World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:52 pm

Wrong subforum. The Funny Pages are elsewhere.
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:10 pm

Monstrous wrote:HA!!!

The Believers are still awed and stunned and have been unable to mount even the most feeble response to the questions Monstrous asked in the very first post. Repeated here for convenience: "So how are the Believers explaining away these statements? The National Socialists still talking about deportations to Africa after the war while a full scale genocide is supposedly ongoing?"

Instead they have tried to divert attention from their ruinous defeat by focusing on the pre-Holocaust statements such as the Transfer Agreement which are the least interesting ones and not relevant for the questions Monstrous asked.

I sure as hell am not a believer - I think Mike Hucklechuckle and Ben Carson are though - and I've told you that as for me, I am ignoring your tangents until you stop dodging.

It is not lost on anyone that you've failed to reply to comments in this thread that relate to your monstrosity of a thread on evidence - as well as dodging questions asked you, and points made, in that thread.

We can keep at this game - where you pretend you've not been told and you continue to repeat your lies - as long as you wish. It makes you look dishonest and daft, craven and cowardly but that's your business.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4475
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeff_36 » Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:10 pm

Monstrous wrote:HA!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K00Su8-3pEQ

The Believers are still awed and stunned and have been unable to mount even the most feeble response to the questions Monstrous asked in the very first post. Repeated here for convenience: "So how are the Believers explaining away these statements? The National Socialists still talking about deportations to Africa after the war while a full scale genocide is supposedly ongoing?"

Jeff_36 answered this question in the most thorough manner. Please re read the thread.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1449
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Balsamo » Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:12 pm

Monstrous wrote:HA!!!

The Believers are still awed and stunned and have been unable to mount even the most feeble response to the questions Monstrous asked in the very first post. Repeated here for convenience: "So how are the Believers explaining away these statements? The National Socialists still talking about deportations to Africa after the war while a full scale genocide is supposedly ongoing?"

Instead they have tried to divert attention from their ruinous defeat by focusing on the pre-Holocaust statements such as the Transfer Agreement which are the least interesting ones and not relevant for the questions Monstrous asked.


It might surprise you, but actually many points presented in this idiotic article - the author is not even able to give the basic information on the documents he quotes - except that they are used by this not less idiotic Lecture on the Holocaust by mister Rudolf.

If you have the courage and the motivation, you may start by reading the Wannsee thread i have just pupped. It covers of course, the July 1941 order,
Here is another thread in which i an trying to explain the co-existence of the two approaches regarding the Final Solution which explain most of those documents. Well, not that many did agree with me, lol,
Two years ago, French Historian Florent Brayard offered his thesis on that. ( not that many agree with him, neither).

It is all on this forum, nevertheless.
Wannsee : http://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=25720
The two policies: http://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=25694

Regarding the points that might not be covered by those threads, i'll address them later - if i have the time - and provided you make the effort to found your answers in the two threads i gave. Other can be found in the thread about the specific case of France - La Grande Raffle -

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:18 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Wrong subforum. The Funny Pages are elsewhere.
It's funny isn't it. Monsterous is displaying the same outright denial, that his claims have been systematically destroyed, in exactly the same way as the "wooists" do, in the general forum. It's just a type of personality disorder. It doesn't seem to matter what the topic is.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4475
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:07 am

Balsamo wrote:
Monstrous wrote:HA!!!

The Believers are still awed and stunned and have been unable to mount even the most feeble response to the questions Monstrous asked in the very first post. Repeated here for convenience: "So how are the Believers explaining away these statements? The National Socialists still talking about deportations to Africa after the war while a full scale genocide is supposedly ongoing?"

Instead they have tried to divert attention from their ruinous defeat by focusing on the pre-Holocaust statements such as the Transfer Agreement which are the least interesting ones and not relevant for the questions Monstrous asked.


It might surprise you, but actually many points presented in this idiotic article - the author is not even able to give the basic information on the documents he quotes - except that they are used by this not less idiotic Lecture on the Holocaust by mister Rudolf.

If you have the courage and the motivation, you may start by reading the Wannsee thread i have just pupped. It covers of course, the July 1941 order,
Here is another thread in which i an trying to explain the co-existence of the two approaches regarding the Final Solution which explain most of those documents. Well, not that many did agree with me, lol,
Two years ago, French Historian Florent Brayard offered his thesis on that. ( not that many agree with him, neither).

It is all on this forum, nevertheless.
Wannsee : http://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=25720
The two policies: http://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=25694

Regarding the points that might not be covered by those threads, i'll address them later - if i have the time - and provided you make the effort to found your answers in the two threads i gave. Other can be found in the thread about the specific case of France - La Grande Raffle -



I do not agree with your "two final solutions" theory purely, but I agree with some variant of it. I refer to it as an improvised final solution. One set of intentions forged, followed by no clear input as to actions except in the most general sense, then the complications caused by the war switch things up and the shoah as we know it comes about in the killing of nonworking Jews.

The Wannasee conference, IMO, is a dead end. Not worth discussing at all. everything of substance happened later, but the groundwork came beforehand.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:50 am

Jeff_36 wrote:The Wannasee conference, IMO, is a dead end. Not worth discussing at all. everything of substance happened later, but the groundwork came beforehand.

Without going back through all the points of view we've all articulated, and my reasoning for my own very different argument to those made by Balsamo and you, I have to disagree here purely on methodological grounds and factual grounds.

As far as sources go, and what can be analyzed productively, the Wannsee protocol is an important document and needs to be placed and assessed; doing so isn't a dead end but quite revealing, no matter what your position. The protocol and its "surround" are important to any point of view on the development of Nazi Jewish policy and action - and, in fact, have to be explained to account for any argument, which is why Brayard, Longerich, Gerlach, Browning, Roseman, and others spend time thinking the conference through.

As to the facts, the protocol reviewed the history of Judenpolitik (emigration), then described its current status (emigration stop order, so-called evacuation of the Jews); in this discussion, according to the protocol, "practical experience is already being collected which is of the greatest importance in relation to the future final solution of the Jewish question." Among the conference participants were Gestapo Müller and police commanders Lange and Schöngarth. In short, to read more about some of the "practical experience . . . already being collected," that is, that which was happening beforehand, one need only click here. The Wannsee meeting was part of a process with significant events on either side of it, including the Einsatzgruppen extermination actions in the occupied USSR as well as the high-level decisions taken in December.

I will agree with Balsamo on his main point, that we've discussed issues of chronology and policy in various threads, notably those he mentioned, although the France discussion was left high and dry (!). The discussion of what seems to be the point of this thread, thus, as Balsamo says, should be part of the debate over the Nazis' Judenpolitik, ongoing in other threads.

There is, however, an insurmountable problem for Monstrous. No matter how much in the ongoing discussion we've disagreed, we replied to one another's questions and challenges, and we supported our assertions with evidence. To the extent that he deigns to answer our posts, on the other hand, Monstrous has only spam and the fabulist approach: he pretends that evidence doesn't exist, and he makes up whatever suits his fancy. He'd be lost in the Brayard and other such threads. The debate there is way over his head and not susceptible to ready-made link-spam, which speaks to why Monstrous opened this thread in the first place.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1449
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Balsamo » Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:21 pm

Hi all,

My sole intention was to show that we have been discussing most of those silly points quoted from this even more silly "lecture on the Holocaust" by Rudolf. I was not really expecting a direct reply from the Monstrous.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:25 pm

Balsamo wrote:Hi all,

My sole intention was to show that we have been discussing most of those silly points quoted from this even more silly "lecture on the Holocaust" by Rudolf. I was not really expecting a direct reply from the Monstrous.

LOL indeed, but, honestly, the corollary point is worth making: Monstrous is not capable of joining the discussion on policy issues which you've long since opened . . .
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1449
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Balsamo » Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:38 pm

I am reading this "Lecture on the Holocaust", and i don't understand how one can even pretend to be taken seriously given the amount of bad faith used.
I was hoping to get some contexts to those quotes, but Rudolf do not provide any. This article on metapedia is a bloody copy/past.

Let's take this quote by Rudolf:
"On September 5, 1942, Horst Ahnert of the Paris security police wrote that in conjunction with the “final solution to the Jewish question” the “deportation of Jews for purpose of labor” was about to begin. (Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 143)"

Who knows who this Horst Ahnert was? I mean it happens that i do, and maybe you do as well, given that we have studied the French case...But sincerely, how can one pretend to hold something when quoting a bloody sergeant of the SD?

The allusion to the "Grüne Mappe" is close to a falsification, and i wonder if Monstrous even knows what it is, from what authority it came from, and why.

Actually, i wasted some time in addressing most of those silly points, but i got {!#%@} by my computer and it is gone. I am not sure i am gonna to do it again, unless of course Monstrous manifests himself.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:35 pm

LOL - of course . . . Ahnert, who was Röthke's deputy, was his stand-in at the meeting in Berlin, at IV B 4, in August '42 at which poor Ahnert was scolded on account of the slow pace of the removal of the Jews from France (“There is a lot of catching up to do before the end of October. . . . this is the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, decided by the Führer and the Reichschancellor” ), the problem lying at far more senior levels. My guess is that Rudolf knows just what sleight of hand he is trying to pull whilst Monstrous hasn't a clue. Do you think Monstrous knows who Röthke was?

(Nice one, by the way!)
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4475
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:31 pm

Re Ahnert: Exactly. The nature of the deportation would be above his level so to speak.

Does monstrous wish to discuss the Bene telegram? The Dannicker letter perhaps?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:41 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:Re Ahnert: Exactly. The nature of the deportation would be above his level so to speak.

Does monstrous wish to discuss the Bene telegram? The Dannicker letter perhaps?

The French thread beckons . . . but first, is he done with his evidence thread, where he's ignored 18 and counting direct questions and challenges? If so, on we move. If not, I am sticking with the evidence thread . . .
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:22 pm

Looking through the threads, Metapedia, Lectures on the Holocaust, and elsewhere there seem to be in principal several different attempted Believer explanations. Monstrous will pedagogically list and explain what is wrong:

A. In order to conceal the Holocaust, the documents used secret "code words" or were simply ignored while the real orders were transmitted only orally.
-If assuming this, then all German documents are worthless as evidence for anything at all. Furthermore, why use such tactics in already secret documents, private diaries, secret speeches, private conversations, and on? Would lower level German functionaries really commit mass murders and violate both German and international law based only on hearsay without having any written explicit orders?

B. Rehabilitate Irving, Hitler and other top level German official (except possibly Himmler) did not know of the initial killings which were unauthorized.
-That it would be possible to on such a large scale mislead the top leaders in a totalitarian dictatorship seems unlikely. Also extremely dangerous for anyone attempting to do so. Cannot explain later contradictory statements by the top leaders, unless one assumes that they were mislead even at the later stages, which is increasingly absurd. Also a problematic theory since it apparently qualifies a proponent as being a "Holocaust denier" and deserving imprisonment.

C. Hitler and Himmler/SS concealed the Holocaust from other top officials such as Goebbels and other non-SS.
- Why, they would have objected and could have ordered Hitler and Himmler to stop? Even if attempted, very unlikely that such top officials would have not learned of such killings regardless, so the attempt would have be pointless, and would in itself at the very least have created discord among the top leadership. The practical and bureaucratic problems with such a concealment would have been immense.

D. Some of the statements were made by lower level officials who were not involved with and did not know of the Holocaust or were targeted at such lower level officials.
- Possible, but can only explain some statements.

E. The Holocaust decision was made much later than commonly assumed.
- How then to explain Babi Yar, gas vans, Chelmno, early plans for Belzec, and so on?

F. There was a distinction between killing "Ostjuden" and other Jews with the more benign statements referring to only to the much smaller group of non-Ostjuden and which were often killed somewhat later.
-There is no such distinction in the statements. Some Geman Jews were deported very early. Cannot explain later statements.

F. There was a distinction between killing nonworking and working Jews which somehow explains the statements.
- How such a distinction would explain the statements is very unclear. Furthermore, according to the Believers all Jews regardless of working ability were killed at Babi Yar and in the Aktion Reinhard camps. According to revisionists records show that nonworking Jews were present in camps and ghettos demonstrating that they were not killed.

G. The top leaders considered stopping the genocide and sending the survivors to Africa after the war.
- Probably too silly to reply to.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:45 pm

And Monstrous . . . opts not to discuss evidence in the France thread but to share instead some of his deep thinking and pedagogy with us, pulled from the dark recesses of his . . . never mind . . . let's see what he has for us:
Monstrous wrote:A. In order to conceal the Holocaust, the documents used secret "code words" or were simply ignored while the real orders were transmitted only orally.

No, I never used the concept of "secret code words"; some orders were transmitted orally, indeed. Unfortunately, your speculation is worthless, when we have empirical evidence, such as 3666-PS, in which we can read that Otto Bräutigam, an official in the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, replied as follows to a 15 November 1941 query from the Reichskommissar for the Ostland, Hinrich Lohse, as to whether all Jews in his Reichskommissariat were to be annihilated:
Verbal discussions should in the interim have made matters clear regarding the Jewish question. . . . it is requested that questions that arise be resolved directly with the higher SS- and police leader.

Not in writing, nor through memos to Berlin - but in verbal discussions and with the HSSPF. Sorry, but that's what the evidence says. (We've all noticed how you seem to have lost interest in the evidence as it has been shown to demolish your "theses.")

Monstrous wrote:B. Rehabilitate Irving, Hitler and other top level German official (except possibly Himmler) did not know of the initial killings which were unauthorized.

This seems not to qualify as a sentence, but, no, I never used the argument you seem to be trying to state.

Monstrous wrote:C. Hitler and Himmler/SS concealed the Holocaust from other top officials such as Goebbels and other non-SS.

I specifically argued against any such argument, except to say that not all officials needed to know the same things as others, at the same time, and that, with regard to Goebbels in particular, Hitler did not always keep him in the loop or up to date - but Goebbels eventually was usually informed and found out what was going on at a high level (e.g., 27 March 1942 diary entry). There were many surprises to Goebbels, and Rosenberg for that matter, recorded in their diaries having nothing to do with the Final Solution. But as you've phrased it, I didn't make this argument.

Monstrous wrote:D. Some of the statements were made by lower level officials who were not involved with and did not know of the Holocaust or were targeted at such lower level officials.

You may know what you're trying to express - I don't.

Monstrous wrote:E. The Holocaust decision was made much later than commonly assumed.
- How then to explain Babi Yar, gas vans, Chelmno, early plans for Belzec, and so on?

Don't know what you mean by "commonly assumed," but your point is not logical. Some commentators argue that the Final Solution (note: FS, not Holocaust) was decided in fall 1941; there were for sure massacres of Jews carried out in Poland by police units, including Einsatzgruppen, before that date. Massacres, large-scale extermination actions, and other mass murder operations need not have been aimed at extermination of all of European Jewry - in fact, I've argued that before a decision for a continent-wide extermination, "practical experience" was needed. The "cumulative radicalization" theory, which you seem unaware of, presupposes such build up.

There is actually a documented debate during late fall 1941, among officials in the Ostland and Berlin, over whether the intention was to execute all Jews in the region or keep to large-scale murder actions. As to the outcome, see Jäger's report and the Lohse-Bräutigam-Trampedach correspondence, all this referenced also above.

The case of Chelmno is revealing - but you earlier refused to discuss evidence for it. The early gassings at Chelmno took place as part of a regional initiative, requested by officials in the Warthegau (Greiser, Koppe) and approved by Himmler - deportations and gassings commenced about the same time as the decision for the Final Solution (general European extermination of the Jews), that is, December 1941. In spring 1942 - April in fact - Himmler made the Warthegau mass murder a component part of the general extermination program when he instructed Greiser and Koppe to make room in Łódź ghetto for working Jews from outlying towns - by sending 10,000 Jews from the Reich, Protectorate, Austria, and Luxemourg (who'd been sent to the ghetto in fall 1941) to Chelmno where they were to be gassed. The regional beginning of the killings and the subsequent incorporation of Chelmno into the European wide murder program are not at odds with each other.

To take this a step further, a disagreement that we have today over the timing of the decision - for example - to extend local murder operations to all of Europe, and to subject all European Jews to a policy of extermination, does not negate our possible agreement that 1) there is evidence for mass murder of Jews before or apart from the decision, 2) there having been a policy of extermination targeting European Jews being developed and implemented at some point, or 3) evidence proves the mass murder of Jews under the eventual policy decided. There are many more nuances that could be discussed (someone could argue that no final decision was made on the Final Solution, that person could call himself "Bloxham," for example), but on the big point, your "pedagogy" is without logic - and it ignores empirical evidence.

Monstrous wrote:F. There was a distinction between killing "Ostjuden" and other Jews with the more benign statements referring to only to the much smaller group of non-Ostjuden and which were often killed somewhat later.
-There is no such distinction in the statements. Some Geman Jews were deported very early. Cannot explain later statements.

To defend Jeff and Balsamo, despite my very sharp disagreements with their pov's, deportation of Jews didn't always equate to immediate extermination - but, again, I have never made the argument you are stating here. I argued against the neat distinction made by some, as did Nick Terry.

Monstrous wrote:F. There was a distinction between killing nonworking and working Jews which somehow explains the statements.
- How such a distinction would explain the statements is very unclear. Furthermore, according to the Believers all Jews regardless of working ability were killed at Babi Yar and in the Aktion Reinhard camps. According to revisionists records show that nonworking Jews were present in camps and ghettos demonstrating that they were not killed.

Muddled thinking. In general, Jews capable of work were selected for work - not always, not perfectly. But generally. The sources show this. See, e.g., the Jäger report. From early on, there were competing interests, where very often, not always, civil authorities in occupied territory and the Wehrmacht wanted to retain more Jews for labor, especially where they made up a large part of the skilled work force. Further, your point about Babi Yar muddles fall 1941 with 1942, when the course of the war turned against Germany and put a premium on labor. The selections in Aktion Reinhard, unlike most but not all Auschwitz selections, took place at the point of departure, not in the camps. Please read up on this stuff.

Monstrous wrote:G. The top leaders considered stopping the genocide and sending the survivors to Africa after the war.
- Probably too silly to reply to.

Indeed, if you'd not written it here. Again, sigh, I did not make any such argument.

Your pedagogical BS is worthless in that it misrepresents what has been argued, or descends into gibberish. Oh well, anything to avoid discussing, you know, the evidence.

I will let Balsamo and Jeff reply for themselves; had you been even a little honest, you'd have made clear that nearly all of what you wrote here was rejected - and sources cited to support this rejection - by Nick Terry, Xcalibur, and me.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4475
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:39 pm

- How such a distinction would explain the statements is very unclear. Furthermore, according to the Believers all Jews regardless of working ability were killed at Babi Yar and in the Aktion Reinhard camps. According to revisionists records show that nonworking Jews were present in camps and ghettos demonstrating that they were not killed.


You have either never read a single scholarly book on the holocaust or you are lying.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:54 pm

Again, on this topic, we could discuss the Jäger report and other evidence about Lithuania or evidence about Warsaw or Łódź - and like that - OR we could keep reading where Monstrous farts and belches and vomits up words that he mistakenly thinks mean something.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1449
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Balsamo » Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:07 pm

Ok Monstrous, this last post at least deserves a reply:

Presented like that, your points do seem paradoxical, but basically only because of the lack of knowledge and comprehension of the whole event. And this is not specific to only the deniers.
And this is why "working revisionists" are using those paradoxes to create doubts.
If Rudolf knows his stuff, he is being dishonest, if he does not, he is stupid.

A. In order to conceal the Holocaust, the documents used secret "code words" or were simply ignored while the real orders were transmitted only orally.
-If assuming this, then all German documents are worthless as evidence for anything at all. Furthermore, why use such tactics in already secret documents, private diaries, secret speeches, private conversations, and on? Would lower level German functionaries really commit mass murders and violate both German and international law based only on hearsay without having any written explicit orders?


The code language - which existed and was used in some exchanges - was maybe used a bit too much some historians - depending on their fundamental conceptual approach and point of view, but that was in most cases like 30-40 years ago when “intentionalism” was still popular.
In most case, as i see things, code language are more a mixture between lies from people in the know to people not in the known among the German apparatus and indeed some code used between people in the known.
That is there are obvious different ways of saying things depending on who both correspondants of the exchange are. Exchange between Eichmann and Dannecker used a different language than let's say exchanges between Eichmann and the Foreign office or the MBH in Brussels.

Obviously, the mass murders of Jews in the East were not even hidden by any code.
Fellow denier Vincent Reynouard, in one of his youtube video, proudly show the General reports of the EG stating that 476.000 Jews have been executed for various bogus reasons/justifications. He proudly shows us the "LIE" defended by "Believers" that 1000.000 Jews were killed in the east. Being a little bit stupid, he forgets to mention that the reports he shows only cover the period between June 41 and April 42 (visible in the video), and that in the same time, there is no consensus about the number of 1000.000 victims. The Korherr report mention 633.000 at the end of 1942 which quite fits with Reynouard own numbers.

Exchange between Himmler and Greisler about the Polish Jews of Lodz neither, but secrecy increased.
On the other hands, the more westward we go, the less openly murder is discussed.

Now, if am still interested in the Holcaust, it is because i think that there are still many things to be discovered, explored, studied, elements that maybe need to be rethought, otherwise, it would be boring. This is the reason i always welcome new thesis like Bloxham's or even to a certain point Brayard, just to mention those two. But to get to this point, many previous debates had to have taken place. Only Deniers who don’t read the historiography can pretend that there is such thing as “a common view” or an “official narrative”.

Your logic regarding the documents and their validity is flawed. But again, this is exactly what “revisionists” like Rudolf want you to believe. It is on purpose very few information are given on the documents quoted. That some were issued by low profiled sergeant in Paris, other by Göring four years plan administration (Grüne Mappe), other from the ministry of finance (Walter Maedel), by the WVHA (Pohl), and of course ignore some specific cases like Luther. All that matter for people like Rudolf is their impact on uninformed people.

B. Rehabilitate Irving, Hitler and other top level German official (except possibly Himmler) did not know of the initial killings which were unauthorized.
-That it would be possible to on such a large scale mislead the top leaders in a totalitarian dictatorship seems unlikely. Also extremely dangerous for anyone attempting to do so. Cannot explain later contradictory statements by the top leaders, unless one assumes that they were mislead even at the later stages, which is increasingly absurd. Also a problematic theory since it apparently qualifies a proponent as being a "Holocaust denier" and deserving imprisonment.


Well, i doubt anything would be enough to rehabilitate Irving. His works are becoming almost embarrassing to read. He also managed to got hated by Revisionists.
Anyway, this assuption regarding Hitler is highly improbable.
Given the power structure of the third Reich, it seems highly improbable that such operations could have been organized without Hitler approval for the simple reason that HITLER was the source of all power. What you call the "unauthorized killing" were clearly authorized- I guess you mean Poland - because they were only possible thanks to special powers Hitler gave Himmler through one of the "Fuhrer's Befehl". Himmler special powers in the East were later expanded to the Eastern front after Barbarossa and allowed the EG to do their Jobs. First quarter of 42, Himmler saw his powers as RKF increased and expand to the western occupied countries, August 43 he became minister of the interior. Loads of promotions for someone who was murdering millions behind his Fuhrer's back, right?

in Oktober 41, discussions between Himmler and Greisler do refer to Hitler. Here the idea was local inspired, that is that in order to fulfil Hitler’s wishes to send German Jews to the East (in Poland), room had to be made.

At this stage, on question would be : does the decision to kill as much as eastern Jews as possible behind the lines imply that the decision to murder the German and western Jews was also decided? This is what I call a “pivotal question”, that is a question whose answer would influence the perspective. It is also speculation.

Nevertheless, you might have guessed where I disagree with StatMec, here: The decision to kill the Jews in the East was independent to the decision to bring the genocide to a European level. Those Jews, identified – I would say – as the highest threat – Judeo-Bolshevik - in the Nazi Anti-Semitic scale were doomed since the launch of Barbarossa. This local genocide took place in a specific context of total war (Vernichtungskriege) against Judeo-Bolshevism and communism. As a consequence, I don’t think that the concept of “practical experience” refers to those massacres.

But even before, there are instances where Jews were specifically targeted and murdered in huge numbers, and that is Serbia, where Jews were deliberately selected to be hostages to be shot in retaliation to attacks against German troops.

It kinds of blur the picture.

“C. Hitler and Himmler/SS concealed the Holocaust from other top officials such as Goebbels and other non-SS.
- Why, they would have objected and could have ordered Hitler and Himmler to stop? Even if attempted, very unlikely that such top officials would have not learned of such killings regardless, so the attempt would have be pointless, and would in itself at the very least have created discord among the top leadership. The practical and bureaucratic problems with such a concealment would have been immense.”


What a strange way to see things…to be polite.

Note that this is one of the core disagreements I have with StatMec, a pandora box that is about to be closed.

My starting point is that a substantial part of the Bureaucracy was working on the Jewish problem and its solutions almost since 1933.

This organization was given a boost by the Goering’s decree of January 1939. This official approach continued through 1941 and was basically brought to an end beginning of 1942. This “legal” approach was basically centered on the Jews within the Reich (including Austria, the Suddenten,). The solution thought was indeed territorial, first based on emigration, then evacuation (that is forced emigration).

Those ministerial offices had no jurisdiction for territories outside the historical borders of the Reich. The situation changed a lot after the war started, first because of the sudden increase in the number of Jews under control, secondly, and most importantly, because those Jews were outside the traditional offices juridiction.
So as the Jewish Question expanded, instead of having the responsabilities of those previously in charge, a parallel organization was put in charge in the newly occupied territories. So from 1940 to the end of 1941, there were those two groups dealing with the same question, with quite different approach.
This is why we have basically two kinds of – or so it seems – paradoxical type of documents co-existing for this short period of time. The ministerial offices which still approach the problem through a territorial perspective, and the RSHA which had almost free hand to do whatever it wanted in this “East” and which knew very well that there was no such nice territories available ro resettle the millions of European Jews.

The RSHA took over the Jewish Question step by step. The idea of an “evacuation” to the east was imposed to the offices, and worked through with their cooperation, the so-called territorial solution being now somewhere in the East, somewhere between Danzig and Vladivostok. The last fruitful collaboration was the elaboration of the so-called Amendment/decree to the nationality code (25 november 41) which was the occasion of endless “discussion” between the RSHA and the Ministry of the Interior.
The concept was cynically that a Jew who had emigrated or “Somehow” changed its address to some place outside the Reich would lose his nationality and his goods, everything. And despite everything they already had to suffer, those German Jews, BECAUSE of the Nurnberg laws, were still German citizens – even third class ones. Hence, the endless discussions about who was a Jews, who was to be deported, what about the mixt marriage, the mishlinge and their family, what territories would be considered to be “outside the Reich”, who would be in charge of the confiscated wealth. All those questions would keep those offices occupied for the next 8 months, but basically the Final Solution would not be of their concerns after Wannsee.
Meanwhile, the RSHA – that is Himmler and Heydrich, Eichmann’s office – had already started to gather “practical experiences” by deporting – outside any legal frame – German Jews while handling the “space problem” by taking measures to drastically reduce (euphemism) the native Jewish problem in the Baltics of course and in Poland as well…so space would be liberated for those Jews from the Reich.
Some of those Jews were shot upon arrival, like the convoy which was integrated to the Rumbala massacres, as well as others. Whether those were incidents or some tries (tests) is up to anyone, but given the presence of eldery, mischlinge, war veterans, that is categories that would be later granted some bogus privileged treatments (theresienstadt), I cannot refrain from considering those like deliberate attempts.

Anyway, things did not go well after those first massacres – as told by Himmler at Posen 2 years later – so my provisional stands is that that part of the program was delayed until further noticed, that is a couple of months. Meanwhile, there was enough to do with the polish Jews – yes I make the distinction – to gather even more practical experiences.
So while all those first organized killings were taking place or were about to take place, one finds the Nazi bureaucracies still holding meetings about who was to be deported or not.

The million dollar question is of course were they told what the new plan was or not?
I do not see any reasonable reason why one would have taken the risk to share the new solution that was being implemented, not one.
Given that those office were already collaborating in the deportation to the “east”. So if one if those civil servants were still working on post war territorial solution – not for long – I do not see why the RSHA would have cared, as it got everything he wanted otherwise, that is the complete control over a European global solution to the Jewish problem. Things went smooth in most cases (some countries proved to be more difficult to convince, etc…another topic), because the official policy had not been publically and politically changed.
Everyone agreed that Jews had to be deported and that the current destination was the “East”, so why ask for more?

Contrary to Statmec, I don’t think that a decision was taken in December 41, but that the opportunity to consider plain murder as a solution appeared well before, maybe because of the success of the EG operation, or maybe, more probable, because of the little fuss around the first thousands polish Jews from Lodz being murdered.
Anyway, I’ll keep the rest for the Wannsee thread you and your idiotic metapedia article inspired me to continue. (well actually, I wrote my response to Nick Terry a couple of months ago, but the whole stuff lies dead in the ruins of my former computer, and I never found the time to rewrite the whole thing).

The funny part in your post is this part:
“they would have objected and could have ordered Hitler and Himmler to stop”


Guess what, in Nazi Germany, no one would have been allowed to give any kind of orders to the Fuhrer whatsoever, and given the personal powers of Himmler as head of the SS and the RSHA, and a long list of his attributions, it makes of course no sense at all. The only thing that could eventually be done was a conspiracy and a coup.

But it is also fair to say that most did not give a dam of what might be happening to the Jews once in the East. Those bureaucrats had been wording for years to get Germany, later Europe rid of its Jews, no one could really by himself figure out how those deportation could really take place and how to “resettle” millions. They did not know where and how, and none of those issues was of their business anyway, the “law is the law” or the “State is always right”, and the State made it clear that every Jews had to be deported to the East, once there, the Jews ceased to be of any bureaucratic concerns.
And anyway, the most important was that the “secret” was kept only until the end of 1943.

“D. Some of the statements were made by lower level officials who were not involved with and did not know of the Holocaust or were targeted at such lower level officials.
- Possible, but can only explain some statements.”


I have difficulties understanding your sentences. I don’t know to which statements you are referring, here. If you mean the SD sergeant, well the official theme to France official was indeed that the Jews were to be resettled in Poland.

“E. The Holocaust decision was made much later than commonly assumed.
- How then to explain Babi Yar, gas vans, Chelmno, early plans for Belzec, and so on?”


I think I did cover those questions.

“F. There was a distinction between killing "Ostjuden" and other Jews with the more benign statements referring to only to the much smaller group of non-Ostjuden and which were often killed somewhat later.


Well, this is one Pandora box, my friend. We have been discussing this for some time now. Enough I hope to make you change your mind about bogus like “Believers says this or that”. This is one of the subjects I am into, actually. So you are free to follow any discussion that will take place, as well as those who have already taken place.

“F. There was a distinction between killing nonworking and working Jews which somehow explains the statements.- How such a distinction would explain the statements is very unclear. Furthermore, according to the Believers all Jews regardless of working ability were killed at Babi Yar and in the Aktion Reinhard camps. According to revisionists records show that nonworking Jews were present in camps and ghettos demonstrating that they were not killed.”


Babi Yar, again. This operation took place in the context of a war against Judeo-Bolshevism, a total war, a war qualified as “to be or not to be” by the Nazis themselves. Aktion Reinhard mostly targeted the Polish Jews, only later some western Jews. Those camps main purpose was to liquidate the Ghettos in Poland (which by the way could be described as Jewish settlements, so why liquidate them if the purpose was to resettle let’s say Jews from France in settlements in Poland). As for the presence of non-working Jews in some settlements, as a matter of fact, in some cases, essential workers were allowed to keep their family, at least temporarily.

Those working Jews were also under a different authority, that is the WVHA (Pohl) which explains some of the quotes. You might want to ask why those precious working Jews were dying like flies to such an extent that Pohl felt obliged to intervene.

“G. The top leaders considered stopping the genocide and sending the survivors to Africa after the war.
- Probably too silly to reply to.”


Indeed to silly. There were no leaders “in charge” of the genocide who ever considered to “stop” it. Goebbels believes it longer because Hitler chose to tell him that kind of crap.
The idea of sending eventually Jews to Afrika supposed a clear and absolute victory of the Germany against basically the rest of the world, which was only a dream after the failure of Barbarossa.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:06 pm

Balsamo wrote:That is there are obvious different ways of saying things depending on who both correspondants of the exchange are. Exchange between Eichmann and Dannecker used a different language than let's say exchanges between Eichmann and the Foreign office or the MBH in Brussels.

Exactly - good point, well made. To talk about a "secret code" is different to discussing how language is used in different forums and types of communication (e.g., among top leaders, within the bureaucracy, to participants in a project vs to those tangentially involved vs to people not involved at all, in persuasion or publicity or in propaganda, and so on - not to mention at different times and in changing conditions - the Stargardt book I recently read has some interesting observations on these issues).

Balsamo wrote:In the other hands, the more westward we go, the less openly murder is discussed.

Whilst we agree on the conceptual issue, as you know ;) we disagree on this particular conclusion. But we have a whole thread for that - and you still owe me your reply on France . . . :mrgreen:

Balsamo wrote:
B. Rehabilitate Irving, Hitler and other top level German official (except possibly Himmler) did not know of the initial killings which were unauthorized.
-That it would be possible to on such a large scale mislead the top leaders in a totalitarian dictatorship seems unlikely. Also extremely dangerous for anyone attempting to do so. Cannot explain later contradictory statements by the top leaders, unless one assumes that they were mislead even at the later stages, which is increasingly absurd. Also a problematic theory since it apparently qualifies a proponent as being a "Holocaust denier" and deserving imprisonment.

Well, i doubt anything would be enough to rehabilitate Irving. His works are becoming almost embarrassing to read. He also managed to got hated by Revisionists.
Anyway, this assuption regarding Hitler is highly improbable.

It just struck me that Monstrous thinks someone - you? - in the other threads was reviving Irving's argument: when your argument about the conspiracy is that it included Hitler, not excluded him! Is that what Monstrous thinks? What was he going on about with this gibberish?

Balsamo wrote:Loads of promotions for someone who was murdering millions behind his Fuhrer's back, right?

Irving stumbled in a big way on this in his analysis of Himmler's Posen speeches - which is why he needed to concoct a forgery scenario, to have Himmler talking behind the Führer's back. But as Monstrous knows, he's already lost that debate.

Balsamo wrote:Nevertheless, you might have guessed where I disagree with StatMec, here: The decision to kill the Jews in the East was independent to the decision to bring the genocide to a European level. Those Jews, identified – I would say – as the highest threat – Judeo-Bolshevik - in the Nazi Anti-Semitic scale were doomed since the launch of Barbarossa.

Yes, we disagree. As a side comment, it is fun to read stuff about the post-WWI period in Germany and note the degree to which right-wing activists at that time and in the context of Germany went on and on about the dire threat of nothing other than Judeo-Bolshevism.

The rest - not replying point by point as we've both spelled out our views in other threads. What you wrote below seems to restate a lot of previous discussion . . .

Balsamo wrote:The concept was cynically that a Jew who had emigrated or “Somehow” changed its address to some place outside the Reich would lose his nationality and his goods, everything.

Of course, Auschwitz was located in territory annexed to the Reich . . .

Balsamo wrote:The funny part in your post is this part:
“they would have objected and could have ordered Hitler and Himmler to stop”

That is one of those Berg-level, Stundie type comments deniers come up with from time to time: comedy genius.

Balsamo wrote:If you mean the SD sergeant, well the official theme to France official was indeed that the Jews were to be resettled in Poland.

Here we do agree: not every link in the chain of identification, registration, round-up, snatch property, hold on site, put on train, guard train, get to east . . . had to know the details of what happened in the east. This is axiomatic for processes characterized by the division of labor and a well-known and studied bureaucratic-administrative phenomenon.

Balsamo wrote:Babi Yar, again. This operation took place in the context of a war against Judeo-Bolshevism, a total war, a war qualified as “to be or not to be” by the Nazis themselves. Aktion Reinhard mostly targeted the Polish Jews, only later some western Jews.

We disagree here, if I understand you, and have not gone into this. Working Jews were retained throughout the occupied USSR - in contrast to the thrust of your remarks here. E.g., Vilna, Kovno, Shavli, the Riga camps, Minsk area, as well as in the Ukraine. Different operations were more or less "complete" depending on local needs, some in-fighting, and overall labor needs. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "Babi Yar, again" and "a war against Judeo-Bolshevism, a total war, a war qualified as “to be or not to be” by the Nazis themselves."

Balsamo wrote:As for the presence of non-working Jews in some settlements, as a matter of fact, in some cases, essential workers were allowed to keep their family, at least temporarily.

Indeed, the Nazis went back and forth on this issue, sometimes keeping "working" families together, sometimes not. There was not once-and-for all policy on this. Also, I think it is non-trivial that the roundups and deportations were often chaotic, violent, and characterized by fits and starts, changes in execution personnel, etc. The result was that exceptions to the rule occurred.

Balsamo wrote:Those working Jews were also under a different authority, that is the WVHA (Pohl) which explains some of the quotes. You might want to ask why those precious working Jews were dying like flies to such an extent that Pohl felt obliged to intervene.

Not always and not everywhere. Ghettos, with their workshops, in the occupied Ostland were administered by the civil authorities (RKO); there were Wehrmacht camps in which Jews worked; Globocnik had a number of important labor camps in the Lublin area (the Old Airfield camp, Trawninki, Poniatowa, Majdanek, Chopin 27, the aircraft factory); the Schmelt camps in Eastern Upper Silesia were under separate SS authority; "work camp" Łódź was administered by the Warthegau authorities; many local labor offices (e.g., IIRC in the Protectorate) used forced Jewish labor; Jews worked for Organization Todt and along the DG-IV for Speer; Jews in various places were enlisted to perform forced labor for the ERR; and so on. One size didn't fit all. But, yes, indeed, working conditions for Jews in most forced labor situations were lethal or bordered on being lethal; there is so much documentation of this that I have confidence that Monstrous will find a way to ignore it or pretend Stalin was responsible.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Tue Nov 17, 2015 2:55 pm

Monstrous's poor head is spinning quite rapidly and is in risk of overheating due to trying to understand and make sense of exactly what the different Believers are trying to say and make of sense of this in the context of, for example, the genocidal killing at Babi Yar. Current understanding stated below.

Nuremburg show trials: The genocide decision is made even before the invasion of the Soviet Union starts. The Einsatzgruppen commanders and Höss are are given secret oral genocidal orders in June 1941. The rest of 1941 consists essentially of experiments and preparations for how to best achieve this genocide with mass gassings beginning in early 1942 (after finalizing the details at Wannsee). Some Jews kept alive temporarily as forced laborers. All top officials know everything. Any documents stating otherwise use "code words" or are smokescreens for the real oral only orders.

Statistical Mechanic: Irving is wrong so Hitler must have ordered, for example, Babi Yar (but why order only a limited genocide?). The general genocidal decision is made later than in the Nuremberg version but before Wannsee where everyone present knows of the genocide. Any documents stating otherwise are smokescreens for the real oral only orders or due to Hitler not informing some individuals not directly involved such as Goebbels of the genocide.

Balsamo: Irving is wrong so Hitler mush have ordered, for example, Babi Yar. Hitler at first orders Himmler/SS to kill only the Ostjuden (but why order only a limited genocide?). The non-SS parts of bureaucracy and top leaders like Goebbels is unaware of this and thinks that the policy is still deportation/resettlement. This charade is present also at Wannsee where the non-SS members thus think that they are planning deportations/resettlement while the SS members know that at least the Ostjuden will be killed on arrival.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:06 pm

Please try to pay attention. First, Babi Yar took place before the basic decision for a European wide genocide was made in December 1941 (Gerlach). The mass murder at Babi Yar was in the context of orders from Himmler, Heydrich and Wehrmacht leaders concerning cleansing in the occupied USSR - not in the context of a later decision regarding the European wide genocide. I've made this point clear numerous times. Also, these orders regarding the occupation In the east have been discussed extensively in this forum, but if you need a remedial course, one can be arranged.

Second, even had the Babi Yar massacre occurred after the basic decision, no one here - and certainly not I - has made an argument that Hitler himself was involved in each and every mass murder action or in the operational details of the extermination.

Further I don't recall using the concept smokescreen and definitely didn't argue that Goebbels was never brought into the loop on he genocide.

Your post relies on a straw man, misstatement of what's been written in this forum, and a nonsensical proposition. It also calls into question your ability to read and process information and arguments.

You're getting worse and worse at this, which is saying something given the low bar you set in your Posen and Einsatzgruppen threads.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:40 pm

Babi Yar is problematic for Believer attempts to save the Believer timeline since it obviously a claimed genocidal action killing all Jews regardless of working ability, age, gender, communist collaboration, or anything else. It is a claimed pure genocidal killing. Nothing else. In the Nuremburg show trials version it makes some kind of sense, the EG commander are given secret genocidal orders before the invasion, so that all the Jews in Kiev are killed can be explained. Unfortunately, it does not fit at all with later German statements which obviously show that no genocidal decision had been taken at this time.

If the general genocidal decision if only taken after Babi Yar, how then to explain Babi Yar? That is what Balsamo is attempting with his "Ostjuden" gambit, SM is just clueless.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:40 pm

Monstrous wrote:Babi Yar is problematic for Believer attempts to save the Believer timeline since it obviously a claimed genocidal action killing all Jews regardless of working ability, age, gender, communist collaboration, or anything else.

Dealt with above. Stop repeating yourself and pretending you've not read what's been posted.

Babi Yar, a massacre of 33,771 Jews which you now seem to be accepting as having occurred, is not problematic for anyone except deniers. It was what it was. Balsamo's chronology, Jeff's, and mine all account for it without any difficulty. What we, along with Nick Terry and others, have been debating is how to interpret the evidence - and facts - and Babi Yar has never come up as a problem for any of the interpretations.

You're too dim to follow the debate - you can't even recap it with a remote degree of accuracy and show no signs of knowing what the debate was about. You should find another hobby.

Monstrous wrote:It is a claimed pure genocidal killing. Nothing else.

I have no idea what you are going on about. Inventing categories and classifications that exist in your head may please you but in the real world, such things don't matter. Further, 1) you cannot lift single actions out of the whole, any more than you can understand by looking at just this or that document - and 2) the Holocaust was not a hologram or a fractal, with the self-same patterns repeating at every level and everywhere. You've already been told this, too.

Monstrous wrote:In the Nuremburg show trials version it makes some kind of sense, the EG commander are given secret genocidal orders before the invasion, so that all the Jews in Kiev are killed can be explained. Unfortunately, it does not fit at all with later German statements which obviously show that no genocidal decision had been taken at this time.

Doofus, a decision was taken to cleanse the occupied USSR of Jews - again, this has been explained and re-explained - and this decision preceded the decision for a European wide genocide.

USSR: occupied east. Rest of Europe: the other {!#%@} direction.
Cleansing of USSR: decisions in summer '41. Continent wide extermination of the Jews: decision December '41.
This is a simple concept/distinction - your inability to "get" it cannot be down to feeble-mindedness but rather your dishonest agenda.

The Babi Yar massacre was carried out at the end of September 1941 by SK 4a (commander: Blobel) under the direction of HSSPF Jeckeln. That puts it in the period after the decisions for the cleansing of the occupied USSR. As Nick Terry schooled you, the massacre was reported on in Ereignismeldungen 97, 101, 106, and 111 as well as in other reports of the period. The cleansing of the USSR was not complete, however, lest you try any more funny business, before the European wide genocide was agreed.

Monstrous wrote:If the general genocidal decision if only taken after Babi Yar, how then to explain Babi Yar?

LOL, are these words too difficult for you? "The mass murder at Babi Yar was in the context of orders from Himmler, Heydrich and Wehrmacht leaders concerning cleansing in the occupied USSR - not in the context of a later decision regarding the European wide genocide." On re-reading the sentence, and reflecting on your demonstrated challenges with reading comprehension, I can see how they might be over your head. Oh well.

Monstrous wrote:That is what Balsamo is attempting with his "Ostjuden" gambit, SM is just clueless.

Hardly. Your refusal to read and process what's written doesn't equate to Balsamo's having a gambit or my being clueless. Carry on - keep posting the same repetitive nonsense that's been dealt with over and over, it only makes you out to be a fool and an arsehole.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 19, 2015 2:04 pm

Since you bring up Babi Yar, Monstrous, which you previously called "the faked Babi Yar massacre," you've now put yourself in the position of having to deal with the evidence for Babi Yar, which you were previously slapped with here:
nickterry wrote:There are over 60 contemporary sources on the BY massacre, the following listing compiled back in November 2012 by me does not include an Abwehr report from the Rovno area that recorded hearsay about the action in November 1941 nor does it include several Polish underground reports likewise registering hearsay of a major massacre at Kiev.

RSHA Sources

1. Ereignismeldung UdSSR 97, 28.9.41 - planning of action

2. Ereignismeldung UdSSR 101, 2.10.41 - carrying out of action, brief reference

3. Ereignismeldung UdSSR 106, 7.10.41 - carrying out of action, more extensive report

4. Ereignismeldung UdSSR 111, 12.10.41 - SK4a bodycount reached more than 51,000, referring back to action

5. Taetigkeits- und Lagebericht der Einsatzgruppen Nr 6, covering 1-31.10.41 - repeating details from the Ereignismeldungen

Foreign Office Sources

6. Summary of TuLBs by Undersecretary of State Martin Luther of Foreign Office, cited by Browning/Origins of the Final Solution, p.204

HSSPF Russland-Sued Sources

7. HSSPF Russland-Sued, Lagebericht, 28.9.41, Military History Archive Prague, Kommandostab RFSS files - "Pol.Rgt. Sued Saeuberungsaktion und Absperrdienst in Kiew"

8. HSSPF Russland-Sued, Lagebericht, 30.9.41, Military Historical Archive Prague, Kommandostab RFSS files - "Pol.Rgt.Sued weiterhin Sicherungsdienst in Kiew und Durchfuehrung von Aktionen nach Kriegsbrauch"

Wehrmacht Sources

9. Report of Oberst Erwin Stolze of the Abwehr, 23.10.41, NOKW-3147, referring to massacre of Jews at Kiev and transmission of information by Hauptmann Hans Koch, liaison officer of the Ostministerium to Army Group South, as well as questioning of Koch by foreign journalists visiting Kiev in October 1941.

10. Report of Hauptmann Hans Koch, liaison officer of the Ostministerium to Army Group South, 5.10.41, regarding situation in Kiev, describes massacre, 053-PS, original in GARF 7445-2-138

11. Propagandakompanie (mot) 637, Taetigkeitsbericht fuer den 25. und 26. September 1941 - printing up of 2000 placards ordering Jews "sich an einem bestimmten Ort zu melden" - BA-MA RH20-6/492, p.18, facsimiled in Verbrechen der Wehrmacht, p.162

12. Besondere Anordnungen fuer die Versorgung, Versorgungsbezirk Sued, Nr 132, 27.9.41, BA-MA RH3/v.174, supply of 100,000 rounds of ammunition to HSSPF Russland-Sued

13. 113. Infanteriedivision Ic, entries in activity report of 27.9.1941 and 3.10.1941, BA Ludwigsburg Dok-Sammlung Verschiedenes IX, p.58ff; reports noting tasking of pioneer battalion to blow up ravine sides over the grave

14. 454. Sicherungsdivision Abt VII, Taetigkeitsbericht 1-10.10.41, NOKW-2129 and BA-MA RH26-454/28, referring to massacre, preparations and aftermath

15. Armeeoberkommando 6 Ic/AO, Taetigkeitsbericht, 3.10.41, BA-MA RH20-6/493, p.240, meetings with SK4a officers

16. Propagandakompanie (mot) 637 an AOK 6, 10.11.41, BA-MA RH20-6/494, p.215ff, notifying army of photos taken by command, including photo of town commandant Eberhard with HSSPF Russland-Sued Friedrich Jeckeln in Kiev, interesting partial corroboration of Ereignismeldungen detail of meetings between Jeckeln, Rasch, Blobel and Eberhard

17. Reichenau Order of 10 October 1941, issued by commander of 6th Army, explicitly exhorting soldiers to have full understanding of the harsh measures against Jews in his sector

18. “In Kiev,” Cpl. LB wrote on September 28, “mines explode one after the other. For eight days now the city is on fire and all of it is the Jews’ doing. Therefore all Jews aged 14 to 60 have been shot and the Jewish women will also be shot, otherwise there will be no end to it.” - quoted in Saul Friedlander, The Years of Exetermination, p.293, from published field post letters of German soldiers.

Collaborator Sources/in Ukrainian Language

19. Placard ordering Jews to gather on 28 September 1941

20. Ukrainian Police commander of Kiev, Order No 5, n.d, after 29.9.41, TsADAHOU 1-23-121, p.6, reproduced in Die Verfolgung und Ermordung der europaeischen Juden Bd.7, pp.304-5, ordering all house block administrators to report any Jews to the nearest police station

21. Ukrains'ke Slovo, Nr 29, 10.10.41, p.4, ordinance of town administration of Kiev of same date, reproduced in Die Verfolgung und Ermordung der europaeischen Juden Bd.7, pp.314-5, ordering that property of Jews be gathered by commissions

Soviet sources

22. Diary of teacher L. Nartova, TsADAHOU 1-22-347, pp.1-3, reproduced in Die Verfolgung und Ermordung der europaeischen Juden Bd.7, p.296

23. Diary of Irina Chorosunova, published in Erhard Wiehn (ed), Die Schoah von Babij Jar, p.292ff

24. Joint report by 18th and 8th Soviet Armies to Political Administration of the Southern Front, 15 January 1942, TsADAHOU 62-9-4. pp.149-155, reproduced in Verfolgung und Ermordung Bd 7, pp.415-9, describing massacre based on eyewitness testimonies of escaped prisoners, noting 'active support of Black Hundreds and Ukrainian nationalists' (i.e. collaborators)

Neutral Sources

25. Aussage eines Wehrmachtdeserteurs, verhoert durch den Einvernahmeoffizier 'Schangau' am 26.2.42, Swiss EMD E27, Dossier 8430, reproduced in Verfolgung und Ermordung Bd 7, pp.441-3, detailed description of Zhitomir action carried out by SK4a, hearsay about action at Kiev

26. Bericht aus Deutschland, November 1941, received by Swiss Bundesanwaltschaft on 13.12.41, BAr Akten der Bundesanwaltschaft E 4320 (B) 1968/195; C.2.8, more hearsay

27. Bericht 8548/d. 444, March 1942, in EMD E 27, 9228, Bd.3, Luftwaffe deserter (Stuka pilot), reporting murder of 40 000 Jews, 'Abmarsch in die Sandgruben: Erschossen. Waende der Sandgruben gesprengt, sodass Massengraeber entstanden'. Interesting knowledge of exact details.

Photographic Sources

28-56: Johannes Haehle's photos

57: German soldiers with clothing, 29.9.41, from BY massacre, different photograher - ЦДКФФАУ, од. зб. 0-11410.

58. German soldiers sorting clothing,29.9.41, from BY massacre, closer to ravine, different photographer - ЦДКФФАУ, од. зб. 0-11411.

I doubt the above is complete, because I've not bothered to look up the sources cited in 2 journal articles on the BY massacre and Wehrmacht complicity.

It doesn't include the hundreds of witness testimonies gathered in about a dozen West German investigations into Sonderkommando 4a, Pol.Btl 45, Pol.Btl. 303, and Sonderkommando 1005, and in at least five Soviet investigations (post-liberation, Kiev trial in 1945, a 1950 investigation, a 1960s one, and one in 1980).

Nor does it include the fact that news of the massacre leaked to the outside world within 2 months. But let's add a few of those, since these reports leaked in multiple directions and cannot be traced back to a single source.

Contemporary Newspaper Reports

59. Krakiwski Wisti, Ukrainian collaborator paper in Cracow, reported by Jewish Telegraphic Agency on 21 October 1941 (dateline London 20 October 1941) saying that the Jews had been driven out of Kiev, 'the last Jew was expelled from Kiev on September 29'.

60. Fred Oechsner, United Press Bureau chief in Berlin, New York Herald Tribune article of 29 October 1941, reporting German sources about liquidations of Jews in Kiev, Zhitomir, Cherson, also noting that 'the Ukrainians took care of matters'.

60a. Neue Zuercher Zeitung, 30 October 1941, 'Eindruecke aus Odessa', reprint of report of United Press correspondent travelling over Ukraine: 'Im Laufe unserer Reise hoerten wir oft von deutschen und rumaenischer Seite von summarischer Behandlung der Juden in Kiew, Shitomir, Cherson und anderen Orten, und die Deutschen erzaehlten haeufig, dass die Ukrainer selber die Sache in die Hand genommen haetten'.

61. Felice Bellotti, “Le mine ‘assassine’ di Kiev,” La Stampa (Turin), October 31, 1941, p. 3 - Italian journalist visiting Kiev in October 1941 on the same tour, told by city administration that all the Jews had gone, and wondered where. See here for more. The 30 journalists taken to Kiev also asked Hauptmann Koch about the massacre, see document 9 listed above.

61a. By contrast, the remarks by the city administration were not mentioned in Alex Small, “Ruins of 5 Day Blaze – Kiev’s War Reminder,” Chicago Daily Tribune, October 23, 1941, p. 1.

62. Jewish Telegraphic Agency report of 16 November 1941 about massacre of 52,000 Jews in Kiev

62a. Pravda and Izvestiia, 19 November 1941, reporting massacre of 52,000 Jews in Kiev, repeated in Pravda, 29 November 1941. Counted as same root source - JTA correspondent probably learned the information from same informant in Kuibyshev/Moscow, but was able to publish.

63. JTA report of Russian eyewitness who had escaped across Soviet lines, confirming massacre, 28 August 1942.

By my count, in order to salvage even a shred of credibility, you now have to reply to three significant bodies of evidence: Warsaw to Treblinka, Łódź to Chełmno, and Babi Yar.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Thu Nov 19, 2015 2:28 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Since you bring up Babi Yar, Monstrous, which you previously called "the faked Babi Yar massacre," you've now put yourself in the position of having to deal with the evidence for Babi Yar

Seems off-topic to Monstrous but Metapedia and Codoh seem to have a nice article on the EG and Babi Yar:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen
http://codoh.com/library/document/920/

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Thu Nov 19, 2015 2:44 pm

Back on topic again:

Regarding alllegedly genocidal Babi Yar and German orders, here are some possibilities:

1. Nuremburg show trials version: The EG commanders are given oral genocidal orders before the invasion so Babi Yar can be explained. However, contradicted by various German statements showing that no genocidal decision had been made at this time.

2. Irving: Babi Yar and other massacres were done without authorization by lower level echelons. Hitler knew nothing. Rejected by everyone else.

3. Balsmo: Hitler had ordered only the Ostjuden to be genocided which solves the paradox. However, any evidence for such distinction is lacking and such a "half-done" genocide is a strange concept.

4. SM: ??? "a decision was taken to cleanse the occupied USSR of Jews". What is that? Cleanse = genocide? Is this theory essentially that Hitler ordered only the USSR Jews to be genocided at an early stage? That is very similar to Balsmo's theory with the same counter-arguments.

5. Revisionists. Jews and non-Jews who were suspected of being communists, partisans, and so on, were killed. As were others as retaliations for partisan attack. However, no genocidal actions. Fits with the evidence except some of the easily fabricated EG reports. Which the Soviet Union absolutely had an interest in fabricate.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 19, 2015 3:49 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Since you bring up Babi Yar, Monstrous, which you previously called "the faked Babi Yar massacre," you've now put yourself in the position of having to deal with the evidence for Babi Yar

Seems off-topic to Monstrous but Metapedia and Codoh seem to have a nice article on the EG and Babi Yar:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen
http://codoh.com/library/document/920/

The topic has become your allergy to evidence, a topic you've raised in three related threads.

Stop spamming and deal directly with what has been posted.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 19, 2015 4:50 pm

Monstrous wrote:Back on topic again:

So in your warped view is Babi Yar off topic as you wrote "Thu Nov 19, 2015 3:28 pm" - or, as you now write, is Babi Yar on topic?

You see, with the lengths you go to dodge, you can't even keep track. When you confuse yourself like this, you also confuse readers.

Monstrous wrote:Regarding alllegedly genocidal Babi Yar and German orders, here are some possibilities:

1. Nuremburg show trials version: The EG commanders are given oral genocidal orders before the invasion so Babi Yar can be explained.

In English, please. Explained to whom?

Monstrous wrote:However, contradicted by various German statements showing that no genocidal decision had been made at this time.

What are you talking about? What "genocidal order"? What German statements?

Please have the courtesy to readers to tell them what is on your mind so that they needn't try reading your mind.

Monstrous wrote:2. Irving: Babi Yar and other massacres were done without authorization by lower level echelons. Hitler knew nothing. Rejected by everyone else.

Idiocy. This argument, made by Maryzilla and others at JREF maybe 5 years ago, was dealt with there. To save you trouble, because I care about your education, here is what was posted at JREF on Irving's silly gambit (most of the examples pertained to Lithuanian extermination actions also occurring in fall 1941):
This gambit is particularly inane. The Jaeger Report, like the Ereignismeldungen, is an official report (this one marked Secret Reich Business, the Ereignismeldungen compiled at Gestapo headquarters from field reports) - and you seriously try insinuating these reports as describing rogue activities? By fall 1941 recipients of the Ereignismeldungen included Himmler, Heydrich, Daluege, RSHA office chiefs, OKW officials, 4 HSSPFs, Canaris, Bormann, and others. By spring 1942 75 copies of the Ereignismeldungen were being distributed to officials of state and party. And please stop playing rhetorical games: the Jaeger and other operational reports, as you would know if you'd read any of them, were almost exclusively reports on activities completed, not discussions of plans - and certainly EG leaders were not reporting on plans or accomplishments in other areas, let alone general plans. In fact, this focus on local actions and what had been specifically accomplished is what makes the Jaeger Report and Ereignismeldungen compelling evidence.

Still, in this case your rhetoric comes up short as Jaeger makes clear his mission to clear Lithuania of Jews and explicitly details his back-and-forth with the civil administration and military on keeping a few Jews alive to work for the war effort whilst killing almost all the Lithuanian Jews. Jaeger's report is not to discuss killing operations in other areas - I can't tell if you're obtuse or playing games - but to report on his achievement of shared and agreed goals in his zone of operations. Please spare yourself further embarrassment and read Jaeger's report - and then the other sources on Lithuania mentioned in this thread. Really.

Further on the Jäger report and what it shows:
1) "Jaeger's report on 'Secret Reich Business!' does, of course, refer to a policy of the state in eliminating most of the Jews in his sphere of operation, using the phrases 'goal of making Lithuania free of Jews' and 'decision to systematically make every district free of Jews' and reporting agreements reached with the civil administration and military on the numbers to be killed that fall. The report came before historians conclude there had been a decision in favor of a European-wide extermination of Jews." 2) "[The Jaeger Report] reflected a policy to exterminate Jews in Lithuania, unequivocally, and can be connected to other documents and actions to kill Jews throughout the East, even before the general European program was decided." 3) "The early mass extermination actions targeting Jews, initiated by instructions to the Einsatzgruppen and then expanded by orders from Himmler and Heydrich in the summer of 1941, occurred in the East, with victims being Jews living in the occupied East. There are documents and other evidence that show this. One such document is the Jaeger Report." 4) "[T]he intention to murder all of Europe's Jews developed over time, with input from regional activists as well as central orders.”

On the orders to the Einsatzgruppen:
Before the initiation of Barbarossa, Heydrich specifically ordered the murder of some classes of Jews (his communique to HSSPFs of 2 July 1941); the Ereignismeldungen trace the expansion of limited categories of Jews to include whole populations (as I told you, the Ereignismeldungen were official reports filed from the field, compiled by the Gestapo, and distributed to senior officials of the government and party). There is postwar trial testimony about this: By early August, Filbert's EK 9 was killing women and children as well as male Jews in the region of Army Group Center. Filbert gave postwar testimony that he was ordered to shoot women and children by Nebe, commander of EG B. Although not the first such expanded action, the Vitebsk extermination in August is often cited in this regard. Bradfisch, leader of EK8, also testified after the war that when Himmler came to Minsk in summer 1941 to observe an execution there, Himmler had explained the existence of a Fuhrer order calling for the "difficult" task of executions of all the Jews. Bradfisch also testified that Nebe had informed him that "there exists an order from the Führer according to which all Jews, i.e. also women and children, are to be exterminated." This postwar testimony meshes with details of the Ereignismeldungen.

And still more on Colonel Jäger, on partisans:
Have you read the Jaeger Report? Please show where in that report the extermination actions are shown to involve anti-partisan actions. Further, please show what anti-partisan activity existed, for example, in the cities of Vilna and Kovno at that time and which caused residents, including children (as TSR points out) to be taken to the woods at Ponar or to the Seventh and Ninth Forts to be executed. Please name the leaders of these partisan groups, where they were headquartered and operating, and actions they had carried out.

On the making of territory judenrein and local "excesses":
Not one of you deniers here has yet, to go at this a different way, explained why the terms judenrein and judenfrei existed and how they were used.

Finally, as to "unfortunate excesses," 90% of Lithuania's Jews were murdered during the war years, that is around 195,000, mostly in fall 1941. In Vilna, where according to Jaeger and to other sources, like diaries, memoirs, and testimony, of the maybe 70,000 Jews living in the city in spring/summer 1941, by December, according to Arad using mostly German sources, about 27,000 of these Jews had been murdered. As described above, in the summer the victims were restricted to certain groups of Jews (males, for one thing) but by September the victims were simply Jews - men, women, children. For you to call this sort of action an unfortunate excess connected to anti-partisan activity shows the bankruptcy of your position. You are wriggling and squirming to apologize for, minimize, obfuscate or otherwise deny genocidal crimes.

Now, you need to show 1) the anti-partisan activity at Vilna and Kovno , for example, prompting these mass murders in summer and fall 1941, 2) how these mass murders were responsive to such alleged activity, and 3) how Jeager in his report explained this.

And more on partisans:
Tell us, according to your best thinking, based on what you know, and tell us roughly how you know this, 1) how many Vilna Jews were ordered killed and killed by the National Socialists in 1941? 2) how many Lithuanian Jews out of a pre-war population of approximately 210,000 were killed in extermination actions? 3) how many eastern Jews were murdered by the Nazis and groups under their command in extermination actions during the years of the war? Give us high and low estimates if you'd like. And then 4) explain how these deaths were merely unfortunate excesses or by-products of legitimate anti-partisan or other military actions.

Some explanations offered by Einsatzgruppen officers for their actions:
summaries of what German defendants said about the mass murders on the witness stand at one of the Nuremberg trials:
Quote:
Testimony at the Einsatzgruppen trial, from the defendants in their defense, would differ to your characterization of the mass slaughter of Jews as anti-partisan, although the defendants tried to offer this defense:

Erwin Schulz, head of EK-5 under Rasch, said the following on the stand:
- the killings of civilians were military actions undertaken in war
- the killings were legal because they didn't violate the international laws of warfare
- he had not heard of a Fuhrer-order for civilian murders in the eastern campaigns, thus his actions were not covered by the Fuhrer's orders
- the order to murder all civilian Jews in the massacres came to him in mid-August 1941 from Otto Rasch (EG-C)

Defendant Willy Seibert (EG-D under Ohlendorf), in questioning about his awareness of the criminality of murdering unarmed civilians, testified as follows at trial:
- he "simply didn't know anymore" what was illegal and what was legal in terms of killings during wartime
- killing based on superior orders during war must not be murder
- still, if ordered by superiors to shoot his parents, "I would not do so . . . it is inhuman to ask a son to shoot his parents," implying that it was not inhuman to ask an Aryan to shoot Jews, his squad having done this

While testifying in the same trial, defendant Werner Braune, who headed EK11b, said
- there was a Fuhrerbefehl to murder Jews
- the reason for Hitler's order was to protect the security of Germany because "Jews in the East were the decisive bearers of communism and its illegal manner of fighting"
- "the vast majority [of Jews] supported Bolshevism"
- true, if the majority of Jews supported Bolshevism, a minority didn't
- the minority of Jews not supporting Bolshevism was "ten, twenty, or thirty percent"
- these Jewish non-supporters of Bolshevism were killed along with the supporters of Bolshevism because, when it came to saving them, "the possibility did not exist"

Defendant Adolf Ott (EK 7b) testified that
- his Kommando shot only Jews who were proven to be engaged in partisan actions or sabotage
- despite this stipulation, "every Jew who was apprehended had to be shot. Never mind whether he was a perpetrator or not."

A general discussion of some arguments about the Jäger report as evidence for genocide including the cleansing argument and the lower-level/rogue operations argument:
With regard to the Jaeger Report, one of these possibly "pathetic" documents, you argue that it is simultaneously an example of 1) a "cleaning," according to the UN definition, 2) anti-partisan operations, possibly and unfortunately excessive, and 3) a "local" rogue action like Abu Ghraib. These three attempts to deflect, deny, and negate contradict one another, presenting diametrically opposed views of what actions were carried out. But, in denial, you try putting all three over on the readers of this thread.

Let's take them one by one:

Ethnic cleansing: You wrote that the Jaeger Report uses "the type of language we see when the overall Jewish policy of the German government is an ethnic cleansing." You also wrote that you definition of ethnic cleansing is the same as the UN's, a commission of which defined ethnic cleansing this way in 1983: "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." In the case of the Jaeger Report, we have 1) no evidence of removal such as deportation and no destination for those affected, 2) we have an accounting of the murders of about 130,000 Jews (and a small number of others) by EK 3 and Lithuanian groups "under my command" in summer/fall 1941, out of a population of 210,00 Jews in Lithuania (counting earlier operations, in fact, Jaeger gave the total executions as 137,346), 3) we have specifically Jewish victims, one-third of them children, along with small numbers of other listed victims, and 4) we have Jaeger's explanations for his actions: "there are no more Jews, other than the Work Jews, including their families" in Lithuania - "I also wanted to kill these Work Jews, including their families" but Jaeger had to allow them to live as the civil administration and the military wanted to exploit their labor power, at least temporarily, ordering that "the Work Jews and their families are not to be shot!"

These is no mention made by Jaeger of removal of Jews to another place - mainly Jaeger discusses and itemizes killings and shootings that had taken place; Jeager, in his commentary, also states his expectation that as economic needs would continue through winter and thus the surviving Jews of Lithuania would be kept alive to for the purpose of work (Jaeger gives 34,000 surviving Jews in 3 cities), "sterilization of the male Work Jews should begin immediately to prevent reproduction. Should a Jewess nonetheless become pregnant, she is to be liquidated." Again, the report is totally at odds with the UN definition of ethnic cleansing, and your groundless claim, and speaks only of measures to reduce population through murder and prevention of reproduction, not the separation of ethnic groups.

Your ploy with ethnic cleansing is not only at odds and internally contradictory to your other claims of anti-partisan operations and rogue actions - but by Jaeger's very words in his report the notion that he wrote about or used the language of ethnic cleansing explodes like a trick cigar in your face. You have outmaneuvered yourself with this idiotic claim - and had you read Jaeger's Report, you might have saved yourself the embarrassment.

Anti-partisan operations: Most of Jaeger's entries read like this one for Vilna 12 September 1941 (this is the ghetto operation which followed the Great Provocation action, which Schloss and Trojak survived to testify about) "City of Wilna - 993 Jews, 1670 Jewesses, 771 J child. 3,334."

A few of the killings are indeed listed as either reprisals or penal operations. One example is this one on 11-12 September at Uzusalis: "Penal operation against inhabitants who fed Russ. partisans and some of whom were in possession of weapons." with 43 unidentified victims. The overwhelming majority of actions simply list Jews, Jewesses and Jewish children, and Jaeger is explicit about the few exceptions because they are exceptions. Reading other documents will make one wary of the extent to which even those listed as reprisals and penal operations truly fit that definition. But if we take Jaeger's claims at face value, the reprisal and penal actions amount to little more than a rounding error in his overall accounting of mass murder. That is because the report explicitly states that most of the murders, by far, weren't responses to alleged attacks, partisan operations, subversion, etc. and that only a tiny minority of the murders were such responses.

Further, the manner of the killings makes clear that they were not anti-reprisal operations. Jews (not partisans or shooters or subversives - but Jewish families) were rounded up where they lived and taken to killing sites for the explicit and stated purposes of 1) making every district free of Jews by 2) their being executed in specially dug pits: "The implementation of such activities is primarily a question of organization. The decision to systematically make every district free of Jews necessitated an exhaustive preparation of each individual operation and reconnaissance of the prevailing circumstances in the applicable district. The Jews had to be assembled at one or several locations. Depending on the number, a place for the required pits had to be found and the pits dug. The marching route from the assembly place to the pits amounted on average to 4 to 5 kilometers. The Jews were transported to the place of execution in detachments of 500, at intervals of at least 2 kilometers. The attendant difficulties and nerve-wracking activity occasioned in doing this are shown in a randomly selected example: In Rokiskis, 3,208 people had to be transported 4.5 kilometers before they could be liquidated. To accomplish this task in 24 hours, more than 60 of the 80 available Lithuanian partisans had to be allocated for transportation and cordoning off duty."

As discussed above, the itemization of killings is mostly about Jews, Jewesses, and Jewish children, who were rounded up by commandos under Jaeger's authority, taken to killing areas, and executed as described by Jaeger, with pride in accomplishment.

Your fervent wish to label these killings as anti-partisan executions not only contradicts your claim that Jaeger described ethnic cleansing (removals) but also runs up against the rather clear statements Jaeger made in his report.

Again, I ask you to explain to readers of this thread precisely what partisan activity led to the rounding up of Jewish families in cities and towns across Lithuania and to the executions by Jaeger's count of 130,000 of these people.

Rogue operation: I have already written about the absurd comparison you make of the killing of 10s of 1000s of Jews to the torture at Abu Ghraib. Further, the Lithuania killings took place explicitly within the chain of command. They were reported to senior leaders including the civil administration for the Ostland; the Gestapo in Berlin; military authorities; and dozens of state and party officials beyond these. On this thread, we have discussed at least three kinds of reports filed on the killings in Lithuania: the Ereignismeldungen (compiled by the Gestapo based on field reports from the Einstazgruppen and widely distributed within the Reiich leadership); Jaeger's Report marked "Reich Secret Business!"; and a military report, the 403rd Secuitry Dvision's observation of good Wehrmacht and Einsatzgruppen cooperation in the killings. None of this is characteristic of the rogue operation you tried to pass these killings off to be. Again, your ploy that these killings were rogue or simply local contradicts the evidence as well as your other attempts to characterize the executions as reprisals or ethnic cleansing.

No, your fishing expedition, with three self-conflicting thrusts, has come up empty.

Now is time for you to PM bunny and ask about how and when to play the forgery card.

You clearly don't know a thing about the Jaeger Report or its context. As you yourself noted, this discussion is "about something which I admit I am not knowledgeable," but that manifest ignorance doesn't stop you from taking multiple, self-contradictory, negationist positions. In fact, you are showing yourself - and you know I could list more - as a pure knee-jerk negationist who hasn't done the research or the thinking but wants desperately to remain in denial and clutches at any straw to do so.

An overview of the Einsatzgruppen and their aims/orders, which was posted in the SSF Einsatzgruppen reports thread you opened:
Some comments on the Einsatzgruppen:

Discussion of secrecy/openness of the EG reports: Some of the discussion in the thread is very confusing to me because the statements are so vague and without good support. Let’s be clear that the EG reports were stamped stamped Geheime Reichssache! and some also stamped with a note to file securely - Lagezimmer. A facsimile of each case is shown in Arad/Krakowski/Spector, pages unnumbered (no. 19 for both stamps, no. 45 for just the state secret stamp). Where Maryzilla glosses discussion of language used in the reports as follows, we are getting very far afield, although I do feel that the way the question of secrecy has been written about in the thread is confusing: “nobody cared so the Germans could be open and there were so many Jews being killed that concealment would have been impossible anyway.” Again, these reports had limited circulation within the police and bureaucracy. Participants in and witnesses to the shooting in the east were not enjoined not to talk about the actions, photos were prohibited, the killings were clearly not conceived to be "ok for public consumption," thus they weren't made public at all. Yet word leaked on account of the number of people involved and the conditions of the shootings. Not as policy but against policy.

Partisan warfare: The EGs had number of tasks (below) but they were not constituted to wage war against partisans nor to wage war at all. They were behind-the-lines, mainly rear-area special squads - at the start of the war entering territory before the Soviets had formed effective partisan forces. The EG force numbered only about 3,000 men, deployed from the Baltics to the Crimea. Each EG thus had 600-900 men. The EGs were broken down into smaller units - Einsatzkommandos, Teilkommandos, Sonderkommandos, Rollkommandos, etc - which were very small units (e.g., Hamann’s Rollkommando in Lithuania numbered about a dozen men IIRC). Insofar as security and pacification support were needed in the rear, these units could help by targeting and eliminating opponents and perceived opponents, but not by carrying on anti-partisan warfare with just 3,000 men spread the length of the front.

Basic orders, mission: The EGs were engaged in eliminating opponents and potential opponents of the German occupation, a continuation of the mission of earlier EG work in Poland and elsewhere. Heydrich’s orders make this clear, including, e.g., officials, radical elements, propagandists, snipers, assassins, Communist operatives. Reports (EG reports, Stahlecker’s, etc) make clear that the mission grew to include solving the Jewish problem in the east by means annihilation actions (paraphrasing Stahlecker) or meeting the goal of a radical solution to the Jewish problem by killing all Jews (paraphrasing Lange).

Precedents and where the Einsatzgruppen fit in: The Einsatzgruppen operating in the USSR were not the first use of such special units.

Precedents for the operation and reporting of the EGs in the USSR included (Maryzilla will find much of what follows familiar - I hope she will not again reply asking me how this background explains gas chambers):

(1) Einsatzgruppen formed to intervene in the Sudetenland crisis, where two EGs were formed in case of an attack on Germany; no attack forthcoming, they were assigned to operate within Czechoslovakia, confiscating documents and arresting up to 6000 Czechs, in Aktion Gitter, targeting people who might oppose the German occupation; these were mostly leftists and Germans who'd fled to Prague, that is, Czechs thought possibly to be politically dangerous to Reich ambitions in Czechoslovakia. Several thousand such people were arrested with many expelled from the country and many sent to concentration camps. The second commander of the security police concerned, installed I believe in spring 1939, was named Walter Stahlecker.

(2) Einsatzgruppen were also formed for the invasion of Poland in fall 1939, where 7 EGs with 2700 men operated at the outset. In September Heydrich stated the goal that "the leading elements of Polish society should be rendered harmless" and clarified in October that to do this his men were carrying out a "liquidation of leading Poles" that should conclude by November. The formal mission of the EGs was to act against "elements hostile to the Reich and anti-German in enemy territory behind the front line." Heydrich described their mission as "extremely radical" and said that they would "render impotent" the "leading stratum in Poland." Before the attack, Germans estimated that up to 30,000 Poles would be arrested and sent to concentration camps. In the line with this, the EGs took action against intellectual leaders, Catholic clergy, aristocrats, and Jews thought to represent the possible leaders of opposition to the German occupation and whose names had been listed by the SD. Already in Poland the lines between saboteur/partisan/Franc-Tireur and intellectual/clergy/Jew were being blurred by the Nazis. The EG leaders were given some latitude on exact liquidation methods, which did not stop with arresting those on the "enemies" lists; many suspects were shot on the spot, without investigation, let alone arrest and trial.

Often, the EGs they worked with the Selbstschutz, armed units recruited from among local ethnic Germans. Using the Bromberg incident as pretext, they carried out a far-ranging action in October called the Intelligentsia Operation, murdering 1000s of teachers, officials, clergy, landowners, members of nationalist groups, and Jews - but also including asocials, prostitutes, and Gypsies. They also supported Wachsturmbann Eimann in murdering almost 8000 so-called incurables taken from mental hospitals in a Polish extension of T-4. The actions of Heydrich's EGs in Poland were so egregious that Wehrmacht leaders (yes, Blaskowitz among them) protested the atrocities - taking their complaints to von Brauchitsch and directly to Himmler as well. EGs also operated in the Balkans in spring 1941, arresting emigres, saboteurs, terrorists, Communists, and Jews.

To the USSR . . . for Operation Barbarossa, four Einsastzgruppen were formed; the framework for the invasion of the USSR and the war was laid down by Hitler himself in early spring when he told his generals that the war would be a clash between two ideologies requiring the annihilation of the leadership of the USSR, defined as the Judeo-Bolshevik intelligentsia (in order to crush the USSR and take over its western areas). As early as February 1941 Keitel (head of the Wehrmacht High Command) was describing the role of Himmler's units as exercising "special responsibilities in the zone of army operations" that came "at the Fuhrer's request" to help prepare the country for German rule.

The other aspect in background of the mission of the EGs was the military's concerns not to be implicated in the "radical" nature of the special tasks targeting leadership groups and others in the Soviet Union; therefore, formal agreements between Heydrich and the military leadership were reached. These agreements set down guidelines for the EGs in the campaign against the USSR. The March draft agreement discussed "identification and combating of subversive activities against the Reich" and that Heydrich would have authority to order "executive measures against the civilian population," although, again, latitude would be given to commanders of the EGs as to precise methods for carrying out these measures. The EGs would act in the rear areas on their own responsibility but with support from the Wehrmacht. Relevant planning documents include a request from Goering for Heydrich to list targeted groups of victims so that the army leaders would "understand who they will be putting up against the wall." The final agreement between Himmler and the army was signed in April.

Heydrich briefed EG leaders (Walter Stahlecker, mentioned above, being the leader of EG-A for the Baltics) in two meetings in June. Postwar testimony is unclear on how the targeted groups were described. Heydrich also wrote a summary of his orders, which described the EGs task as "politically pacifying" occupied territory by means of "ruthless severity"; he singled out some Jews as a special group to be targeted, naming "all Jews in the service of the Party and state" (this imprecisely defined group would be broader than on face value given Nazi ideological perceptions of their opponents, including the Jews and their concept of Judeo-Bolshevism - but it is not yet targeting all Jews or even all male Jews). Heydrich wrote of the targeted potential enemies (including Comintern officials, CPSU officials, even lower level CPSU operatives, people's commissars, demagogues, saboteurs and partisans, radical elements) being "eliminated."

The special tasks of the EGs in Operation Barbarossa, as in Poland but more radically in Barbarossa, were to eliminate groups of people who presented real and potential or suspected threats to the German occupation, and these groups included Jews, with the question of which Jews expanding through time. I have written a recent previous post on the way in which these political special tasks assigned the EGs were carried out and expanded once the invasion took place and operations began.

Last, we know from an intercepted radio telegram that, in addition to the other high-ranking recipients of the Ereignismeldungen, there was one I neglected to mention. As Gestapo chief Muller put it, "Regular reports on the work of the Einsatzgrupen in the east are to be sent to the Fuhrer." 

These regular reports which Muller referred to were the very reports that detail the killings of Jews - according to the Eriegnismeldungen - as Jews, intellectual Jews, Jewish activists, wandering Jews, rebellious Jews, partisans, Gypsies, communists, politruks and commissars, Asiatics, saboteurs, agitators, neglected juveniles, unreliable elements, racially inferior elements, asocials, hostile elements, undesirable elements, suspicious persons, criminals, delinquents, propagandists, spies and informers, mentally inferior persons and mental patients, pests, civilians, and arsonists, among others. In any event, Jews were singled out and targeted, with large losses of life. The reports containing these descriptions were the same ones used to convict the leaders of the EGs for 1 million murders in the east - 95% of the victims being Jews. And the National Socialist party and state leadership were reading about these "achievements" practically in real time.

The structure of the reports was common but inclusion of details such as dates and numbers varied according to the unit reporting, ranging from EG-A, highly specific, to EG-D, more general. There are gaps in some of the reporting. The reporting had begun with the EG’s in Poland, for which Heydrich had laid down guidelines such as headcount of Jews, etc. In 1941 Heyrdich also specified that data on POWs, including “special handling,” be presented in the reports. A large intelligence component was demanded, and Headland even describes the expectation for the reports as “a thorough and accurate account of intelligence information and executions.” (p 35) According the Headland, Heydrich was not always satisfied with the submissions.

With this background in mind, I really don’t see what Jeff and Balsamo are arguing. The EGs operated, under cover of the attack on the USSR, to eliminate perceived opponents of the Germans, including Jews, and ultimately to racially cleanse territory by means of executions. They operated at the outset from 22 June 1941 - months before a central “principle decision” (Gerlach) was taken for the Final Solution. The Germans had no central command for anti-Jewish operations at this time and certainly not one that managed the entire FS through the coming months and years. Heydrich’s EG teams operated separately to Greiser’s extermination camp which began its work in December 1941, Globocnik’s camps the first of which was being built that same fall, the WVHA camps that began exterminating Jews in 1942, and so on.

The desideratum for the reporting was not distinctions between Soviet or Polish Jews (in fact, many Polish Jews were being executed by the EGs), but the continuation of earlier SD/Gestapo reporting and the far-flung and dispersed nature of the activities. At the time, the radicalism of the “solution” of the Jewish problem was escalating, in the context of the war, and the methods of summer-fall 1941 would be supplemented later with new methods and new norms.

Defense in the NMT trial: The EG leaders offered the following defenses during their trial by the NMT. They pleaded that the numbers killed were an exaggeration - and had been exaggerated in the reports. Quoting Headland, “The defense claimed that the various stages in the reporting process had provided opportunities for increasing the numbers.” (Ohlendorf was in a bit of a jam on this because he’d offered a figure to British investigators, taking them utterly by surprise, as well as iin testimony before the IMT - and during the NMT trial now had to explain his own latter-day figure! Ohlendorf accused other EG leaders, Heydrich, Müller, and others in the RSHA of pumping the figures and estimated inflation by a factor of 2. The problem here - the EG leaders were trying to save their own necks - is that by arguing that higher officials wanted bigger numbers, they are pointing to a policy of extermination. The defense of superior orders was used by many of the defendants in the case - along with the defense that someone else had given the execution orders.)

Ohlendorf had also testified, in January 1946, about the reporting requirements to the IMT, months before the reports were discovered. Ohlendorf stressed on the stand that many top leaders were kept informed of the murders and in doing so mentioned the existence of the reports themselves.

OTOH some of the defendants (e.g., Blume) claimed that they were scrupulous in their reporting. The defense even submitted Himmler’s Posen speech (4 October 1943) which spoke of the need for truthful and accurate reporting within the SS.

The defendants also discussed errors in the reports (which exist), arguing that because the reports had errors they could not be used to determine the guilt of individuals. To take one example, defendant Haensch claimed that reports implying he was in charge of SK 4b when it killed 3,401 people were in error since he’d been in Berlin during the time in question. Six used a similar argument with regard to his leadership of Vorkommando Moscow In effect, they argued, continuing with Ohlendorf’s theme, these were just reports, not proofs of real actions the defendants had undertaken.

Another argument offered was that the reports were being used by the prosecution out of context - a variation on the “there was a war going on” defense.

Yet, as Headland points out, where the defense felt that the reports could help an individual client, the defense offered portions of the reports as the basis for exoneration.

The court did not accept the defense’s arguments.

Headland, pp 170-174; Earl, pp 72, 162-163, 261

What is interesting here for present purposes, of course, is that the defendants didn’t plead forgery.

We can discuss further the authentication of the reports when Monstrous and Maryzilla finally make a concrete statement -other than expressing doubt - about this topic. The thread has really gotten off topic - the request to Monstrous was not to delve into why’s and wherefore’s of how the reports were phrased or questions about specific elements of the reports’ content - but to show the evidence for Soviet forgery.

As the Jäger report describes also Einsatzgruppen extermination actions which, like Babi Yar, were carried out before the basic decision (Gerlach) for a European wide genocide, the basic arguments apply. Which means that it's time for you to respond without spamming to the evidence listed by Nick Terry for Babi Yar.

Monstrous wrote:3. Balsmo: Hitler had ordered only the Ostjuden to be genocided which solves the paradox. However, any evidence for such distinction is lacking and such a "half-done" genocide is a strange concept.

Go back and re-read Balsamo's argument - tell us where he addresses Babi Yar in the chronology he argues for and what he says.

Monstrous wrote:4. SM: ??? "a decision was taken to cleanse the occupied USSR of Jews". What is that?

It is what it says. Do you want me to repeat what's been posted on this in the forum? I offered to . . . oh, and I just did. I am truly sorry that you have so much difficulty keeping up and getting a grasp on the basic arguments here.

Monstrous wrote:Cleanse = genocide?

A territory can be cleansed in different ways, of course. Cleansing is focused on territory, and territory can be cleansed by population resettlement but also territory can be cleansed by genocide, which aims at the destruction of a people, and mass murder. Are you asking about this definition because you've run out of excuses and sidetracks regarding Babi Yar?

Monstrous wrote:Is this theory essentially that Hitler ordered only the USSR Jews to be genocided at an early stage? That is very similar to Balsmo's theory with the same counter-arguments.

No matter how clever you think you're being, "genocide" is not a verb. But, no, what I am arguing is not like what Balsamo is arguing - again, you need to re-read his points and figure out his chronology.

Monstrous wrote:5. Revisionists. Jews and non-Jews who were suspected of being communists, partisans, and so on, were killed. As were others as retaliations for partisan attack. However, no genocidal actions. Fits with the evidence except some of the easily fabricated EG reports. Which the Soviet Union absolutely had an interest in fabricate.

Which argument has been thoroughly shredded here, so badly that you fled from the thread.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1449
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Balsamo » Thu Nov 19, 2015 6:44 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Since you bring up Babi Yar, Monstrous, which you previously called "the faked Babi Yar massacre," you've now put yourself in the position of having to deal with the evidence for Babi Yar

Seems off-topic to Monstrous but Metapedia and Codoh seem to have a nice article on the EG and Babi Yar:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen
http://codoh.com/library/document/920/


Waou, congratulations Monstrous, you have found another metapedia article that is even more full of {!#%@} than the first one. It might be because of its sources. I guess there is nothing to prevent you from "believeing" the lies - and big ones - it contains.
Sorry no time and no will to get through this {!#%@} yet, maybe later.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 19, 2015 7:00 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Since you bring up Babi Yar, Monstrous, which you previously called "the faked Babi Yar massacre," you've now put yourself in the position of having to deal with the evidence for Babi Yar

Seems off-topic to Monstrous but Metapedia and Codoh seem to have a nice article on the EG and Babi Yar:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen
http://codoh.com/library/document/920/


Waou, congratulations Monstrous, you have found another metapedia article that is even more full of {!#%@} than the first one. It might be because of its sources. I guess there is nothing to prevent you from "believeing" the lies - and big ones - it contains.
Sorry no time and no will to get through this {!#%@} yet, maybe later.

Apparently Monstrous is as full of {!#%@} as his Metapedia links - he is incapable of using his own thoughts and words to answer directly what has been posted and instead keeps spamming ""full of {!#%@}" articles to get him off the hook. No dice.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Thu Nov 19, 2015 7:37 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:4. SM: ??? "a decision was taken to cleanse the occupied USSR of Jews". What is that?

It is what it says. Do you want me to repeat what's been posted on this in the forum? I offered to . . . oh, and I just did. I am truly sorry that you have so much difficulty keeping up and getting a grasp on the basic arguments here.

Monstrous wrote:Cleanse = genocide?

A territory can be cleansed in different ways, of course. Cleansing is focused on territory, and territory can be cleansed by population resettlement but also territory can be cleansed by genocide, which aims at the destruction of a people, and mass murder.

Is this honest but muddled thinking or devious slipperiness worthy of a politician?

So, Hitler orders Himmler to "cleanse" the USSR of Jews. Himmler is afraid of looking silly by asking Hitler what this means exactly so he decides to implement all possible meanings of the word at the same time:

1. Some groups of Jews are sent to ghettos.
2. Some groups of Jews are partially killed while the rest are sent to ghettos.
3. Some groups of Jews are entirely genocided as at Babi Yar.

Himmler also decides to send some German Jews to the USSR for entirely unclear reasons.

Or am Monstrous missing something?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:22 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:4. SM: ??? "a decision was taken to cleanse the occupied USSR of Jews". What is that?

It is what it says. Do you want me to repeat what's been posted on this in the forum? I offered to . . . oh, and I just did. I am truly sorry that you have so much difficulty keeping up and getting a grasp on the basic arguments here.

Monstrous wrote:Cleanse = genocide?

A territory can be cleansed in different ways, of course. Cleansing is focused on territory, and territory can be cleansed by population resettlement but also territory can be cleansed by genocide, which aims at the destruction of a people, and mass murder.

Is this honest but muddled thinking or devious slipperiness worthy of a politician?

Hunh? Ethnic cleansing and genocide are not identical, at least according to those who work in the field. I don't know what you White Nationalists, anti-Semites, and racists think. In any event, I wasn't setting up a theoretical argument but only stating that the clearance of occupied USSR territory by extermination actions against the Jews began in 1941. And I explained this at length.

The aim which prevailed in the Baltics was well expressed by Jäger when he wrote that
. . . I can confirm today that Einsatzkommando 3 has achieved the goal of solving the Jewish problem in Lithuania. There are no more Jews in Lithuania, apart from working Jews and their families. . . . I also wanted to kill these Work Jews, including their families, which however brought upon me acrimonious challenges from the civil administration (the Reichskommisar) and the army and caused the prohibition: the Work Jews and their families are not to be shot!
. . . The goal of making Lithuania free of Jews could only be attained through the deployment of a raiding commando with selected men under the leadership of SS First Lieutenant Hamann, who completely and entirely adopted my goals and understood the importance of ensuring the co-operation of the Lithuanian partisans and the competent civilian positions.

Stahlecker echoed this in his report, writing
It was to be expected from the beginning that the Jewish problem in the Ostland could not be solved by pogroms alone. At the same time the Security Police had basic, general orders for cleansing operations aimed at a maximum elimination of the Jews. Large-scale executions were therefore carried out in the cities and the countryside by Sonderkommandos (Special Units), which were assisted by selected units – partisan groups in Lithuania, and parties of the Latvian Auxiliary Police in Latvia. The work of the execution units was carried out smoothly. Where Lithuanian and Latvian forces were attached to the execution units, the first to be chosen were those who had had members of their families and relatives killed or deported by the Russians.

You will no doubt continue to ignore these and other pieces of evidence given how inconvenient they are to you.

But we know why you're ignoring a) the evidence we've posted and b) the lengthy explanations provided - in favor of some bizarre and poorly explained definitional quibble: it is because you are chicken to tackle what's actually been argued and supported. You'd rather concoct a make-believe debate about the meaning of a word, one that's been well described in any event.

Monstrous wrote:So, Hitler orders Himmler to "cleanse" the USSR of Jews. Himmler is afraid of looking silly by asking Hitler what this means exactly so he decides to implement all possible meanings of the word at the same time:

1. Some groups of Jews are sent to ghettos.
2. Some groups of Jews are partially killed while the rest are sent to ghettos.
3. Some groups of Jews are entirely genocided as at Babi Yar.

Himmler also decides to send some German Jews to the USSR for entirely unclear reasons.

Or am Monstrous missing something?

Quite a bit, in fact. Labor needs for one thing - which you've been told about time and again (the selection principle). Competing interests of different parts of the German apparatus for another. Logistics and implementation. Also, you're once again ignoring what you were told earlier, namely, "1) you cannot lift single actions out of the whole, any more than you can understand by looking at just this or that document - and 2) the Holocaust was not a hologram or a fractal, with the self-same patterns repeating at every level and everywhere." Show me where I've contradicted myself - where have I written that labor wasn't a factor, that all Jews everywhere were exterminated at once, that the German apparatus was completely in sync on extermination actions, or that entire groups of Jews weren't wiped out in some places, even whilst in other areas the pace of extermination was slower or different.

You are ignoring not only the Reich authority and its divisions but also time and space - because you think you can gin up contradictions by pretending these factors didn't exist.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4475
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:25 pm

Monstrous wrote:
So, Hitler orders Himmler to "cleanse" the USSR of Jews. Himmler is afraid of looking silly by asking Hitler what this means exactly so he decides to implement all possible meanings of the word at the same time:

1. Some groups of Jews are sent to ghettos.

Working Jews and their families. This was a well known component of Nazi policy in the baltics.

2. Some groups of Jews are partially killed while the rest are sent to ghettos.

Groups of Jews were massacred, some areas were cleared of Jews totally, others were not. There was conflict in the east between exterminatory voices (like Kube and Koch) and those who focused more on Labour. Yours is a monolithic straw man.

3. Some groups of Jews are entirely genocided as at Babi Yar.

As part of the actions described above.

Himmler also decides to send some German Jews to the USSR for entirely unclear reasons.

Non woking German Jews were gassed at MT and those who could work were crammed into the Minsk Ghetto.

Or am Monstrous missing something?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K00Su8-3pEQ

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:50 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
So, Hitler orders Himmler to "cleanse" the USSR of Jews. Himmler is afraid of looking silly by asking Hitler what this means exactly so he decides to implement all possible meanings of the word at the same time:

1. Some groups of Jews are sent to ghettos.

Working Jews and their families. This was a well known component of Nazi policy in the baltics.

As he's been told repeatedly. Also, documented in German reports. Sigh.

Jeff_36 wrote:
2. Some groups of Jews are partially killed while the rest are sent to ghettos.

Groups of Jews were massacred, some areas were cleared of Jews totally, others were not. There was conflict in the east between exterminatory voices (like Kube and Koch) and those who focused more on Labour. Yours is a monolithic straw man.

Which he's been told previously.

He's now in Clayton Moore - apocalyptically stupid - territory, as the fallacy 1) that all Jews were not killed at once, 2) that some Jews survived, and 3) that Jews were dealt with differently at different times and in different areas - and were murdered by different means - meant that millions of Jews couldn't have been put to death. That fallacy was Clayton's favorite argument - Maryzilla always liked the "some survived" part of it.

The fallacy is beneath stupid - there are two easy concepts that it ignores: first, that the Nazis "only" wanted to destroy Jewry by killing the vast majority of Jews (Bloxham, more or less - I don't agree with this although there's logic to it) or, second, the Final Solution was made up of component elements that took into account differing conditions across Europe (e.g., allied governments reluctant to participate in the full extermination) and through the war years (e.g., changing labor needs). Not to mention that in the real world large "projects" go in steps and stages (available rolling stock, time to build camps, etc) . . . and that the military situation changed throughout . . .

Throw on top that the idiot doesn't show any awareness of the differing interests and views of the Wehrmacht, industry, the SS, the Gauleiters, the Eastern Ministry and civil administrators, General Governor Frank, the occupation regimes in the West, the other Axis governments, and so on.

3. Some groups of Jews are entirely genocided as at Babi Yar.

As part of the actions described above.

Jeff_36 wrote:
Himmler also decides to send some German Jews to the USSR for entirely unclear reasons.

Non woking German Jews were gassed at MT and those who could work were crammed into the Minsk Ghetto.

I missed this one . . . good grief . . . the expulsion of the Jews from the Reich, the Protectorate, and Austria was not a Himmler decision - it was a Hitler decision pressed by the Gauleiters - and the "Reich" Jews were sent not only to the occupied USSR - they were sent out of Greater Germany to Łódź, Kaunas, Riga, and Minsk starting before the mass extermination began, then in 1942 they also were deported to Theresienstadt and the Lublin area "holding ghettos" - and finally directly to extermination camps. Again, I suppose because one size did not fit all, Monstrous will pretend he doesn't get it.

Sockpuppet for Clayton Moore?
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4475
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Jeff_36 » Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:02 pm

Sockpuppet for Clayton Moore?


Moore didn't talk like a SNL parody of a corny movie villain. He was too dumb for that. IIRC he referred to ghettos as "BS". I jumped out of my seat laughing when I read that.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 19, 2015 11:26 pm

true, I was never sure if Clayton Moore could actually read, but this chimp is really stupid, too . . . getting close to Clayton Moore stupid . . .
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Sat Nov 21, 2015 2:45 pm

Monstrous is a veritable pit bull, having found a weak spot and biting down. knowing that this is the right thing to do, despite the Believers frantically flailing and trying to shake him off.

The Believers cannot escape: genocidal Babi Yar requires a genocidal Hitler order which had not been given at this time.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:02 pm

You fool, you're clamping your teeth on your own ankle. The massacre at Babi Yar didn't need a Hitler order to take place - your mere assertion of this nonsensical straw man doesn't reply to the evidence and arguments you've been given. You're relying on an overstated intentionalist framework. Specifically you've been told the orders under which the Babi Yar massacre occurred and their relationship to the later decision for the Final Solution. I won't repeat myself but we know you will repeat yourself without so much as acknowledging the evidence against your desperate silliness.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Monstrous » Sat Nov 21, 2015 3:53 pm

Monstrous is bravely hanging on despite the attempt to scrape him off on a wall.

If there was no Hitler order, then genocidal Babi Yar was unauthorized, meaning we are in Irving territory, and who wants to be there?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16030
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:11 pm

Explain your leap of illogic further. You might want to tell us at the same time your "thinking" on evidence for the initiation of the mass murder at Chełmno, which was also approved by Himmler and approved before the basic decision for the Final Solution. But, unlike here, since we're discussing evidence, it would be at least responsive to the topic for you at least to try using some, er, evidence.

We are not "living in Irving territory." What you keep proving here are 3 things: first, you have not even a small clue about the historiography of the Third Reich and Holocaust (most historians - all of whom reject Irving's claims - argue that the Einsatzgruppen first sweep occurred prior to the decision reached for a European-wide genocide - and there's no inherent contradiction in the argument that the killings escalated and that the policy radicalized, without a specific Hitler order for each and every step of escalation); second, your reading comprehension skills are non-existent; and third, you will absolutely not reply to specific evidence and arguments that others make.

Actually, there's a 4th thing - you're boring and ineffectual. If you think your blithe and groundless dismissals, and wild speculation, will convince anyone but the converted, you truly are beyond help.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balsamo, Jeffk 1970 and 2 guests