World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
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 4:35 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: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)

You are in Irving territory. The EG commanders are argued to have escalated the killings beyond what their orders stated.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 4:45 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: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)

You are in Irving territory. The EG commanders are argued to have escalated the killings beyond what their orders stated.

You are a very dim bulb. Have you even read Gerlach's article on Wannsee? Roseman's book on the conference? Browning's Origins book? Longerich's books Holocaust and Himmler? I bet if you think really hard, even you can guess why I asked you about the last two folks . . .

Now, I didn't argue like Irving that Hitler didn't authorize the Final Solution - nor did I argue that Himmler was basically operating behind Hitler's back. What I argued had to do with when the Final Solution was agreed - and it is logical and consistent with the evidence, which evidence you avoid as though it was a contagion, to argue that murders of Jews, including mass murder actions, occurred before the decision in December and that the Third Reich's Jewish policy radicalized and hardened during this period.

Before sounding off about what the scholars say, you might want to read some of those scholars. This material is so elementary, and so well known here, one wonders what you think you're accomplishing.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
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 4:57 pm

Was it not very dangerous for the EG commanders to disobey their orders? Was Himmler in the loop?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 5:06 pm

What orders did the EG commanders and HSSPFs disobey?

Please re-read this post - we cannot read it for you. You're asking questions already answered.

Now you: Have you read Gerlach, Browning, let's add Broszat, Friedlander, Roseman? Gerwarth? How about Evans, Longerich, and Browning? Do you know what these people, especially the last three, argue in relation to Irving's claims?

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

User avatar
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 5:20 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:What orders did the EG commanders and HSSPFs disobey?

Please re-read this post - we cannot read it for you. You're asking questions already answered.

Now you: Have you read Gerlach, Browning, let's add Broszat, Friedlander, Roseman? Gerwarth? How about Evans, Longerich, and Browning? Do you know what these people, especially the last three, argue in relation to Irving's claims?

Your studied stupidity is really boring.

That post is incoherent, sometimes repeating the Nuremburg Show Trials outline according to which genocidal orders were given already in the summer of 1941, sometimes instead arguing for a gradual escalation but being unclear on who ordered this escalation. We know Hitler had not decided at the time of Babi Yar but if anyone besides Hitler ordered an unauthorized escalation, then this was extremely dangerous for the individuals involved.

Monstrous is hanging on!

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 5:51 pm

Monstrous wrote:That post is incoherent,

Stop dodging. The post includes answers to questions you asked and points you raised - and now pretend you're unable to handle my reply to your witterings. My my, the lengths you go to . . .

Monstrous wrote:sometimes repeating the Nuremburg Show Trials outline according to which genocidal orders were given already in the summer of 1941, sometimes instead arguing for a gradual escalation but being unclear on who ordered this escalation.

You simply cannot read for comprehension.

Tell us where I wrote that the EG commanders were given a general order to murder the Jews in the East before the invasion of the USSR. Was it where I wrote this?
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).

Or where I wrote this?
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).

Tell us where what I've argued mirrors the decision of the Nuremberg tribunals. To do so, you'll need to know of course what the Nuremberg tribunal stated instead of just waving bold phrases around.

Monstrous wrote:We know Hitler had not decided at the time of Babi Yar but if anyone besides Hitler ordered an unauthorized escalation, then this was extremely dangerous for the individuals involved.

Monstrous is hanging on!

Why? Actually, Himmler quoted the Führer, according to later testimony, relative to the occupied USSR - but leaving that "minor" detail aside, you need to explain why escalations in a policy direction which Hitler basically approved were dangerous to individuals involved as you say. You were asked about this before and didn't answer - you simply repeated your misunderstanding of the arguments being made.

I asked you specifically about 1) orders supposedly disobeyed and 2) your baffling claim that my argument is like Irving's:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:What orders did the EG commanders and HSSPFs disobey? . . .

Now you: Have you read Gerlach, Browning, let's add Broszat, Friedlander, Roseman? Gerwarth? How about Evans, Longerich, and Browning? Do you know what these people, especially the last three, argue in relation to Irving's claims?

You dodged both questions.

Your dishonesty and cowardice keep shining through, little muppet.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
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 » Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:05 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:That post is incoherent,

Stop dodging. The post includes answers to questions you asked and points you raised - and now pretend you're unable to handle my reply to your witterings. My my, the lengths you go to . . .

Monstrous wrote:sometimes repeating the Nuremburg Show Trials outline according to which genocidal orders were given already in the summer of 1941, sometimes instead arguing for a gradual escalation but being unclear on who ordered this escalation.

You simply cannot read for comprehension.

Tell us where I wrote that the EG commanders were given a general order to murder the Jews in the East before the invasion of the USSR. Was it where I wrote this?
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).

Or where I wrote this?
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).

Tell us where what I've argued mirrors the decision of the Nuremberg tribunals. To do so, you'll need to know of course what the Nuremberg tribunal stated instead of just waving bold phrases around.

Monstrous wrote:We know Hitler had not decided at the time of Babi Yar but if anyone besides Hitler ordered an unauthorized escalation, then this was extremely dangerous for the individuals involved.

Monstrous is hanging on!

Why? Actually, Himmler quoted the Führer, according to later testimony, relative to the occupied USSR - but leaving that "minor" detail aside, you need to explain why escalations in a policy direction which Hitler basically approved were dangerous to individuals involved as you say. You were asked about this before and didn't answer - you simply repeated your misunderstanding of the arguments being made.

I asked you specifically about 1) orders supposedly disobeyed and 2) your baffling claim that my argument is like Irving's:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:What orders did the EG commanders and HSSPFs disobey? . . .

Now you: Have you read Gerlach, Browning, let's add Broszat, Friedlander, Roseman? Gerwarth? How about Evans, Longerich, and Browning? Do you know what these people, especially the last three, argue in relation to Irving's claims?

You dodged both questions.

Your dishonesty and cowardice keep shining through, little muppet.


Regarding repeating the Nuremberg Show trials version:
"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."

"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."

At other times there is instead arguing for an "escalation" but by which authority is unclear but apparently not due to a decision by Hitler. The impression is that the EG commanders all some had some kind of prophetic ability and knew that Hitler in the future would decide on a genocide and that they therefore all on their own started to "escalate" the killings (including sometimes to genocidal levels such as at Babi Yar).

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 » Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:17 pm

Monstrous wrote:Regarding repeating the Nuremberg Show trials version:
"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."

"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."

But the tribunal's decision differed to this testimony, doofus.
At top-secret meetings held in Pretzech and Dueben, Saxony, in May, 1941, the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommando leaders were instructed by Heydrich, Chief of Security Police and SD, and Streckenbach, Chief of Personnel of RSHA, as to their mission, and they were introduced to the notorious Fuehrer-Order around which this extraordinary case has arisen.Under the guise of ensuring the political security of the conquered territories, both in the occupational and rear areas of theWehrmacht, the Einsatzgruppen were to liquidate ruthlessly all opposition to National Socialism -- not only the opposition of the present, but that of the past and future as well. Whole categories of people were to be killed without trace, without investigation, without pity, tears or remorse. Women were to be slain with the men, and the children also were to be executed because, otherwise, they would grow up to oppose National Socialism and might even nurture a desire to avenge themselves on the slayers of their parents. Later, in Berlin, Heydrich re-emphasized this point to some of the Einsatz leaders.

One of the principal categories was "Jews." No precise definition was furnished the Einsatz leaders as to those who fell within this fatal designation. . . .

If you can't sort out how what I wrote differs to the tribunal's judgment, you aren't competent to be debating this.

Monstrous wrote:At other times there is instead arguing for an "escalation"

No, that is not what I or anyone else has argued - the open-air killings conducted in the occupied East were part and parcel of the escalation.

Monstrous wrote:but by which authority is unclear but apparently not due to a decision by Hitler.

Except I've repeatedly told you under whose authority the killings took place. Good grief.

Monstrous wrote:The impression is that the EG commanders all some had some kind of prophetic ability and knew that Hitler in the future would decide on a genocide and that they therefore all on their own started to "escalate" the killings (including sometimes to genocidal levels such as at Babi Yar).

The impression in your addled mind - not that of anyone who's read the plain words I've written. Himmler and Heydrich passed the orders down, and Himmler said that they were given on Hitler's authority, according to postwar testimony, which we cannot verify. It's really not so difficult.

Now, again, I ask politely - you accused me not only of repeating Nuremberg decisions, which we can see I didn't do, but also of arguing Irving's line. I asked you:
Now you: Have you read Gerlach, Browning, let's add Broszat, Friedlander, Roseman? Gerwarth? How about Evans, Longerich, and Browning? Do you know what these people, especially the last three, argue in relation to Irving's claims?

Please reply - if you don't reply, we all know that you lied about my position on this.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
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 » Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:28 pm

Wait! What? You are now arguing that there actually was already in the summer of 1941 "an order from the Führer according to which all Jews, i.e. also women and children, are to be exterminated". Monstrous thought you earlier stated that decision was made in December? Monstrous is so confused by this backpedaling.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 » Sun Nov 22, 2015 7:07 pm

Monstrous wrote:Wait! What? You are now arguing that there actually was already in the summer of 1941 "an order from the Führer according to which all Jews, i.e. also women and children, are to be exterminated". Monstrous thought you earlier stated that decision was made in December? Monstrous is so confused by this backpedaling.

In point of fact, I've been tediously consistent - nonetheless, a combination of your ignorance and reading comprehension difficulties keeps confusing you.

You simply are too stupid for this.

So . . . No. Moron, that is not what I think or what I wrote.

One more time, please, please try taking this in:
1) I did not argue that there were no genocidal escalations before December 1941 - in fact, I explained that the EG mass murders were one of those escalations. I've argued that it was in December 1941 that a decision, with the Führer agreeing, was made for a European wide extermination program - but before that time Jewish policy radicalized including with open-air shootings in the east (and other actions/decisions). I wrote about this months ago and assumed you'd read and absorbed the point.
2) I wrote that by August 1941 the policy, pushed down to EG leaders and HSSPFs, by Himmler and Heydrich was for a widespread extermination of Jews in the occupied USSR. (I disagreed with the Nuremberg tribunal on this, the tribunal saying that the general extermination order for Jews in the occupied USSR was made in May 1941 - I've shown your charge that I was echoing the Nuremberg tribunal to be false and you don't show the decency to retract the charge.)
3) I wrote months ago, and assumed you read, that "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 . . ." That is, whether Hitler made specific orders or not, he was aware of the extermination actions.
4) You really need to come to grips with thinking about the Holocaust that's taken place in, er, the past 40-50 years, including the concept of cumulative radicalization (Mommsen). I told you that Hitler wasn't involved in approving every action under the general policy nor every escalation ("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") - sometimes the escalation ideas came from others. Which is, frankly, why I asked you if you had read Broszat's work. In any event, I showed at some length why you were wrong to think that the Babi Yar massacre could not have occurred before the later decision for a European wide extermination of Jews.

Now, no more. Your attempts to confuse things - unless you really are as stupid as you make out - need to stop.

Answer the questions you were asked about your charge concerning Irving:
Now you: Have you read Gerlach, Browning, let's add Broszat, Friedlander, Roseman? Gerwarth? How about Evans, Longerich, and Browning? Do you know what these people, especially the last three, argue in relation to Irving's claims?

As noted, we suspect that you won't answer because you're ignorant and a liar - which led you to accuse me of being on Irving's turf, an accusation you can't support..
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
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 » Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:39 am

I share SM's timeline, abet with a later date for radicalization (April-July 1942) and an empathis on the targeting of non working Jews in most areas. That is something that monstrous fails to grasp, the notion of labor vs extermination.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 » Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:13 am

Yes, he keeps pretending no one's discussed that, or the selection principle, and he also fails to grasp that every major historian shares this time line - the debate being about the timing of the European wide genocide.

Anyway, Monstrous owes answers to so many questions . . . if he can't reply to what he's been asked 3x or 4x about Longerich, Browning, Evans, Gerlach and so on, we can just mark him down as a chicken and a busted liar.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
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 » Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:38 am

He is far from the only one who fails to grasp the selection principle. MGK fail to do it as well. See Graf's senile ramblings on work policy in Lithuania "vat on earth are dzese jooos doing awive?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 » Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:52 am

Jeff_36 wrote:He is far from the only one who fails to grasp the selection principle. MGK fail to do it as well. See Graf's senile ramblings on work policy in Lithuania "vat on earth are dzese jooos doing awive?

But, of course, this "failure to comprehend" is one of their most common tricks. It is so stupid because the historians they tilt against discuss labor and selection at such length. "Selection" is, after all, one of the central practices used by the Nazis and concomitantly a central concept in the historical literature. The many deniers who play this game can't be taken seriously on it - because they are being thoroughly dishonest.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
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 » Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:59 pm

Still not particularly clear on the timetable. However, the local Believers seem to be arguing that at the very least Hitler afterwards sanctioned genocidal killings such as at Babi Yar. Thus, initially only genocidal killings of USSR Jews were decided on or afterwards sanctioned by Hitler.

However, this raises a number of questions for Monstrous:
*Why decide on only a partial genocide?
*Why did not later documents refer to this partial genocide?
*Why did not later documents speak of "the remaining Jewish problem in Western Europe" or something similar?

Another issue, how to explain the Luther Memorandum?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 » Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:44 pm

Monstrous wrote:Still not particularly clear on the timetable.

Translation: "Monstrous is still vapid and dishonest."

Monstrous wrote:the local Believers

What the heck is a "local Believer"? Someone who believes in "think globally, act locally"?

Monstrous wrote:seem to be arguing that

Come on, try really hard, use a dictionary for the big words like "radicalized" and "policy." We all believe - locally and globally - that you can and will figure this out.

Monstrous wrote:at the very least Hitler afterwards sanctioned genocidal killings such as at Babi Yar.

Hitler received the Ereignismeldungen, the Ereignismeldungen contained information on the Babi Yar massacre. Is that what you mean? That Hitler was informed and that the massacre was within policy?

Monstrous wrote:However, this raises a number of questions for Monstrous:
*Why decide on only a partial genocide?

Why not? The documents show that this is what happened - in summer-fall 1941, given NS views on the Jewish threat and the situation in the east, and given the difficulty of other options for removing the Jews, mass murder in this occupied region made sense to the Germans. So did keeping some Jews alive for labor.

Do you know the definition of "genocide" by the way? Probably not, so I will help you by quoting the UN convention (1948):
genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

A "partial genocide" is a redundancy, because a genocide is the complete or partial decimation of a people. A power that views a people as its enemy, whose power must be destroyed for the threat it presents to be removed, will decide how complete the destruction must be to remove the threat. This is axiomatic.

Monstrous wrote:*Why did not later documents refer to this partial genocide?

Later as in when? In what context? I don't follow you and have no idea what you're expecting . . .

Monstrous wrote:*Why did not later documents speak of "the remaining Jewish problem in Western Europe" or something similar?

You mean statements where Nazis mentioned that the genocidal project hadn't been completed in fall 1941, like this?
At this time, this East is called upon to solve a question that is posed to the peoples of Europe: it is the Jewish question. Around six million Jews still live in the East, and this problem can only be solved by a biological eradication of all of Jewry in Europe. The Jewish question is only solved for Germany when the last Jew has left German territory, and solved for Europe when not a single Jew stands on the European continent up to the Urals. That is the task that fate has set for us.

Rosenberg, speech, 18 November 1941. Or this?
. . . 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! . . . These working Jews and Jewesses still available are needed urgently and I can envisage that after the winter this workforce will be required even more urgently. I am of the view that the sterilization program of the male worker Jews should be started immediately so that reproduction is prevented. If despite sterilization a Jewess becomes pregnant she will be liquidated.

Jäger report, late fall 1941. Or this exchange?
[A] I should like to be informed whether your inquiry of 31.10 is to be regarded as a directive to liquidate all Jews in Ostland? Shall this take place without regard to age and sex and economic interests (of the Wehrmacht, for instance in specialists in the armament industry)? Of course the cleansing of the East of Jews is a necessary task; its solution, however, must be harmonised with the necessities of war production.

[B] Clarification of the Jewish Question has most likely been achieved through verbal discussions. Economic considerations should fundamentally remain unconsidered in the settlement of the problem. Moreover, it is requested that questions arising be settled directly with the Higher SS and Police Leaders.

[A] Lohse letter, 15 November 1941 and [B] Ostministerium reply (Brautigam?), 18 December 1941. Or this?
This war would only be a partial success if the whole lot of Jewry would survive it, while we would have shed our best blood in order to save Europe. My attitude towards the Jews will, therefore, be based only on the expectation that they must disappear. They must be done away with.

Frank speech, December 1941. Or this?
The Jewish question is again giving us a headache; this time, however, not because we have gone too far, but because we are not going far enough.

Goebbels' diary, 5 February 5 1942. Or this?
The Fuehrer once more expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

Goebbels' diary, 14 February 1942. Or this?
I am of the opinion that the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war. One must have no mistaken sentimentality about it. The Jews are Europe's misfortune. They must somehow be eliminated, otherwise we are in danger of being eliminated by them.

Goebbels' diary, 6 March 1942. Or this?
These actions are, however, only to be considered provisional, but practical experience is already being collected which is of the greatest importance in relation to the future final solution of the Jewish question.

Wannsee Protocol, January 1942. Or this?
. . . because the ground in White Russia is frozen down to a depth of two meters, other possibilities were also not available . . .

Kube, 6 February 1942. Or this?
I myself and the SD would certainly much prefer that the Jewish population in the district general of White Ruthenia should be eliminated once and for all when the economic requirements of the Wehrmacht have fallen off.

Kube, 31 July 1942. Or this?
. . . fewer Jewish KL [Konzentrationslager] large-scale enterprises in the East of the Generalgouvernement if possible . . .Nevertheless, the Jews are supposed to disappear from there as well, according to the wishes of the Führer.

Himmler, 9 October 1942. Or this?
shutting the Jews down and out, rooting them out; that's what we're doing.

Himmler, Posen, October 1943. Or this?
The Jewish question in the countries that we occupy will be solved by the end of this year. Only remainders of odd Jews that managed to find hiding places will be left over.

Himmler, Posen, October 1943. Or this?
The Jews are reemerging. Their spokesman is the well-known and notorious Leopold Schwarzschild; he is now arguing in the American press that under no circumstances should Germany be given lenient treatment. Anyone in a position to do so should kill these Jews like rats (wie die Ratten totschlagen). In Germany, thank God, we have already honestly attended to this. I hope that the world will take this as an example.

Goebbels's diary, 1944.

Is this necessary? I mean, I could go on . . . but really.

You've ignored 4 or 5 requests that you answer some questions to back up your charge that my view is Irving's. You've dodged each request. You are a coward who is interested in spamming links and speculation, not in discussion. I will reply to your question about the Luther memo, which is so vague as to be meaningless, and then that's it, {!#%@}.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 » Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:08 pm

Monstrous wrote:Another issue, how to explain the Luther Memorandum?

Ah, another denier favorite, fooling the uninformed since 1976 . . . here's how I explain Luther's note, taken from a reply made to someone who, much like you, believed that chanting "Luther Memorandum" was a meaningful religious rite that would ward off background, knowledge, and analysis:

. . . as to Luther’s 21 August 1942 “evacuation” memorandum, authored 7 months after the Wannsee conference, it's important to think, first, about an issue raised at the Wannsee conference itself, that being the practical experience being gained and mentioned by Heydrich in the protocol. The link here is, for example, the massacres in the occupied East, e.g., to make the Baltics Jew-free, with two Wansee participants being Lange of EK-2 (Latvia) and Schöngarth (of EG z.b.V. in Poland, then commander of security police in Krakow with operational role in EG actions in the occupied USSR), also the Leibbrandt and Meyer of the Ostministerium. The practical experience being accumulated in the East was mainly (but not exclusively) by the HSSPFs, the EGs - the security police apparatus under Himmler and Heydrich. OTOH, the 21 August 1942 memorandum came from a cooperating ministry, the Foreign Office - not from the SS, which was in basic control of the execution of the final solution. Even so, it is worthwhile to examine this rather routine exercise in bureaucratic process, the beloved Luther memorandum, from the perspective of the role of the Foreign Office in the German state, Luther’s own part in Judenpolitik and the final solution, and the planning and execution of the final solution.

What was Luther’s role in the Third Reich government?

Luther was head of the Abteilung Deutschland in the Foreign Office, a position he held starting in 1938. By 1940 the Abteilung Deutschland “had acquired jurisdiction over Jewish affairs” (Hilberg, Destruction, page 576). Luther’s remit included a liaison role with Party, SS and police. Luther worked in good cooperation with Heydrich and Himmler, progressively undermining position of his superior, head of the Foreign Office, Ribbentrop. (In 1943 Luther would overplay his hand vis-à-vis Ribbentrop – plotting with Rademacher to unseat their boss – for which effort Luther would land in KL Sachsenhausen.) Luther was promoted to Undersecretary in July 1941 and in that position he represented Foreign Office at Wannsee. (It is Luther’s copy of the protocol that was discovered by Kempner’s staff in 1947.)

The scope of Luther’s foreign duties involved western and southeastern Europe – not Poland or Russia (these areas outside Luther’s remit made up better than 80% of the Holocaust's actual victims, and significantly more than two-thirds of the potential victims, with at best 2 million Jews in Scandinavia, Western Europe, the Mediterranean and the Balkans). After January 1942, Luther had the role of negotiating with, or putting pressure on, German satellites and allies for deportation to the East of the Jews in those countries.

Within the Foreign Office, Luther operated somewhat independently and from a position of strength, due to his close ties to the RSHA and SS.

During the Wannsee conference, already concerning himself with getting Jews out of the countries of Europe, Luther spoke about “difficulties” facing the Germans in the Scandinavian countries, proposing postponement of the final solution there. He noted that
The Foreign Office sees no great difficulties for southeast and western Europe.
According to the protocol, Luther’s role was to coordinate the foreign deportations with the Heydrich’s men:
The beginning of the individual larger evacuation actions will largely depend on military developments. Regarding the handling of the final solution in those European countries occupied and influenced by us, it was proposed that the appropriate expert of the Foreign Office discuss the matter with the responsible official of the Security Police and SD.
In fact, as Luther’s memorandum and other documentation shows this is what Luther’s office did during 1942 in the months before his August memorandum was submitted.

When Balsamo earlier in this thread narrowed the focus of the conference to Heydrich’s assertion of authority and wrote that
The Minutes don’t say anything about the genocide to come. what will eventually follow was not those State secretaries business,
he misunderstood the important roles of the state secretaries and other in the coming final solution. Luther’s important role was to arrange for foreign countries to send their Jews to Nazi “reception possibilities” (Eichmann’s 31 January 1942 circular to Gestapo offices, discussed earlier) in the East.

For whom was Luther’s August 1942 memorandum written?

Luther’s memorandum was prepared for and sent to Wormann, Weizsacker (state secretary), and Ribbentrop, the latter head of the Foreign Office and his superior. Weizsacker had some ties to the Canaris circle, which had opposed war in 1938; his background was national conservative, having joined the foreign service in 1920 and joined the NSDAP only late in 1938.

It is noteworthy that Weizsacker denied during the Ministries Case trial, unsuccessfully, that he had received Luther’s August memorandum:
Both Woermann and von Weizsaecker strenuously assert that they never saw this report and that the statements therein contained regarding their cooperation therewith are not true.
However, the judgment in the Ministries Case found that Weizsaecker had not only seen the incriminating memorandum but had been participating, as noted in it, in negotiations for the deportation of the Jews from a number of countries:
In rebuttal the prosecution offered [NG-2586, Prosecution] Exhibit 3601, which is a copy of the report, and has various markings in brown pencil which, according to previous evidence, was the color prescribed by von Ribbentrop to be used by von Weizsaecker. When faced with this the defendant [asserts that] he had come across many documents underlined or marked in colors including brown which did not originate with the official to whom the color had been assigned, and states that to the best of his recollection Luther did not bring this exhibit to his attention. His statement regarding the brown pencil is contradicted by the affidavit of Hans Schroeder. We believe that the defendant is in error in his statement that he never saw this document, and we have been able to trace out many of the documents to which he refers in this exhibit. It is admitted that it was prepared by Luther for the purpose of justifying his activities to von Ribbentrop, and it is unlikely that a document prepared with such evident care would be submitted, and that references would be made to conferences and agreements with specified persons unless it was substantially accurate. The hazards of making such statements if not true would be such as to make even as reckless a person as Luther hesitate.
http://werle.rewi.hu-berlin.de/ministries.pdf

What was the purpose of Luther’s August 1942 memorandum?

Luther wrote the memorandum basically to defend himself and justify what he’d been up to, in response to Ribbentrop who had questioned him concerning Romania policy and asked for an explanation.

During July 1942 Gustav Richter, Jewish specialist in Bucharest, had reached agreement with the Romanian government for deportations of Jews from Romania to begin in September. According to Longerich (Holocaust, page 366), the Romanian transports were to go to the Lublin area in the General-Gouvernement. German plenipotentiary Manfred Killinger
reported to the Foreign Ministry “the part that was fit for work will be deployed in a work programme, and the rest subjected to special treatment.”
(We can open a thread on the term “special treatment” if you’d like.) Killinger’s note is dated 12 August. The agreement with the Romanians launched a classic bureaucratic turf war: it had been made without Ribbentrop, who was already displeased that his underling Luther and his team were operating too independently. What followed was, according again to Longerich, a request from Ribbentrop, protective of his authority, to Luther that the latter account for himself and “his previous measures in the area of Judenpolitik.” Luther sent his accounting on 21 August in the form of a long, pedantic memorandum.

In his review, Luther sought to justify himself, as the Ministries judgment had concluded, as well as to gain approval to proceed with his plans, including those in Romania. Specifically, Luther tried to get his superior’s approval for his handling of negotiations with foreign governments, ultimately, in his understanding, for the deportation of the Jews from these countries to German-occupied territory in the East. (The outcome was, according to Longerich, that Ribbentrop allowed the Romanian plans to proceed but not those in Hungary, Bulgaria, and Italian-occupied Croatia. The result was alignment of Foreign Office and RSHA over timing and preparation issues. Longerich, Holocaust, pages 366-367; in any event, obstacles also intervened by late August to halt planning for Romanian deportations.)

Much of Luther’s note, then, defended his previous efforts, with a long explanation that he’d been working in the framework of
the basic instruction of the Reich Foreign Minister to promote the evacuation of the Jews in closest cooperation with the agencies of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, [which] is still in force and will therefore be observed by D III.
Referat D III, the Jewish affairs desk, was headed by Franz Rademacher, within the Foreign Office, reporting to Luther. As a part of the German solution to the Jewish problem, the Foreign Office and specifically Luther’s office, he emphasized, had the responsibility to coordinate with Himmler to accomplish “the evacuation of the Jews.”

Further, Luther emphasized the role of his office in working with the RSHA (Heydrich) in its negotiations with foreign governments; he wrote that
In the conference on 20 January 1942 [Wannsee] I demanded that all questions concerned with countries outside Germany must first have the agreement of the Foreign Office, a demand to which Gruppenführer Heydrich agreed and also has faithfully complied with, for the office of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Main Security Office) handling Jewish matters has from the beginning carried out all measures in a frictionless cooperation with the Foreign Office.
Again, it is on this competency – “all questions concerned with countries outside Germany must first have the agreement of the Foreign Office” - that Luther “followed up,” as is said in bureaucracies, in August 1942, with his long report as requested by Ribbentrop.

In his note, Luther pleaded with his boss to support the course of action he'd been taking. Reiterating his orders and remit and summarizing in his long memorandum the status of, and some issues with, his efforts with foreign governments, Luther requested approval for his handling of his assignment in furtherance of the final solution.

Finally, Luther wrote of his work, which he was summarizing in the memorandum, that
The projected deportations are a further step forward on the way of the total solution and are in respect to other countries (Hungary) very important.
As we’ve seen, Ribbentrop made certain that some such actions, important as they were, were slowed down until conditions were more propitious.

Why did Luther focus on deportations/evacuation without mentioning extermination facilities and actions?

Simply put, deportations from foreign countries were Luther's assignment. His job was to make sure that the planned evacuations, which were a necessary component of the final solution, happened.

Let’s review Luther’s role in the overall policy of the final solution. As Hilberg argued the destruction of Europe's Jews was a process. It involved modern bureaucratic practices and a modern division of labor. (Not grasping this, along with your apparent ignorance of the roles of various agencies, institutions, officials, and staff, leads you time and again into terrible errors of the kind you’ve been making.) Again, Luther’s role was to arrange for “evacuations” of the Jews from foreign countries in western and southern Europe. This role of the foreign ministry - to handle an important step for specific countries in a serial, compartmentalized process – shaped, as we shall see, Luther’s memorandum: the foreign ministry was to arrange with foreign governments for exactly what the memorandum discussed - evacuation (permission from foreign states to remove their Jews to the East), but it did not oversee or manage what was to happen with the evacuated Jews when they reached their destination.

Thus, Luther wrote about his responsibilities and, in exhaustive, pedantic detail, the source of his responsibility and how it fit in, and how he was executing his assigned responsibilities. He focused on his assignment. His note is a normal bureaucratic self-defense and approval request. It is full-throated “cover your ass” and “defend your turf.”

To understand Luther’s memorandum, and role, it is necessary to understand the various roles in the destruction process:

- Foreign government authorities, coordinated by Luther’s office, handled preparatory measures such as laws classifying Jews, prohibition of Jews changing residence, and so on

- Local Jewish Councils cooperated in identifying Jews for deportation, making up lists, communicating logistics

- Roundup of Jews conducted by local guard units, local police, ethnic German units, Gestapo, etc. (in some cases, e.g., France, the Netherlands, and so on deportations took place from collection camps)

- Oversight of operations performed by German SS including establishment of rules for deportation, arranging transportation

- Foreign Office working with foreign government to keep on timetable, maintain progress, reaffirm scope, etc.

- Transportation, for example, by rail, with Orpo guards (Reichsbahn)

- Reception in the East – either in a staging ghetto (involving occupation civil authorities and SS), at a shooting site (SS, SD, other police units, local auxiliaries), or in a camp (for Auschwitz and Majdanek, run by WVHA, constructed by Kammler’s organization, staffed by SS Death’s Head units, etc. – about 7000 SS personnel; for AR camps, run by Globocnik’s organization under Wirth – e.g., Treblinka with 20+ SS officers commanding about 100 Wachmanner guards; for Chelmno – HSSPF reporting to Greiser, operations under command of SS-Sonderkommando Lange)

- Management of killing apparatuses – SS (corpse disposal, etc. under SS supervision carried out by inmate Sonderkommandos)

Those managing and staffing a single step of this process had little need to know about the particulars of other steps. For example, a local policeman snagging Jews in a ghetto or foreign city may have known, may have suspected, or may not have known the ultimate destination of the Jews he was rounding up – but he didn’t need to know where the train into which he was shoving his quarry would take them, so his official duties could be conducted without that knowledge. By the same token, an SS man overseeing gas chambers most likely had no line of sight to the details of roundup operations.

One result of this is that not everyone in the process needed to be in on all parts of it and certainly not all the steps, actions, and results. This extends to the bureaucracy as well, in which the “need to know” principle was at play to some degree. Not everyone, for example, in the Foreign Office in Berlin had to know the explicit and exact nature of what was taking place in the East and how Jews were being disposed of there.

We saw a bit of this with the Wannsee protocol, where most destinations for deported Jews were left unstated and only vague, general statements were used. Specifically, in the case of Luther’s work, the Foreign Office didn’t plan, prepare, coordinate, or execute reception or murder operations in the East. Those operations were not Luther’s responsibility – his focus was getting Jews out of the countries they lived in, working with foreign governments to accomplish that. And thus evacuations, not shooting sites or death camps, were his focus. Others in the Foreign Office had even less reason to be informed of all that was afoot, thus some caution was exercised, as is typical in bureaucracies, with the full sweep of information.

In this regard, Luther’s August memorandum links to the Wannsee conference. Most of those at the Wannsee meeting (with two exceptions) were in the need to know but not from the East. Thus, the focus of the conference was on issues pertaining to extraction of Jews, legalities, and who would be “eligible” for deportation. In any event, Wannsee focused on getting Jews “to the East,” not on the practical issues of what would be done with them when they got there, not even the logistics of getting them to where they were going, and certainly not on what it would take to operate killing camps and programs. Arrangements for the special treatment of those evacuated at their points of arrival (ghettos, work camps, and death camps, e.g.) was left to other occasions and forthcoming forums. Luther’s role fit in with this stage of the process – that of getting Jews out of the foreign countries in which they lived.

To repeat, all this is typical of a compartmentalized, staged process (with a modern division of labor) - the destruction process described by Hilberg and extending from bureaucratic identification of Jews through marking and other segregations measures, dispossession of property, roundups and deportations, transportation, reception in the East, operation of various camp functions including murder, etc. In this process, as we’ve seen, different actors played different functional roles.

Additionally, Luther’s memorandum deeply implicated the Foreign Office AND reinforced the Fuhrer’s direct role in the Jewish policy. If Luther’s pedantic verbiage is to be believed, Hitler decided and instructed the final solution:
1. In the conference General Heydrich explained that Reich Marshall Goring’s assignment to him had been made on the Fuhrer’s instruction and that the Führer instead of the emigration had now authorized the evacuation of the Jews to the East as the solution . . . all questions concerned with countries outside Germany must first have the agreement of the Foreign Office, a demand to which SS Lieutenant General Heydrich agreed and also has faithfully complied with. . . . This was an unalterable decision of the Führer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much.
This section of Luther’s memorandum, in fact, matches with the Wannsee protocol’s saying that evacuations were to take place only on the Fuhrer’s approval.



Finally, Luther’s memorandum dealt in some depth with another important aspect of the Wannsee meeting – that is, the status of coordination with individual foreign governments for deportation of Jews as part of the comprehensive program. The “intended deportations are a further step forward on the way of the total solution” – and the “other countries” are “very important.” This total solution will be, the memo read, “global and comprehensive,” not simply one-offs, local initiatives, or regional undertakings. And, no doubt, the Jews were to be deported first, then “moved on further to the occupied Eastern Territories,” somewhere in them, unstated, where they were to be killed, a point that neither the protocol nor Luther’s bureaucratic memorandum had to state, with both of these documents focused on how to coordinate the deportations and evacuation from around Europe.



Luther’s memorandum by itself does not, of course, prove that the Germans planned and carried out the genocide. It is, however, part of a web of evidence, including other documents but also evidence about actions such as the Chelmno killings, DG-IV, the open-air shootings, the construction done at Belzec, and so on; like the Wannsee protocol, it must be read as part of that web in order to be understood.

But what did Luther and the Foreign Office actually know about murder operations against the Jews – both those that preceded the final solution and those that were part of the final solution?

Luther was the “man who knew too much.” At least he knew too much for the denier depiction of him and his memorandum to be true.

Indeed, it is doubtful that Luther knew in every specific case what was to be the precise immediate fate (labor assignments, Majdanek, AR camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, staging ghettos, etc.) of the Jews whom he extracted from various western and Southern European countries. That said, it is clear from documentary evidence that Luther was aware in general of the eastern extermination actions and in particular the murderous operation of the final solution.

The Foreign Office can be shown, based on files known to historians, to have knowledge that the Jews were being deported to Auschwitz and destinations in the General-Gouvernement. Luther himself had knowledge of pre- and post-Wannsee operations the purpose of which was the extermination of Jews.

In the light of this knowledge, there appear to be two possible explanations for the vague statements in his memorandum about the future fate of the evacuated Jews: (1) amnesia or another form of memory loss or (2) use of what Eichmann in his Jerusalem testimony called Amtssprache, in this case care not to make statements beyond his competency and not to admit to sensitive, criminal activities in writing – and perhaps not in a memorandum whose recipients may have included an untrusted official. (Based on his extensive archival research, Hilberg concludes that “Luther was reluctant to inform Weizsacker of things that were going on or of action he was taking” during 1941 and 1942, specifically mentioning the 21 August 1942 memorandum in this regard - Destruction, page 577, fn 11. Even the SS preferred to cleanse office correspondence of explicit references in certain circumstances.)

Exercising due prudence and sticking to standard formulas, Luther may have been careful in his memorandum to stick to the topic as requested by Ribbentrop. All that Luther needed to detail in his August request/apologia was getting the Jews out of western and southeastern Europe, that is, what he and others in the Foreign Office were responsible for doing and had been working at.

More importantly, no matter what Luther wrote and how carefully he phrased it, there is no evidence of planning or follow-up on Luther’s supposed program for moving Jews on further to occupied Eastern territories. There is abundant evidence, some we will look at below, for extermination actions in the East aimed at making the occupied territories Jew-free. Let’s take but some cases showing what Luther knew about German handling of the Jewish problem in the year or so before he wrote his memo:

1. Before Wannsee – Serbia

In September 1942 Benzler, plenipotentiary of the Foreign Office in Serbia, asked permission of Rademacher (Jewish desk in the Foreign Office, reporting to Luther) to deport Jews, held in the Sabac camp, from Serbia. Rademacher took the thorny situation to the RSHA’s expert on Jewish matters, Eichmann, whose advice was blunt:
Eichmann proposes shooting.
(Hilberg, Destruction, page 730; see also Manoschek, in Herbert, National Socialist Extermination Policies, pages172-179) So said the notation made by Rademacher on Benzler’s request, jotted down during a phone call. Guess who was present at this time, at least according to Rademacher?
State Attorney Bar-Or: . . . I come to document No. 642, a letter from Benzler, the Minister in Belgrade, to the Party, dated 8 September 1941. . . .

State Attorney Bar-Or: Still on the same subject, document No. 644, a telegram from Luther of the Foreign Ministry, dated 11 September 1941, which says:
"The deportation of Jews to the territory of a foreign state cannot be approved. A solution of the Jewish Question will not be achieved in this way. It is left to your discretion to detain the Jews in work camps and to employ them on essential public works."

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/872.

State Attorney Bar-Or: Matters are not arranged so quickly, at any rate not to the satisfaction of the representatives of the Reich in Belgrade. Hence document No. 645, a telegram, dated 10 September 1941, from Veesenmayer and Benzler to the Foreign Ministry. . . .
"Quick and draconic settlement of the Serbian Jewish Question is a most urgent and practical need. Request suitable orders from the Foreign Minister, in order to be able to intervene with extreme emphasis vis-a-vis Military Commander of Serbia. . . .”
State Attorney Bar-Or: I pass on to document No. 647. It was shown to the Accused and marked T/37(193). It is a letter from Benzler to the Foreign Ministry, dated 12 September 1941, in which he says:
"Housing in work camps impossible under present circumstances, as security not guaranteed. Camps for Jews impede and endanger even our troops. Thus immediate evacuation of camp of 1,200 Jews in Sabac necessary, since Sabac is battle area, and in surroundings rebellious gangs several thousand men strong identified. On the other hand, Jews contribute demonstrably in large measure to unrest in the country. . . . Deportation first of all male Jews is essential precondition for restoration of orderly conditions. Therefore urgently repeat my request. . . . Otherwise operation against Jews must be deferred for the time being, which contradicts the orders given me by Foreign Minister."
I direct the attention of the Court to the remark in the margin. It says here, over Rademacher's initials: Section III D: Please speak to the RSHA and report. Signed - Luther, 12 September. And Rademacher adds:
"In the opinion of Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, RSHA IVD4, there is no possibility to take them to Russia or to the Generalgouvernement. Even Jews from Germany cannot be accommodated there. Eichmann proposes to kill them by shooting."
I draw the Court's attention to the Statement of the Accused concerning this document, which begins on page 2352, and especially to two passages on pages 2355 and 2356.
Presiding Judge: What did he say there?
State Attorney Bar-Or: I shall gladly read these sentences. On page 2355 he says:"Yes, I must have apparently passed this matter on. According to what is said, that is also perfectly clear to me. Then it was apparently said: There is no choice except killing by shooting."
In the next passage, on page 2356, he says:
"Yes, certainly. So I just want to add this for the sake of clarity, although it should actually be superfluous: It was not I who gave this order to kill by shooting on my initiative, but like all such matters, I dealt with it through official channels, and the reply from my superiors was: Kill by shooting."
. . . Rademacher was interrogated about this subject in Nuremberg. . . . Of interest to us is mainly the last passage on page 3 of Rademacher's Statement, a general description of the functions of the Foreign Ministry as against the functions of the Accused. . . . The Court will perhaps permit me to read two short passages from the document. One is the penultimate passage on page 3, which says:
"I was called for 13 September in order to give my report concerning BLTS/ 3552 based on Luther's note of 12 September" - the one which I already quoted before the Court from the previous document. "I still remember exactly," says Rademacher, "that I was sitting opposite him when I telephoned the Head Office for Reich Security, and that I wrote down key words from Eichmann's reply and passed them over to Luther during the telephone conversation. Eichmann said words to the effect that the army was responsible for order in Serbia, and that it would just have to kill rebellious Jews by shooting. In reply to my further question, he repeated simply: 'Kill by shooting' and hung up" (i.e., hung up the receiver)."
On the last page it says: "In addition to the German Section (Referat), Luther headed the Special Section, i.e., the reorganization of the Foreign Ministry. In this position Luther was directly responsible to Ribbentrop as the liaison with the Ministry of Propaganda. I should like to point out that the German Section - as distinct from other sections in the Foreign Ministry - was not only a liaison office with various civilian agencies, but that it was the section which had the real authority over the various functions mentioned above. For instance, it was generally responsible for Jewish questions, with the exception of matters having economic or propaganda character. These belonged to what was called the Central Authority for Jewish Emigration.
"The authority for German Jewish policy in Europe as such was, in accordance with a decree by the Fuehrer (Fuehrererlass), Eichmann's section in the Head Office for Reich Security alone. The Foreign Ministry could only submit objections to this section, if they were based on foreign policy considerations, and if the objections in individual cases were well founded. I myself worked in Section D III from the beginning of 1940 until the beginning of 1943.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-045-06.html

So here we have Luther taking part in a discussion about shooting imprisoned Jews - as the preferred way to deal with the supposed problem of Jews - in Serbia during fall 1941. And we have evidence from the ground that executions by shooting took place – confirmed, as we shall see, by a visit to Serbia by Rademacher, Luther’s subordinate in the Foreign Office.

Through fall 1941 Luther pursued a solution to the problem of the Serbian Jews. He wrote, for example, a memorandum in early October to his boss Ribbentrop explaining in some detail his views on the situation with the interned Jews (Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution, pages 342-343):
in my opinion the military commander must take care of the immediate elimination of these 8,000 Jews. In other areas other military commanders have dealt with considerably greater numbers of Jews without even mentioning it.
Following this, Luther’s man Rademacher traveled with Suhr to Serbia, arriving 18 October 1941, to see if the 8,000 Jews, whom German authorities in Serbia wanted to deport, could be dealt with on the scene; they found that the military was shooting the Jews, under Bohme’s reprisal program (100 Jews per German), with just 1,500 left to be dealt with. Rademacher would comment on the inclusion of the remaining Jews in the reprisal program:
The male Jews will be shot by the end of the week, so the problem broached in the embassy’s report is settled.
By August 1942, around the time of Luther’s memorandum, after the expansion of this killing program during 1941 and 1942, Staatsrat Turner could send a note to his chief, Generaloberst Lohr,
Serbia only country in which Jewish question and Gypsy question solved.
(Hilberg, page 738)

Luther thus came to the Wannsee conference already with the knowledge of killing actions, including the techniques of mass murder, begun in 1941 against various Eastern Jewish populations, in particular but not limited, as we shall see, to the Jews of Serbia.

2. TuLBs

The field units operating behind the lines in the East, the Einsatzgruppen, were responsible for filing reports on their activities, Ereignismeldungen (often called in English the Operational Situation Reports or simply Einsatzgruppen Reports). Other reports, called Taetigkeits- und Lageberichte (TuLBs) der Einsatzgruppen, summarized the Ereignismeldungen. TuLBs were circulated to non-SS offices, including the Foreign Office.

The TuLBs, while summarizing other reports, were lengthy and detailed as they contained specific information on a variety of actions including large-scale extermination operations such as those conducted at Zhitomir, Vitebsk, Babi Yar, Rovno, Bobruisk, and many other places. The TuLBs repeated the goal of rendering territory in the East free of Jews by means of extermination actions (open-air mass shootings). For example, TuLB No. 5 stated that “The solution to the Jewish question was tackled energetically by the Einsatzgruppe of the Sipo-SD especially in the area of the Dnieper. The territory newly occupied by the commandos was made free of Jews. In the process 4,891 Jews were liquidated.” (Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution, page 401)

Top officials in the Foreign Office, among them Ribbentrop and Weizsacker, received various reports of the Einsatzgruppen. (Weizsacker’s post-war alibi was that he did not believe that the deportations his office helped organize were connected with killings in the East). The first five TuLBs sent to the Foreign Office went directly to Luther (Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution, page 402). Also according to Browning, 22 officials in the Foreign Office received and read TuLBs (The Final Solution and the German Foreign Office, pages 72-79), the first six sent by Gestapo Mueller on 30 October 1941 (The Origins of the Final Solution, page 399).

Browning explains that “Luther himself wrote a summary of the sixth [TuLB No. 6] report, noting that in the Ostland all male Jews over 16 other than doctors and council members would be executed, and that at the conclusion of the action only 500 Jewish women and children would be left alive. He also noted that 33,000 Jews in Kiev, 3,000 in Vitebsk and 5,000 east of the Dnieper had been shot. The summary was initialed by State Secretary Weizsaecker the day it was written.” (The Origins of the Final Solution, page 402)

In addition, TuLB No. 7 came to the Foreign Office on 16 January 1942; it boasted that "The Jewish question in the Ostland can be regarded as solved. Large-scale executions have severely decimated the Jewish population and the remaining Jews were ghettoized." (The Origins of the Final Solution, page 402) It should not be necessary to point out that arrival of this TuLB in the Foreign Office preceded the Wannsee conference by a few days and was indicative of the kind of “practical experience” Luther knew about and would have brought to the discussion at Wannsee.

Last, as to his 21 August 1942 memorandum, the fact that Luther joined in making plans to eliminate Serbian Jews, by shooting, and was a regular recipient of TuLBs (which discussed killing methods, specific actions, and the goal of rendering territory Jew-free) puts paid to the denier claim that Luther somehow believed that the actions in the East were involved with nothing more than an evacuation and resettlement and that his negotiations aimed at relocating Jews of foreign countries to the East. Documents from fall-winter 1941-1942 show that, at the very least, he knew that the Jews were being sent to a region in which large murder actions against Jews were being carried out. We have to look for other reasons, such as those described above, for his careful and circumscribed presentation in his August “evacuation” memorandum to his superiors in the Foreign Office. In any event, the early “practical experience” that Luther was collecting would prepare him well for the Wannsee conference discussions as well as for his eventual role in the final solution.

3. Wannsee

In addition to his familiarity with and indeed planning participation in pre-Wannsee extermination actions, Luther was, as we have discussed, in attendance for the Foreign Office at the Wannsee conference. There decimation of Jews in forced labor and the elimination of the resistant portion were discussed by Heydrich; according to Eichmann, as we know, this was not the sum total of “blunt” talk among participants:
so as far as the particulars were concerned, I have to point out that this was not a verbatim report because certain colloquialisms were then couched by me in official language and certain official terms had to be introduced.
And
these gentlemen were standing together, or sitting together, and were discussing the subject quite bluntly, quite differently from the language which I had to use later in the record. During the conversation they minced no words about it at all.
We can also see, from the protocol, that Luther took an active part in the discussions at the Wannsee meeting.

4. Romania

We earlier reviewed how developments with the Romanians in mid-August had provoked Ribbentrop to demand an explanation from Luther, who’d been “flying solo.” At that time, Killinger had made a report to the Foreign Office which explained the planned sifting of Romanian Jews into those to be sent to work projects and those subject to special treatment (which, by the way, is a good explanation of the intended fate of unfit Jews which the Wannsee protocol had not stated – “special treatment”). Two days before writing his accounting for Ribbentrop, Luther had received a telex from Rintelen, an official in the Foreign Office, echoing Killinger’s note and quoting a 26 July report which Eichmann had made to Himmler on Richter’s agreement with the Romanians, which also called for the planned separation of Romanian Jews into able-bodied/work-bound and unfit Jews slated for special treatment:
It is planned to remove the Jews of Romania in a series of transports beginning approximately September 10, 1942, to the district of Lublin, where the employable segment will be allocated for labor utilization, while the remainder will be subjected to special treatment.
(Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, pages 840-841) Having received this telex but two days prior to writing his 21 August 1942 memorandum, Luther was aware “in real time” 1) that the murder operations in the East were to continue and 2) that they involved specifically the unfit portion of the Jews for whom his office was negotiating deportation.

5. Slovakia

But wait . . . there’s more: during these months before Luther wrote his memorandum, there was the expulsion of Jews from Slovakia, negotiated by the Germans and mentioned by Luther in his memorandum to Ribbentrop.

The deportations of Jews from Slovakia are covered in a number of works. In February 1942, at Himmler’s behest, the Foreign Office requested that the government of Slovakia provide 20,000 young Jews; the German request was noted in Luther’s memorandum as follows:
The Reichssicherheitshauptamt therefore, acting on the instruction of the Reichsführer-SS, approached the Foreign Office to ask the Slovak Government to make 20,000 young, strong Slovak Jews from Slovakia available for deportation to the East.
The original request, according to Longerich, had been for labor deployment (Longerich, Holocaust, page 324).

In his August memorandum, Luther related how, with the Slovakian government complying,
the Reichsführer-SS proposed that the rest of the Slovak Jews also be deported to the East and Slovakia thereby be made free of Jews.
By March 1942, the government of Slovakia had agreed to a comprehensive deportation program, whereupon 57 transports left Slovakia between March and October of that year. After a number of transports with young Jews went to Poland, Longerich explains that on 11 April
the deportations of whole families began,
scarcely what one would expect to find a labor program (page 325).

(According to Hilberg, 19 of the transports took 18,746 deportees to Auschwitz – many of these Jews went to the camp for labor, especially in the early transports; 38 trains with 39,006 proceeded to Lublin, where the selection principle was practiced. In Lublin, 9,000 fit, younger men were sifted to Majdanek, and the remaining 30,000 older Jews and Jews in families with children were temporarily placed in towns and villages, from which Polish Jews had earlier been deported; subsequently 24,378 of these Jews were sent to Sobibor where they were gassed.) (Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, page 785)

But the deportation-murder program ran into difficulties:
As the Slovak Episcopacy meanwhile raised objections to the deportation of the Jews before the Slovak Government, the instruction carries the express statement that in no case must there develop internal political difficulties on account of the evacuation of the Jews in Slovakia. By the telegraphic report, ad D III 2006, the Legation reported that the Slovak Government, without any German pressure, has declared itself agreeable to the deportation of all Jews and that the State President agreed personally to the deportation. The telegraphic report was submitted to the Bureau of the Reich Foreign Minister. The Slovak Government has furthermore agreed that it will pay as a contribution to the costs entailed RM 500.-- for every evacuated Jew.

In the meantime 52,000 Jews have been removed from Slovakia.
During these actions, indeed, the Vatican protested to Slovakian Prime Minister Tuka that the deportees were not being used as laborers in General-Gouvernement but were being murdered there (Hilberg, page 786). Approximately 24,000 Slovakian Jews remained in Slovakia when Tiso’s government slowed, then halted the deportations under pressure from the church. According to Luther’s note,
the exclusion of the 35,000 Jews is a surprise in Germany, the more so since the cooperation of Slovakia up to now in the Jewish problem has been highly appreciated here.
(The difference between Luther’s belief that 35,000 Jews remained in Slovakia by fall 1942 and more recent estimates is in large part due to the number of Jews who succeeded in fleeing the country, mostly to Hungary; Hilberg, page 784.)

I am aware of no evidence of 1000s of Slovakian Jews who were sent to Poland in these operations, coordinated by the Foreign Office, later being “released” or “resettled” or “moved on further to the occupied Eastern Territories.” On the hand, we have, of course, abundant evidence of Slovakian Jews being sent to death camps, including transport lists and number sequences indicating that the earliest Jews to undergo the selection process at Birkenau were from Slovakia (Czech, Auschwitz Chronicle, pages 191-192, Piper, Auschwitz 1940-1945, volume III, page 142, Longerich, Holocaust, page 345) and information provided by two 1944 escapees from Birkenau, Alfred Wetzler and Walter Rosenberg, the men among the few documented survivors of the 1942 Slovakian deportations. Also, during 1942, a large number of the Birkenau Sonderkommando, the Krema detail, were Jews transported to the camp from Slovakia (Greif, We Wept Without Tears, pages 5, 166) According to Hilberg, with subsequent deportations from Slovakia (to Auschwitz and other camps) bringing to 70,000 the total of Jews expelled, only 5,000 Slovakian Jews survived the final solution (page 792).

Conclusion

It is not believable that Luther wrote his memorandum unaware of the killing operations in the East, 1) early actions in Serbia, 2) early Einsatzgruppen shootings and extermination actions continuing through 1941, and 3) “special treatment” planned for Romanian Jews deported on account of his efforts being among the cases proving Luther’s insider knowledge.

These actions cover the chronological span during which local and regional extermination policies escalated, the Fuhrer made the decision for the comprehensive final solution (December 1941), the Wannsee conference and the 2nd final solution conference took place, the beginning phases of Aktion Reinhard commenced – including the operation of Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka as well as the decimation of the great Polish Jewish communities, and the expansion of the deportation and murder program to Jews across Europe.

Luther had to have known that the final solution did not stop at evacuation and would not have the evacuated Jews “moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given” - because he knew that both local and evacuated Jews were being murdered in the East in large numbers.

Are there, then, specific points from the memorandum that you’d like to dive into more deeply? If so, take them up with Jeff or someone who will put up with your dodging and cowardice. I won't.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
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 » Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:18 pm

Tss, Tss. Easy for Monstrous to find responses to these quotes in Metapedia:

Metapedia on the Posen speeches:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches

Goebbels's diary:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Goebbels%E2%80%99s_diary
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... e_jews.php
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... jews_2.php

Rosenberg:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ros ... _Holocaust

Furthermore, words such as "disappear" from an area does not necessarily mean killing but may mean removal...

But there is still no response to the argument made by Monstrous that German documents nowhere mention this distinction between an earlier partial genocide of USSR Jews and a later general genocide...

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

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:02 pm

Monstrous wrote:Tss, Tss. Easy for Monstrous to find responses to these quotes in Metapedia...

This is a joke, right?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:44 pm

{!#%@} all, if the buffoon doesn't spam a few links he's spammed before, as though we've never discussed these concepts in this subforum.

What a waste of time. I'm as interested as ever in actually discussing - and progressing - issues in the history of this period, and having exchanges of ideas, but my tolerance for watching someone with an "intellectual" case of Tourette's stimulate himself by shouting out catch phrases and BS is really low.

That said, it's not the level of stupid to which Monstrous keeps taking things to that makes discussion with him impossible. Rather, it's his other way of preventing inquiry and debate that has me declining to keep engaging in to and fro with this imbecile. Here's a snazzy listing of 17 direct (and mostly hefty) questions put to Monstrous that he simply ignored - a couple more such questions and challenges followed after I posted this summary - all important stuff worthy of discussion. Monstrous's notion of "inquiry" is spamming his CODOH and Mattogno links, not taking part in a discussion.

Having dodged all this to his heart's content, Monstrous tossed out that I've been echoing Irving, so (as Monstrous comes across as massively ignorant of the scholarship) I asked him not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times - but six times to answer some clarifying questions related to his silly charge. Again, total refusal - for {!#%@}'s sake, Monstrous refused even to acknowledge the questions. I asked the shithead 6 times to explain his accusation - and he ducked and chickened out 6 times.

Now, I think we all know why Monstrous drops issues, dodges questions that he finds uncomfortable, resorts to pre-packaged spam, and repeats discredited claims. I even feel a certain degree of sympathy for him. But I participate here to discuss the history - to go where evidence and arguments lead us, not to be on the receiving end of 3rd rate propaganda. So, really, to hell with Monstrous.

I suppose if he'd ever offered anything new or interesting or vexing or insightful, I might feel differently. As it is, uh uh.

As far as it goes for me, for now, guys and gals, Monstrous is free to play with himself here all he wants, I'm just not going to be watching the spectacle.

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

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

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:26 am

It surely seems the effort on behalf of the poster is falling on deaf ears and a dull mind, but I certainly appreciate your excellent replies. Thank you, StatMech.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
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 24, 2015 2:10 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:4. Romania

We earlier reviewed how developments with the Romanians in mid-August had provoked Ribbentrop to demand an explanation from Luther, who’d been “flying solo.” At that time, Killinger had made a report to the Foreign Office which explained the planned sifting of Romanian Jews into those to be sent to work projects and those subject to special treatment (which, by the way, is a good explanation of the intended fate of unfit Jews which the Wannsee protocol had not stated – “special treatment”). Two days before writing his accounting for Ribbentrop, Luther had received a telex from Rintelen, an official in the Foreign Office, echoing Killinger’s note and quoting a 26 July report which Eichmann had made to Himmler on Richter’s agreement with the Romanians, which also called for the planned separation of Romanian Jews into able-bodied/work-bound and unfit Jews slated for special treatment:
It is planned to remove the Jews of Romania in a series of transports beginning approximately September 10, 1942, to the district of Lublin, where the employable segment will be allocated for labor utilization, while the remainder will be subjected to special treatment.
(Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, pages 840-841) Having received this telex but two days prior to writing his 21 August 1942 memorandum, Luther was aware “in real time” 1) that the murder operations in the East were to continue and 2) that they involved specifically the unfit portion of the Jews for whom his office was negotiating deportation.


SM, I am curious: the language in the Killinger note and the Eichmann telex seems to be very similar. Are they copies of the same answer or did their respective authors read one of the other copies?

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
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 24, 2015 2:49 am

Monstrous wrote:But there is still no response to the argument made by Monstrous that German documents nowhere mention this distinction between an earlier partial genocide of USSR Jews and a later general genocide...


To put it simply: no.

There is at least one document associated with Konrad Morgen that referrers to mass shootings as "the old tried system".

But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

The division of labor and the selection principle that came with the final solution is something that I have attempted, time and time again, to ram down your neck but you never seem to get it. I am much more patient than SM, not because I like you, quite the contrary. I find you amusing, your like a one man fail-montage. That being said I too will put you on ignore if you fail to address a) the evidence supplied by SM in the other thread b) the questions he gave you here and c) the questions I gave you on post 1945 Soviet forced migration policies.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 24, 2015 11:00 am

Jeff, re Killinger/Eichmann - I don't know, it's been a while since I delved into Romania, I would guess a lot of exchange of thoughts had people writing along the same lines, from what I can recall. As to Monstrous, true, I keep forgetting he may be a Poe, and if I could convince myself to stop thinking he means what he posts, I would agree on the amusement factor. Either way, I'm out for now . . .

There does seem to be a pattern with some of these guys of persistent and cowardly dodging and of using discussion forums as platforms for crude propaganda. Not all of them but some, like this chimp and David, to take two examples. Given that they present crappy "one man fail-montages," can they really imagine they're doing anything other than getting Maryzilla excited from time to time? I mean, time and again ignoring evidence in favor of speculation and fantasy is a rather odd approach to a skeptics forum, no?
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
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 24, 2015 12:09 pm

do you know which one came first?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 24, 2015 1:20 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:do you know which one came first?

I'd have to go back through a bunch of books but am busy working on a post on Speer and Posen ;)
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
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 24, 2015 1:33 pm

:|
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:do you know which one came first?

I'd have to go back through a bunch of books but am busy working on a post on Speer and Posen ;)

It may be far over monstrous ' s head lol

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 24, 2015 1:37 pm

It will as it will pertain to the history and not to a trumped up CT. Monstrous's Posen stuff has since fallen to pieces, so my post isn't meant to debate that further- that debate, such as it was, is long over. The post will be to inform people with an actual interest in the history of Kitchen's interpretation.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
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 24, 2015 8:52 pm

Hmpf!

There are many local Believers demanding that Monstrous should answer innumerable questions. Often they just dump long lists of supposed evidence and demand the Monstrous should reply to every item. This despite at the same time refusing to answer Monstrous's questions such as regarding the absent material evidence of Einsatsgruppen killings, the absurdity and impossibility of the Sonderaktion 1005 fable, and even on what is supposed to be the most important Believer evidence.

Then they have the audacity to criticize Monstrous when Monstrous do not reply to every demanded question.

Monstrous suspect that Statistical Mechanic might be marginally smarter than the other local Believers. This is why he has recognized the brilliance of Monstrous's arguments, is consumed by envy, and is terribly afraid of Monstrous collapsing the Believer house of cards. The other local Believer, due to lack of knowledge or ability, simply do not understand the sheer intellectual power of Monstrous's arguments and think they are just funny.

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 24, 2015 9:24 pm

Regarding the Luther Memorandum, aside from the fascinating theory that Luther had been struck by amnesia when he wrote it, the dismissal is the same as for every other document that do not fit with the Believer tale: these documents are cover-ups due to insane Nazi paranoia of someone gaining access to their secret documents or even their private diaries. Therefore the Nazi concocted numerous false or misleading documents while only transmitting their real intentions by oral orders or by using "code words" (or incredibly, preferring to reveal the genocide in the hyperbolic speeches the Believers like to quote due to lack of any real evidence).

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26765
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 25, 2015 12:22 am

Monstrous wrote:There are many local Believers demanding that Monstrous should answer innumerable questions.
That's right. It's a skeptic forum.

Your technique of making stuff up as you go and then running away from simple questions about your claim, isn't really working here, is it?
:lol:

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
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 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:39 am

Monstrous wrote:Regarding the Luther Memorandum, aside from the fascinating theory that Luther had been struck by amnesia when he wrote it, the dismissal is the same as for every other document that do not fit with the Believer tale: these documents are cover-ups due to insane Nazi paranoia of someone gaining access to their secret documents or even their private diaries. Therefore the Nazi concocted numerous false or misleading documents while only transmitting their real intentions by oral orders or by using "code words" (or incredibly, preferring to reveal the genocide in the hyperbolic speeches the Believers like to quote due to lack of any real evidence).


Did you read SM's post? Did you read my complimentary post? If you did then you are lying. If you did not then you are a moron. Literally none of the attributes that you assign to "ewiw bewiwowes" are present in either of them. Are you a little drunk? The memorandum was in reference to the general policy at the time, with the killing feature left out. However, we know from other mutually corroborating documents that it was a feature that would have been known to Luther at the time. Your memo does nothing to disprove the totally obvious here.
Last edited by Jeff_36 on Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:43 am

Jeff, the "foe" feature is your friend. It prevents "the large blue type" outbreak . . . ;)
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
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 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:52 am

Monstrous wrote:Hmpf!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxpDa-c-4Mc

There are many local Believers demanding that Monstrous should answer innumerable questions.

No, we are merely asking you to aknolwage our points instead of running away, with your tail between your legs.

Often they just dump long lists of supposed evidence and demand the Monstrous should reply to every item.

You asked for evidence. If you claim to hold the answers then do as you preach.

This despite at the same time refusing to answer Monstrous's questions such as regarding the absent material evidence of Einsatsgruppen killings,

This has been adressed

the absurdity and impossibility of the Sonderaktion 1005 fable

This has been addressed as well.

and even on what is supposed to be the most important Believer evidence.

This has been addressed in this very thread. Scroll up a few inches and see for yourself you silly bitch


Then they have the audacity to criticize Monstrous when Monstrous do not reply to every demanded question.


You asked for a list of evidence and you received it.

Monstrous suspect that Statistical Mechanic might be marginally smarter than the other local Believers. This is why he has recognized the brilliance of Monstrous's arguments, is consumed by envy, and is terribly afraid of Monstrous collapsing the Believer house of cards.

StatMech knows more about this than many professional historians. Consider yourself honored to be schooled in the most direct and forceful manner by such an authority.

The other local Believer, due to lack of knowledge or ability, simply do not understand the sheer intellectual power of Monstrous's arguments and think they are just funny.

Is that meant to be in singular or plural? Make up your mind!

You have
1. been refuted in all of your gambits
2. seldom presented original arguments
3. when you have presented original arguments they were so stupid as to garner nothing more than a scoff and a laugh (your extra-GULAG genocide theory with no witnesses or rumors to go with it is an example).
4. Revealed your heroes Mattogno and Kues to be dim witted and/or dishonest.
5. Done so without so much as a dash of self awareness or shame.

Congratulations, you have scored the biggest revisionist own goal since Hunt in 2014.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
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 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:55 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Jeff, the "foe" feature is your friend. It prevents "the large blue type" outbreak . . . ;)

not yet boss, he makes me feel so sharp. Validation at the expense of another.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 17389
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 » Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:11 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous suspect that Statistical Mechanic might be marginally smarter than the other local Believers. This is why he has recognized the brilliance of Monstrous's arguments, is consumed by envy, and is terribly afraid of Monstrous collapsing the Believer house of cards.

StatMech knows . . .

Thanks, Jeff, but, no, Monstrous's problem here is two-fold: 1) scholars are far deeper into this material than I am and we collectively are (works by good historians are incredibly rich, well sourced - and they provide strong narrative explication) AND ALSO 2) I have been direct and straightforward in telling Monstrous why he's gone onto ignore - and I suspect he gets it. In case not, and to remind him, it's because of his inability/refusal to reply to challenges, evidence, and arguments that stem out of claims he's raised and questions he's asked. Monstrous's tactic of dodging and spinning up distractions make dialogue with him impossible, expose his modus operandi as dishonest and meant to confuse issues - nd bore the {!#%@} out of me. He continually makes a fool out of himself with his own-goals - and his pompous cheering for them - so much that I don't feel like wasting any more time on him or his crap. He's only hurting himself and I have better things to do, we all do, than trying to set him straight - things like learning more about the Third Reich and the Final Solution.
. . . I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason—Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. - John Keats, 1817

User avatar
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 » Sun May 15, 2016 11:14 am

Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4527
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 » Sun May 15, 2016 4:18 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

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 » Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:46 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Denying-History » Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:04 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:But you are really missing the point. The Luther memo really disproves nothing. It is true that the German policy was generally (in their eyes) focused on deporting the Jews to the east to work as slave laborers. What is not mentioned in the memo (but is mentioned in many other German documents) is that a feature of this policy is the murder of non working Jews. We know this.

Really? The Germans considered the mass murder of the non-workers to be a detail so small that it was not worth mentioning in a document on the general German policy on Jews?


In the memo, Luther makes no mention at all of the fate of the Jews deported to their destinations. His silence is absolutely deafening. We have many other official documents, like the Brack letter and some minutes from the GG administration that fill in the blanks more than aptly. There is also no evidence whatsoever of any German policy of resettling Jews anywhere in the east.

Monstrous has looked at this again.

"The deportation to the Government General is a provisionary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

This is completely incompatible with the Holocaustianity version!


Monstrous has proven selective in his sources. He would again need to give us a [sic] or proven unmodified quote, and also link to his resource of where he got this quote. This source should also exclude his own brain (metapedia). We have plenty of documents which are supposed to mean "resettlement" in his own words. The most important being the Hofle telegram and Korherr Report. Sadly enough for Monstrous there are no documents which speak of people leaving these camps, and the few survivors the deniers can argue were not killed were only transfers. They would enter these camps in the thousands and would leave in the hundreds. They also were not sent east, as they were generally sent south to areas like Lublin and Majdanek, especially the transfers mentioned by Eric Hunt. Monstrous should show evidence with a cited source.

Now Monstrous, since you generally have a tendency to lie or use awful sources were exactly did you get this quote?
« Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in blood. »
- Lu Xun


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest