, this was achievable.
Michman's point of departure is what he calls the consensus view of the Final Solution: the mass murder of the Jews that "developed not in accordance with any organized plan but rather in a gradual, constantly expanding fashion," feeding on the "internal dynamics" of the actions undertaken.
I understand why this "consensus" is appealing. First because it has some fundamental basis: For any observer, the final solution just appears like that: gradual, unorganized but going forward anyway. So it is obvious that it is the way that the Final Solution evolved.
The only problem i have with this concept is that it actually does not explain very much, and that it kind of requires fundamental premises to actually make sense.
The overall approach - mass murder of the Jews - was a "crystallization" from Hitler's world-view and based on his concept of the Jewish danger and the war.
What i just wrote above fits with the concept of "crystallization" also. It only means what one wants to understand. I think that the plan to eradicate the Jews in the East was written in the book from the start, while getting rid (through extermination) of those in the west was secondary, mostly motivated by revenge, retaliation, and in the end, in some RSHA minds, of why not connecting the dot and achieve the perfect combination of a Europe completely free of Jews: A "Judenfrei" occupied Europe, reorganized by Himmler, was of course the final goal. But it does not contradict the notion of "priority" that Bloxham seems to privilege.

This notion of "Priority" is the key.
With this background, here is Michman's provocative conclusion about the Final Solution putting the Wannsee conference into a larger context: at the time of the Wannsee conference, the Final Solution embraced European Jews - but the Final Solution was not a fixed plan and it involved "circles of killing [that] gradually widened." For Michman, the ultimate widening embraced Jews across the world:
Note that i avoided the Wannsee point. ;)
Still i don't know how he conceives his "Jews across the world" thing. Nazis leaders were {!#%@}, but not dummies, and if one take for granted that their killing is to be understood as "under circumstances", how seriously imagine that they had some secret plans for Jews in the USA or in South America?
I will have to read Michman, i guess. But is seems like extrapolation to me.
1] the work of Mallman and Cüppers on Einsatzkommando Ägypen shows, first, that there was an intent to deploy the task force behind Rommel's assumed advance, which was blocked, across Egypt into Palestine and, second, with this failure, the task force proceeded to Tunisia and initiated then-typical anti-Jewish measures
2] a statement in a report by a German diplomatic official in May 1942 on
This, of course, send us back to another fundamental disagreement.
There is no reason to contest that there was some plans to extend the murderous policy to North Africa, but it is also a fact that it never materialized, just like there were no EG active in France or Denmark.
I have no doubt that for some racial fanatics such extermination would have made some sense, same way, in some part of the middle east, some strategic minds might have considered that it would get the Germans sympathy among the Arabs...But then, it never happened, so again, it is more extrapolation than historical theory.
I do not deny that such a project did exist, to be clear, but it should be about time to add to the "crystallization" theory, a " potentialisty"/"possibility one"...because in the end, even the Nazis had or would have had to explain their murderous policy.
But that sends us back to the Brayard theory of " progressive acceptable transgression". I am not sure you want to get back into this. :lol: (although i am not completely out of it)

But then of course, who knows what would have happened had Rommel won in North Africa, and through this win forced the UK into capitulation. But that, once again, belongs to extrapolation.

Anyway, neither Bloxham nor Brayard are standing on their heads right now, whatever Michman seems to say. That is as far as i am concerned, having not read "Kay & Sahel, Mass Violence in Nazi-Occupied Europe", but i will ASAP.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:16 pm

Balsamo wrote:OK, back to business i see...
Recall that Bloxham took the view that the Germans concluded that they had crushed the power center of the European Jews by destroying Polish Jewry through a series of different extermination actions: Jewish power was neutralized, in their view, when its home in what Bloxham calls "the imperial cone," especially the Polish heartland, had been taken down.
To do justice to Bloxham, if i recall correctly, regarding the "imperial cone", he speaks about the Eastern Jews, not only the Polish ones.
To be clear, I wrote "especially the Polish heartland"; IIRC the "cone" in Bloxham's conception was not only eastern (p 187) - but he directed most of his argument toward the heartland and especially Poland. Honestly, why would we quibble about my use of the word "especially"?
Balsamo wrote:And as a matter of fact, the East - Poland, Hungary, Romania, and of course Russia, was indeed the center of Jewish life in those days.
Again, this is silly. But since you raise it - I didn't run through the details of Bloxham's argument - here is what Bloxham wrote (pp 235-236, 245):
Most importantly, from the perspective of Himmler, its key administrator the final solution had achieved its central object by the end of 1943. World Jewry had been dealt what Lemkin would have called a ‘crippling’ strike in its heartland.

To anyone acquainted with the outlines of the Holocaust, the idea that Himmler and others may have perceived the final solution to be over in autumn 1943 may cause puzzlement. . . . But the decisive victory for Himmler was that the Jews had been removed from Germany and its empire, which was also the centre of gravity of the world’s Jewish population.
Balsamo wrote:Again, one should always take into consideration the fundamentals of Nazi/European Antisemitism: internationalism with two faces: capitalism in the West and Bolshevism in the East.
As you know, I disagree with this; the early Nazis were very concerned about Red Munich, for example.
Balsamo wrote:I know there is a persistent reluctance to accept the possibility of a distinction among the "Jewish Question" and the "Jewish People".
I don't know what this means so I am neither reluctant to accept this or eager to reject it.
Balsamo wrote:I know it is one of our main disagreement.
I don't think you understand what I've been arguing, frankly. You seem to be marching along oblivious to practical considerations, the course of the war, foreign relations and internal situations in various countries, what documents indicate, and sequencing and priorities.
Balsamo wrote:Bloxham also seem to rely on a admission by Eichmann - if my memory is correct - although i never managed to find any confirmation in other works. (I have not Bloxham on hand right now).
For what? I don't recall that his argument is based on a single point.
Balsamo wrote:From my point of view - that is that the Nazis were sincere in their conviction - it is obvious that the three HHH (Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich) were convinced that by eliminating the Jewish elements in the East would weaken the Bolshevik threat, if not destroyed it in the long run.
Bloxham's argument is that they felt they had accomplished that. The only trouble is contrary developments and contrary evidence.
Balsamo wrote:Now that does not mean that H.H.H had more sympathy for the western Jews than from the Eastern one, as it seems that such theory is too often understood, but that it is a matter of what can be done and what cannot.
The Capitalist side of the Jewish threat - i speak in a Nazi PoV, of course - was based in London and NY, and basically out of reach anyway, except in the lunatic dream of a "World Nazi domination", which would have implied Japan landing and conquering California, and the Wehrmacht invading Great Britain in the West, and reaching Vladivostok in the East. Seriously, not even the most fanatical Nazi would have taken this possibility into consideration.
Meanwhile, in their dreams, there was still an option Eastward, hence the priority, hence Bloxham observation and theory.
There's another conclusion which has the benefit of matching the evidence: during the war, the Nazis tried, insofar as there were not obstacles to doing so, to destroy the Jews in countries which they occupied or with which they were Allied.
Balsamo wrote:
Michman's point of departure is what he calls the consensus view of the Final Solution: the mass murder of the Jews that "developed not in accordance with any organized plan but rather in a gradual, constantly expanding fashion," feeding on the "internal dynamics" of the actions undertaken.
I understand why this "consensus" is appealing. First because it has some fundamental basis: For any observer, the final solution just appears like that: gradual, unorganized but going forward anyway. So it is obvious that it is the way that the Final Solution evolved.
The only problem i have with this concept is that it actually does not explain very much, and that it kind of requires fundamental premises to actually make sense.
Again, I don't know what you mean. The consensus fits the evidence better than previous conceptions, for example, ones we might call internationalist - even better than Hilberg's "stages" concept.
Balsamo wrote:
The overall approach - mass murder of the Jews - was a "crystallization" from Hitler's world-view and based on his concept of the Jewish danger and the war.
What i just wrote above fits with the concept of "crystallization" also. It only means what one wants to understand. I think that the plan to eradicate the Jews in the East was written in the book from the start, while getting rid (through extermination) of those in the west was secondary, mostly motivated by revenge, retaliation, and in the end, in some RSHA minds, of why not connecting the dot and achieve the perfect combination of a Europe completely free of Jews: A "Judenfrei" occupied Europe, reorganized by Himmler, was of course the final goal. But it does not contradict the notion of "priority" that Bloxham seems to privilege.

This notion of "Priority" is the key.
Again, you seem to be debating with someone who is not here and hasn't weighed in. Not sure who that is.
Balsamo wrote:
With this background, here is Michman's provocative conclusion about the Final Solution putting the Wannsee conference into a larger context: at the time of the Wannsee conference, the Final Solution embraced European Jews - but the Final Solution was not a fixed plan and it involved "circles of killing [that] gradually widened." For Michman, the ultimate widening embraced Jews across the world:
Note that i avoided the Wannsee point. ;)
Still i don't know how he conceives his "Jews across the world" thing. Nazis leaders were {!#%@}, but not dummies, and if one take for granted that their killing is to be understood as "under circumstances", how seriously imagine that they had some secret plans for Jews in the USA or in South America?
I will have to read Michman, i guess. But is seems like extrapolation to me.
FWIW, I don't buy what Michman concludes. My post was simply a presentation of a provocative pov.

Michman's support for his thesis amounts to less than a full page - whereas Bloxham has a long and deep discussion, which I disagree with but credit as substantial. Michman's argument is thin, to say the least (I've not read Mallman and Cüppers . . . but all he manages are one lead speaker at an academic conference vs all else we know? background data gathered in a confused series of requests? and a diplomat's statement of opinion?).
Balsamo wrote:
1] the work of Mallman and Cüppers on Einsatzkommando Ägypen shows, first, that there was an intent to deploy the task force behind Rommel's assumed advance, which was blocked, across Egypt into Palestine and, second, with this failure, the task force proceeded to Tunisia and initiated then-typical anti-Jewish measures
2] a statement in a report by a German diplomatic official in May 1942 on
This, of course, send us back to another fundamental disagreement.
There is no reason to contest that there was some plans to extend the murderous policy to North Africa, but it is also a fact that it never materialized, just like there were no EG active in France or Denmark.
Not having read M&C, and not agreeing with Michman, I can say that Michman makes an actual argument, instead of sputtering: the EG's plan didn't materialize because of the course of the war in Africa.
Balsamo wrote:But then of course, who knows what would have happened had Rommel won in North Africa, and through this win forced the UK into capitulation. But that, once again, belongs to extrapolation.
Which is Michman's point, for chrissakes.
Balsamo wrote:Anyway, neither Bloxham nor Brayard are standing on their heads right now, whatever Michman seems to say. That is as far as i am concerned, having not read "Kay & Sahel, Mass Violence in Nazi-Occupied Europe", but i will ASAP.
Again, as I said, I disagree with Michman, but his argument does stand Bloxham's argument on its head. For my part, I think Michman's argument gets ahead of itself - but that I don't doubt that, had the course of the war been different, Dolfy would have brought the Jews of any country falling into Germany's "sphere of influence" into the Final Solution.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Balsamo » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:05 am

Stat:
Again, this is silly. But since you raise it - I didn't run through the details of Bloxham's argument - here is what Bloxham wrote (pp 235-236, 245):
Most importantly, from the perspective of Himmler, its key administrator the final solution had achieved its central object by the end of 1943. World Jewry had been dealt what Lemkin would have called a ‘crippling’ strike in its heartland.

To anyone acquainted with the outlines of the Holocaust, the idea that Himmler and others may have perceived the final solution to be over in autumn 1943 may cause puzzlement. . . . But the decisive victory for Himmler was that the Jews had been removed from Germany and its empire, which was also the centre of gravity of the world’s Jewish population.
Exactly,
But then it is quite obvious, and almost not worth being mentioned, that Himmler killed the Jews starting Eastward to West, the Polish Jews being executed after those of the Baltic States and the Eastern Front.
Actually, the Kohrerr report clearly shows that by 1943, those bastards did a great job over there. And yes, this location was indeed the "center of gravity of the world's Jewish population".
This center of gravity was not restricted to Poland only, but mainly to the Pale of Settlement.

Stat:
As you know, I disagree with this; the early Nazis were very concerned about Red Munich, for example.
Of course, i know (that you disagree)
But back then, there was no even an idea to put them all to death. To get rid of them was good enough objective.

Stat:
I don't know what this means so I am neither reluctant to accept this or eager to reject it.
Well, of course, we have interrupted this discussion quite some times ago.
To put it more simply, because i might have confused things for free at some point, there is one distinction that one has to make: A goal and the means to achieve it VS the ability/capacity to sell "politically" this goal and this mean.
Even a Regime like Nazism was still like an Onion, an almost uneatable core, with the most radical ideas and means in mind, but then, layer after layer, it went less radical, hence the concept of "gradually decreasing consensus" when it came to the Final Solution depending on the level of transgression it poses.
That means, that without everyone approving the methods, the mass murders in the East were basically tacitly accepted by most actors - All the reports from the EG took a special care to justify those mass murders, sometimes some obscure acts of sabotage - justifying execution of Jews of all ages and all sex, sometimes sanitary reasons, executions of sick people in order to prevent the spread of a disease, sometimes as silly as to make room...and of course, the "fight against Partisans.
What i mean here, is that THIS part of the genocide was easy to sell, actually, helped by the context of "total war": Why bother too much about those Jews when the "very existence of Germany" was at stake?

But then, when operation of mass murders, were mainly motivated by "logistic considerations", get rid of the Poles to make room from the Jews from the Greater Reich...well acceptable justification were quite reduced, hence the secrecy about ER.

And despite of those precautions, it is THEN, that is by the end of summer of 1942, that deportations will become more complicated, first among the State, more or less allied to Germany, like Slovakia, then central Europe as a whole, and by the end of the year 1942, even more difficulties in Western Europe.
Difficulties grew less for "diplomatic reasons" than along with the spread of the news that there was something more than just "resettlement in the East".
And to link it with our Raffle thread, it is clear that this reality did not reach France, at least decisively before the second half of 1943.
If you remember the only "proof" of knowledge was the so called protest/declaration/ of the Consistory...which does not stand basic scrutiny.

Stat:
I don't think you understand what I've been arguing, frankly. You seem to be marching along oblivious to practical considerations, the course of the war, foreign relations and internal situations in various countries, what documents indicate, and sequencing and priorities.
Of course, i do not deny pratical consideration, the course of war, foreign relations etc. But the important thing is that i do not longer believe that a Nazi diplomat pressing a government to deport its Jewish population knew that they were actually pressing for those Jews to be murder.
It is my well known position that the whole killing machinery could actually ONLY works because all the cogs involved DID NOT KNOW the true finality of the deportations/resettlement schemes.
While the impression one has reading some thesis is that actually every actors were quite aware of what they were participating to.
And regarding our disagreement, i include some of those who participated at the Wannsee conference, not all of them, but some.
And really, who can even believe that when Laval in France ask the SS to also deport the children, he meant "kill them too"?
Bloxham's argument is that they felt they had accomplished that. The only trouble is contrary developments and contrary evidence.
Well i would have put Bloxham's argument this way: "They felt they accomplished that",YES! except that they were wrong. I mean you do not believe in Jude-Bolshevism, right?
So yes, they were wrong, but they could have believed it back then. Actually, i am quite sure they did.
But as i said often: "wrong premises leads to wrong conclusions"! ;) And it is no secret that the Nazis had very wrong premises.

More on this tomorrow,
It is past midnight here.
Nothing i have written is targeting you or your interpretation (well not directly), and i thank you for the additional information - in this case Michman - i just take the opportunity to respond to his rendition of his work and make my position clear...again.

And as you pointed out, we have agreed on (too) many things for some times lately, somehow it had to stop... :lol:

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:32 am

Balsamo wrote:Of course, i know (that you disagree)
But back then, there was no even an idea to put them all to death. To get rid of them was good enough objective.
The point here, however, was Judeo-Bolshevism, not the Final Solution. IMO the Nazis didn't make the tidy dichotomy you proposed.
Balsamo wrote:Well, of course, we have interrupted this discussion quite some times ago. < snip >
This is not what my post above was about, ya know. I do not wanna repeat a discussion that will simply repeat a discussion. Your way of writing it here doesn't improve the argument or make me wanna go through all this again.

Besides, every post is not a fractal object, with a self-same argument repeating at different scales; a post about Michman's global thesis is not meant as a re-entry point into the same old debate about Brayard. I really didn't post this to rehearse the "two Final Solutions," but simply to add to the mix what Michman was suggesting. I hooked Michman's notion to Bloxham as a lead-in, not to debate the details of Bloxham's view, but rather because Michman outlines an almost opposite conception to Bloxham's, which we'd previously discussed.

The point being that I'm not going down this particular rabbit hole at this time. I know you knew I wouldn't wanna.
Balsamo wrote:And really, who can even believe that when Laval in France ask the SS to also deport the children, he meant "kill them too"?
Come on, you are now worse than Uncle Toby and his hobby-horse!
Balsamo wrote:Well i would have put Bloxham's argument this way: "They felt they accomplished that",YES! except that they were wrong. I mean you do not believe in Jude-Bolshevism, right?
That question would be for Bloxham, I think. Unlike Bloxham I don't try reducing the Hungarian action to a mere footnote.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Balsamo » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:11 pm

Understood, but it seemed to me appropriate to reminder eventual readers - that is a few beside you and me - what the thread was about.

Anyway, he is one of Bloxham basis for his arguments i have mentioned above, based on Hoess' memoir:
" Eichmann developped the theme to Hoess, (quoting Hoess):
"Eichmann was convinced that if he could succeed in destroying the biological basis of Jewry in the Eastby complete extermination, then Jewry as a whole would never recover from the blow. The assimilated Jews of the West, including America, would, in his opinion, be in no position (and would have no desire) to make up this enormous loss of blood and would therefore be no future generation worth mentioning"
Which i understand that by destroying "International's Jewry" left hand - the one perceived as the most dangerous and actually "fight-able", it would prevent the its right hand to pursue its agenda of world domination.

As you know, Bloxham is mostly known for being an expert on Genocide, and i think that one of its main merits is having wanted to "desacralize" the Holocaust by reminding that every Genocide needs rationals and be justified in some way,that is to be sold to the society.
He notices that there are some genocide that are backed by what he calls "genocidal societies", which are to be found in colonial enterprises, but notes that Germany was not a "genocidal society", and therefore that such genocidal enterprise had to be pilot form above, which means that clear objectives had to be chosen based on their feasibility and the search of the greater efficiency.

Of course, Bloxham's book is quite a substantial (indeed) and very complex work and quite difficult to summarize, especially for me who don't master English.
My interpretation of his work is that he pleads for taking the distance from what could be called the "uniqueness approach" and getting back to some proven keys of understanding which were proven valid for the study of other genocides.

That being said, and i probably should not be writing this now as i am sick as hell - but to respond to some of your points:
The point here, however, was Judeo-Bolshevism, not the Final Solution. IMO the Nazis didn't make the tidy dichotomy you proposed.
Actually, i consider that one cannot separate those concepts from each others. The concept of Judeo-Bolshevism, and the perceived threat it posed, was one of the main reasons behind the Radical measure that was the Final Solution.
And just to rebound on your expression: there was no such thing as "THE NAZIS" behind the Final Solution either. SOME NAZIS, and among them the most important one, that is Hitler, came to consider mass murder as a practical solution to the "Jewish Problem", to be understood as the threat of internationalism, destruction of "natural state of Nation", "Capitalism" and "Jewish-Bolshevism" - and of course, among the event more violent Nazis, some made this distinction i propose - and i am not the only one to remind that there was a clear distinction between Western/assimilated/capitalist Jews and Eastern Isolated/anti-system/revolutionary or at least destabilizing Jewish community (that is perceived as such).

This is where Brayard theory of decreasing transgression comes into play, which quite fit with my "highest consensus" approach: The more perceivable the threat was - and Judeo-Bolshevism was number 1 all across Europe - the easiest a consensus on a radical solution could be achieved. Mass murdering Jews in the East, and the Eastern the better, was "saleable" quite easily. It was not even a secret, was reported, reports were transmitted, but justified under the label of " Sein oder nicht Sein" and various other justifications.
Come on, you are now worse than Uncle Toby and his hobby-horse!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
What is that supposed to mean? How do you expect that i can even understand it. Who the hell is Uncle Toby?
:lol:

The whole point of this thread - which is mine actually - was to reassess the perception and understanding of the Wannsee conference. I added Brayard to the title because he provided various documentary evidences - to use Nessie words - which at least should cast some doubts about the full knowledge of the Final Solution at the peripheral sphere of the Nazi regime.

Whoever uncle Toby is, do you think that Laval was aware of the lethal destination of the Jews he contributed to deport, including the fate of the children?
That question would be for Bloxham, I think. Unlike Bloxham I don't try reducing the Hungarian action to a mere footnote.
I think that the accusation is unfair. His work is not meant to be a contribution to the history of the holocaust, but instead a refection about the tragedy.
You might want to re-read it, actually.

Now, personally, if i disagree with the "uniqueness approach" of the Holocaust, i do agree that the "Hungarian action" was unique within the context of the Holocaust.
It shows that if the criminal Nazis wanted, they could.
And what they could and did in Hungary, they could not and did not in France.
Basically it all comes down to this fundamental observation: The more than vast majority of the victims of the genocide were Jews from the East, and that sent back to Hoess quote above.

EDIT: Better for me to take my pills and go back to bed. :?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:05 pm

Here's a deal: since I don't wanna keep spinning on the same issues, I'll post Wannsee related stuff in a different thread that is not, er, yours actually.

Just a handful of comments here:
Balsamo wrote:
Come on, you are now worse than Uncle Toby and his hobby-horse!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
What is that supposed to mean? How do you expect that i can even understand it. Who the hell is Uncle Toby?
:lol:
Well, no wonder: if you haven't read Tristram Shandy, harrumph, we will never get anywhere! Have you at least read Machado de Assis?
Balsamo wrote:Whoever uncle Toby is, do you think that Laval was aware of the lethal destination of the Jews he contributed to deport, including the fate of the children?
This is what gets me about this thread and "attempts" to discuss this or that point: I haven't changed my views on Laval, despite reading a half dozen related books since we last discussed this. And I haven't posted that I changed my mind. Simple.
Balsamo wrote:Basically it all comes down to this fundamental observation: The more than vast majority of the victims of the genocide were Jews from the East, and that sent back to Hoess quote above.
If you think about this for two seconds, I feel sure you can realize that this isn't an argument but simply somewhere between an observation and a tautology.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Balmoral95 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:21 am

Tried this 3 times and I'm lost...

B?

User avatar
Nessie
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2960
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Nessie » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:11 am

FWIIW, I think the key parts of the Wannsee Minutes are

1 - "The aim of all this was to cleanse German living space of Jews in a legal manner."

That was in relation to emigration. However;

"In the meantime the Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the German Police had prohibited emigration of Jews due to the dangers of an emigration in wartime and due to the possibilities of the East. III. Another possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of emigration, i.e. the evacuation of the Jews to the East..."

That shows how the Final Solution had to be adapted as it progressed.

2 - "Estonia - free of Jews"

Hold on a moment! Jews were being sent to the "East" which in the very next section of the minutes was recording populations of Jews that were falling and a country that was now Jew free. The Nazis clearly did not notice the contradiction here. If they were evacuating Jews to the east, Estonia's population would be increasing.

3 - "Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)"

Now we understand that apparent contradiction. The Jews being evacuated to the east were not expected to live long.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Balsamo » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:00 pm

Well, no wonder: if you haven't read Tristram Shandy, harrumph, we will never get anywhere! Have you at least read Machado de Assis?
LOL.
there are holes in my culture, i must confess.
This is what gets me about this thread and "attempts" to discuss this or that point: I haven't changed my views on Laval, despite reading a half dozen related books since we last discussed this. And I haven't posted that I changed my mind. Simple.
Actually, i actually ask you this because even after having read the "Raffle" thread, i could not find a clear answer. I probably should have asked earlier within this thread actually. It was not meant to relaunch the debate, but only to clarify things. The point is not of course to temper Vichy Regime's responsibility for what it did.
If you think about this for two seconds, I feel sure you can realize that this isn't an argument but simply somewhere between an observation and a tautology.

I think i understand what you mean, but actually this is at the core of Bloxham approach - which is indeed quite confused, and not exempt from some contradiction, one of his merits is nevertheless to propose a new approach of explaining the Holocaust.
As a general rule, and i thought about recently, very few works offer a explanation of the holocaust, or in other words they do explain its evolution development, the actors, the means, etc...but i might have missed some crucial works, but i have no memory of a comprehensive explanation of the WHY's in a more global conceptual approach. The main why's being : Why the Genocide? Why the Jews? Why the East?
and as a subsidiary question: Why the obvious double standards adopted by the Nazis ,that is in the means, even if the final goal was the same?

Now, as i understood it, Bloxham approach tries to answer the first questions, by putting the Jewish Genocide in the broader context of a genocidal era which basically goes from 1875-1949, with some incursion to more recent examples of genocide.
Now whether we agree or not with this approach, it nevertheless opens new windows of reflections which are worth being discussed.

Just noticed:
you wrote:
Again, you seem to be debating with someone who is not here and hasn't weighed in. Not sure who that is.
You came up with Bloxham. I won't force you into a discussion.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1845
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Balsamo » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:00 pm

Balmoral95 wrote:Tried this 3 times and I'm lost...

B?
Sorry... :cry:

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:49 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Well, no wonder: if you haven't read Tristram Shandy, harrumph, we will never get anywhere! Have you at least read Machado de Assis?
LOL.
there are holes in my culture, i must confess.
One of my favorite books. Uncle Toby is unforgettable. I kind of think of it as the first post-modern novel, and in this case I mean post-modern in a good way. Wild experimental writing. "Alas, poor Yorick"/the black page. My "bucket list" says re-read Tristram Shandy and then re-read every novel William Faulkner wrote. And then I can die. But I digress.
Balsamo wrote:
This is what gets me about this thread and "attempts" to discuss this or that point: I haven't changed my views on Laval, despite reading a half dozen related books since we last discussed this. And I haven't posted that I changed my mind. Simple.
Actually, i actually ask you this because even after having read the "Raffle" thread, i could not find a clear answer. I probably should have asked earlier within this thread actually. It was not meant to relaunch the debate, but only to clarify things. The point is not of course to temper Vichy Regime's responsibility for what it did.
When we last discussed this, I said that Laval was aware only of IIRC something very bad happening in the east, I think I wrote of ill or bad treatment of the Jews in the East . . . and that, in contrast to the Tiso government, never sought to find out what was happening with the Jews deported from France. But I never wrote that Laval was brought into the planning for the murder, I know of no evidence for that. I told you point blank that I didn’t dispute that Laval wasn't part of the planning or details for the extermination at the eastern end of the operation - but also that his deception, self-deception, willful blindness, and lack of concern for the consequences of his decisions were beyond the pale. I can't recall where but I think I cited Marrus & Paxton or some other book on his iffy knowledge; I recall mentioning that Seibel had Vichy out of the loop on details. And I know for sure that I pointed out, critically, that Klarsfeld said Vichy had criminal knowledge of the details but had failed to provide evidence that Vichy had been brought in on it.

I don't think that I was unclear at all.

So, no, I've don't now have a new idea - that Laval had intimate, pre-knowledge of how the Jews sent east were "handled."

Since our somewhat-long-ago discussion of this, I've read maybe a half dozen more books on France during the war. Despite Morgan's very harsh judgments of Laval, and his dark insinuation, I haven't changed my mind. I did read a vague assertion in one book that Laval had made lackluster inquiries of German officials about the actual destination of the Jews. That didn't change my mind either.
Balsamo wrote:Just noticed:
you wrote:
Again, you seem to be debating with someone who is not here and hasn't weighed in. Not sure who that is.
You came up with Bloxham. I won't force you into a discussion.
I think you misunderstand: you were forgetting things I said and attributing to me points of view I don't have, almost as though the real me (well the fake Statistical Mechanic me, was not present), which is what that sentence referred to - not to Bloxham.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by montgomery » Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:57 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:
Well, no wonder: if you haven't read Tristram Shandy, harrumph, we will never get anywhere! Have you at least read Machado de Assis?
LOL.
there are holes in my culture, i must confess.
One of my favorite books. Uncle Toby is unforgettable. I kind of think of it as the first post-modern novel, and in this case I mean post-modern in a good way. Wild experimental writing. "Alas, poor Yorick"/the black page. My "bucket list" says re-read Tristram Shandy and then re-read every novel William Faulkner wrote. And then I can die. But I digress.
Balsamo wrote:
This is what gets me about this thread and "attempts" to discuss this or that point: I haven't changed my views on Laval, despite reading a half dozen related books since we last discussed this. And I haven't posted that I changed my mind. Simple.
Actually, i actually ask you this because even after having read the "Raffle" thread, i could not find a clear answer. I probably should have asked earlier within this thread actually. It was not meant to relaunch the debate, but only to clarify things. The point is not of course to temper Vichy Regime's responsibility for what it did.
When we last discussed this, I said that Laval was aware only of IIRC something very bad happening in the east, I think I wrote of ill or bad treatment of the Jews in the East . . . and that, in contrast to the Tiso government, never sought to find out what was happening with the Jews deported from France. But I never wrote that Laval was brought into the planning for the murder, I know of no evidence for that. I told you point blank that I didn’t dispute that Laval wasn't part of the planning or details for the extermination at the eastern end of the operation - but also that his deception, self-deception, willful blindness, and lack of concern for the consequences of his decisions were beyond the pale. I can't recall where but I think I cited Marrus & Paxton or some other book on his iffy knowledge; I recall mentioning that Seibel had Vichy out of the loop on details. And I know for sure that I pointed out, critically, that Klarsfeld said Vichy had criminal knowledge of the details but had failed to provide evidence that Vichy had been brought in on it.

I don't think that I was unclear at all.

So, no, I've don't now have a new idea - that Laval had intimate, pre-knowledge of how the Jews sent east were "handled."

Since our somewhat-long-ago discussion of this, I've read maybe a half dozen more books on France during the war. Despite Morgan's very harsh judgments of Laval, and his dark insinuation, I haven't changed my mind. I did read a vague assertion in one book that Laval had made lackluster inquiries of German officials about the actual destination of the Jews. That didn't change my mind either.
Balsamo wrote:Just noticed:
you wrote:
Again, you seem to be debating with someone who is not here and hasn't weighed in. Not sure who that is.
You came up with Bloxham. I won't force you into a discussion.
I think you misunderstand: you were forgetting things I said and attributing to me points of view I don't have, almost as though the real me (well the fake Statistical Mechanic me, was not present), which is what that sentence referred to - not to Bloxham.
Your selective reading is only going to confirm over and over again that which you already accept as facts. You've become locked into the dogma and that's brought your learning to a halt. You need to read the alternative views now and then be able to weigh the two against each other in order to reach informed conclusions.

Even if you did indeed read all those books, which is sincerely doubtful. The reason why is the number is exaggerated even more now because of your need to impress others. I greatly suspect that in person you have an inability to impress anybody and you're trying to make up for that with your reading exaggerations.

You'll continue to confirm my suspicions over and over again and I'll jump on it if I bother to read it. Keep that in mind!

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by nickterry » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:28 pm

montgomery wrote: Your selective reading is only going to confirm over and over again that which you already accept as facts. You've become locked into the dogma and that's brought your learning to a halt. You need to read the alternative views now and then be able to weigh the two against each other in order to reach informed conclusions.

Even if you did indeed read all those books, which is sincerely doubtful. The reason why is the number is exaggerated even more now because of your need to impress others. I greatly suspect that in person you have an inability to impress anybody and you're trying to make up for that with your reading exaggerations.

You'll continue to confirm my suspicions over and over again and I'll jump on it if I bother to read it. Keep that in mind!
StatMech has likely read more of the 'alternative views' than you have, since you've shown no signs of being familiar with the 'revisionist' oeuvre in its written form.

Plus, the topics that Balsamo and StatMech are arguing about really aren't much discussed at all in the 'alternative' or 'revisionist' canon. The question of whether the Vichy government knew exact details of the fate of Jews deported from France doesn't really come up in the 'Holocaust Handbooks'. And there's nothing anywhere in 'revisionism' that might provide an alternative view to Donald Bloxham's 'imperial cone' thesis or respond to the questions raised by it. But there are numerous conventional histories raising similar questions (Tim Snyder's Black Earth, just for starters).

So, that was a bit of a failed troll on your part, to be quite honest.

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by montgomery » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:39 pm

nickterry wrote:
montgomery wrote: Your selective reading is only going to confirm over and over again that which you already accept as facts. You've become locked into the dogma and that's brought your learning to a halt. You need to read the alternative views now and then be able to weigh the two against each other in order to reach informed conclusions.

Even if you did indeed read all those books, which is sincerely doubtful. The reason why is the number is exaggerated even more now because of your need to impress others. I greatly suspect that in person you have an inability to impress anybody and you're trying to make up for that with your reading exaggerations.

You'll continue to confirm my suspicions over and over again and I'll jump on it if I bother to read it. Keep that in mind!
StatMech has likely read more of the 'alternative views' than you have, since you've shown no signs of being familiar with the 'revisionist' oeuvre in its written form.

Plus, the topics that Balsamo and StatMech are arguing about really aren't much discussed at all in the 'alternative' or 'revisionist' canon. The question of whether the Vichy government knew exact details of the fate of Jews deported from France doesn't really come up in the 'Holocaust Handbooks'. And there's nothing anywhere in 'revisionism' that might provide an alternative view to Donald Bloxham's 'imperial cone' thesis or respond to the questions raised by it. But there are numerous conventional histories raising similar questions (Tim Snyder's Black Earth, just for starters).

So, that was a bit of a failed troll on your part, to be quite honest.
Hi Nick. I've been away for a few days but I'm anxious to get back to the topic we had going between us. I may hve missed some information you have volunteered on the question of eye witnesses that date back to the 40's so I'm asking again. That which you presented earlier in long lists of witnesses didn't meet the requests I has asked for from you. I followed the first few links you posted and found that they didn't qualify for meeting my request. And then, I have to say that I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect me to spend hours trying to find one reference from your list that met my request.

I don't feel it's unreasonable to request eye witness evidence from the period of time in question, which are by necessity first hand accounts. To not have my request met by a historian has to lead me to believe that eye witness accounts must all be flawed, as we both know that at least most have been proven to be. I await your reply again.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:49 pm

nickterry wrote:The question of whether the Vichy government . . .
The Vichy government? Is that like the EGs? :)
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23880
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:53 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
nickterry wrote:The question of whether the Vichy government . . .
The Vichy government? Is that like the EGs? :)
Vhich government? :nose:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by nickterry » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:56 pm

Montgomery, I hate to break it to you, but the evidence gathered in the 1940s exists externally to either of us, so it's incumbent on you to learn about it and familiarise yourself with the material. It's not incumbent on anyone else to spoon-feed you, jump through hoops for your amusement or serve as your personal research slave.

You've been given quite a few pointers over the past few weeks, but have shown no signs of having tried to read any of them. By signs I mean the conventional markers - referencing a piece of work however casually and indicating you know what's in it.

A while back you asked about works on Auschwitz, and I replied by highlighting Pressac and Van Pelt's report - the latter covers the issue of 1940s eyewitnesses as well as wartime reports/manuscripts written prior to liberation, the 1940s trials, and 1940s publications on Auschwitz. Apparently you haven't read these, since nothing you've posted about since receiving these recommendations indicates that you have done so.

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by montgomery » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:58 pm

What are the EG's again? I think that investigating evidence that applies directly to the Vichy government could be productive. There isn't universal condemnation of the Vichy government in France and so a discussion could rise above American propaganda and reveal some more hidden truths.

But I don't want to depart from my request of Nick yet. The real evidence that can't be classed as latter day fabrications surely must exist. And it must exist without the obvious flaws that reveal lies and exaggerations.

So spam and insult all you like; it's not going to go away.

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by montgomery » Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:03 pm

nickterry wrote:Montgomery, I hate to break it to you, but the evidence gathered in the 1940s exists externally to either of us, so it's incumbent on you to learn about it and familiarise yourself with the material. It's not incumbent on anyone else to spoon-feed you, jump through hoops for your amusement or serve as your personal research slave.

You've been given quite a few pointers over the past few weeks, but have shown no signs of having tried to read any of them. By signs I mean the conventional markers - referencing a piece of work however casually and indicating you know what's in it.

A while back you asked about works on Auschwitz, and I replied by highlighting Pressac and Van Pelt's report - the latter covers the issue of 1940s eyewitnesses as well as wartime reports/manuscripts written prior to liberation, the 1940s trials, and 1940s publications on Auschwitz. Apparently you haven't read these, since nothing you've posted about since receiving these recommendations indicates that you have done so.
This is your confirmation that the evidence I've asked for just doesn't exist Nick. No amount of your consistent denigration of my abilities is going to change that for you.

Pressac's and Van Pelt's evidence is flawed and also otherwise fails to meet my challenge
.https://codoh.com/library/document/2425/?lang=en

I'll leave the ball in your court.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by nickterry » Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:26 pm

[quote="montgomery"

This is your confirmation that the evidence I've asked for just doesn't exist Nick. .[/quote]

No, it's not. I've just chosen to point out that the evidence you're asking for exists independently of you or me, and that it's not my job to serve as your research bitch. If you are to make a credible assertion about the 1940s evidence then *you* need to display some awareness of what exists and what doesn't.

I'm perfectly well aware of the evidence gathered in the 1940s - it is after all my job to know about source collections, and indeed in the past week, I've discussed sources on phenomena as diverse as British strategy vis-a-vis the collapsing Eastern Front of 1917-18, women in occupied Germany 1945-1949, satire in Weimar Germany 1919-1925, teenagers in Nazi concentration camps, tank production and deployment in Britain during WWII, the IG Farben trial's handling of Monowitz, and Holocaust memory in the post-1991 Russian Federation. The difference is (a) I'm paid to give that advice and (b) I like the students I'm advising. You I'd prefer to see twist in the wind. Maybe if you'd not been such an a-hole previously you might have received a different answer.

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by montgomery » Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:41 pm

nickterry wrote:[quote="montgomery"

This is your confirmation that the evidence I've asked for just doesn't exist Nick. .
No, it's not. I've just chosen to point out that the evidence you're asking for exists independently of you or me, and that it's not my job to serve as your research bitch. If you are to make a credible assertion about the 1940s evidence then *you* need to display some awareness of what exists and what doesn't.

I'm perfectly well aware of the evidence gathered in the 1940s - it is after all my job to know about source collections, and indeed in the past week, I've discussed sources on phenomena as diverse as British strategy vis-a-vis the collapsing Eastern Front of 1917-18, women in occupied Germany 1945-1949, satire in Weimar Germany 1919-1925, teenagers in Nazi concentration camps, tank production and deployment in Britain during WWII, the IG Farben trial's handling of Monowitz, and Holocaust memory in the post-1991 Russian Federation. The difference is (a) I'm paid to give that advice and (b) I like the students I'm advising. You I'd prefer to see twist in the wind. Maybe if you'd not been such an a-hole previously you might have received a different answer.[/quote]

Now that you have called ma an a-hole I'm ready to discount you as nothing more credible and more decent than any of the others. I accept that as your excuse for not being capable of producing the requested evidence. I'm now able to say with confidence that there is nobody posting on this forum at this time who is capable of holding up the H.P.'ers claims.

No eye witness of evidence pertaining to the holocaust exists, who hasn't disqualified him/herself by resorting to lies and exaggerations. That's my final position and it stands unchallenged.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:48 pm

This thread is the one in which balsamo and I stamp our feet and stare in disbelief at each other about Wannsee. The troll hunting guy's need to disrupt our mutual foot-stamping and disbelief-staring is incredibly rude. Especially when he is asking a question that's been asked and answered multiple times.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23880
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:56 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:This thread is the one in which balsamo and I stamp our feet and stare in disbelief at each other about Wannsee. The troll hunting guy's need to disrupt our mutual foot-stamping and disbelief-staring is incredibly rude. Especially when he is asking a question that's been asked and answered multiple times.
It's engaging in more than a little bit of projection, ain't it...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by montgomery » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:20 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:This thread is the one in which balsamo and I stamp our feet and stare in disbelief at each other about Wannsee. The troll hunting guy's need to disrupt our mutual foot-stamping and disbelief-staring is incredibly rude. Especially when he is asking a question that's been asked and answered multiple times.
No eye witness of evidence pertaining to the holocaust exists, who hasn't disqualified him/herself by resorting to lies and exaggerations. That's my final position and it stands unchallenged.

Undoubtedly it's been asked and answered many times, but it's never been answered satisfactorily because we now know that no credible eye witness exists. And so, everyone can draw their own conclusions of the credibility of the holocaust claims based on just that. That may or may not prove the entire holocaust to be a lie. But it does show the failure of the Hoclocaust promotors to stand their ground.

And there's no insults and spamming that's going to change that! Especially from one Nick Terry who claims to possess a doctorate on the topic! Tell us more mr. statistics, about how you lack the most vital statistics? :oops:

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23880
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard) derailed

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:27 pm

More spam.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Regular Poster
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Darren Wilshak » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:40 pm

Spam, trolling and BS.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:50 pm

And more rude interruptions.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

montgomery
BANNED
Posts: 953
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:30 pm

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by montgomery » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:58 pm

This thread doesn't meet my approval or anything that meets my challenge and so let's just all resort to personal attacks on each other and see it we can have it locked.

Or as a more acceptable alternative, ask doctor Terry for a reference to some eye witness of the holocaust who hasn't made an absolute buffoon of him/herself by resorting to lampshades and lobster steaming! LOL

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23880
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread derailed

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:02 pm

@ StatMech & DW, Anyone here care^? I sure don't...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:06 pm

LOL this thread was started years before this guy came here. No, I don't care. He's got about 6 million threads open with different forms of his request where he pretends it hasn't been met. I don't see why he feels the need to wreck this thread too. But I guess that's what troll hunters do.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2304
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Balmoral95 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:10 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:LOL this thread was started years before this guy came here. No, I don't care. He's got about 6 million threads open with different forms of his request where he pretends it hasn't been met. I don't see why he feels the need to wreck this thread too. But I guess that's what troll hunters do.

All this boils down to a Nordic version of Gerdes.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22616
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:18 pm

True, but you'd think they'd have better quality trolls there, in the north, no?
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23880
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Yet another Wannsee thread (with Brayard)

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:20 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:LOL this thread was started years before this guy came here. No, I don't care. He's got about 6 million threads open with different forms of his request where he pretends it hasn't been met. I don't see why he feels the need to wreck this thread too. But I guess that's what troll hunters do.
What I bolded is a

Level 4

• Posting the same content more than three times within a single topic or in other topics.


violation repeatedly committed by that member. To an amount of which would ask undue effort of any mod to hunt down...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Post Reply