Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Discussions
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22658
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 24, 2018 12:54 am

Balsamo wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:here
So it is not just review if i understand it correctly.
I believe that Evans' book is a collection of mostly previously published essays among them the LRB review of Snyder's book.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Post by Balsamo » Tue Jul 24, 2018 1:44 am

Statmec:
Done, in earlier post.
Do it again, copy/paste whatsoever.
Are you going to argue now that Gerlach did not pretend to identify the 12th of december as the date?
Goebbels said that the Führer was now expressing a determination to be done with the Jews, framing the then-escalating rhetoric and repetition of the formulas with this determination. Frank said pretty much the same thing a few days later: "As for the Jews, well, I can tell you quite frankly that one way or another we have to put an end to them. The Fuhrer once put it this way . . ." and so on.
Frank was asking for his GG to be judenfrei, was begging for it, as soon as he took in charge only to see his kingdom becoming the reservoir for Jews. That he understood Hitler speech this way is no wonder, it must have sounds like caviar to his ears - we shall always keep in mind that we are talking about Sons of B...here.
But if his situation had been the same he would have been full of joy in listening to every Hitler's rants from 1939 onward.
But back to the core of the topic, without Goebbels entry, Gerlach would not have been able to connect Franks speech to the 12th of December.
He has other sources for the date, like the telex we discussed. I think that Gerlach takes a variety of sources into account, including of course Goebbels diary entry, to pinpoint the date of the discussion.
And those sources would be?
Specifically dedicated on the 12th meeting, there are not many.
Which expresses conclusions based on sources, not premises. Gerlach did not set out with a date in mind but tried to understand the logic of summer-fall 1941 and then specific sources on the December discussions. That is really clear from his article despite your rhetoric about "premises" and "holy grails."
I am glad you and others have this impression.
It is just not mine. Without Goebbels entry, whatever you might think, the 12th meeting would just be like the 13th, 18th etc. Not useful to determine a decision date.
You asked about a specific line, so I didn't comment beyond that.
You are welcome to comment though, as it is part of Gerlach argumentation.
Balsamo, no matter how many times you claim this, it is simply not true. I've listed a number of sources which Gerlach surveyed - Nick mentioned others - and Gerlach specifically focuses on Frank's speech, attributing importance to it, writing, "On December 16, at a meeting of the officials of the General Government, Hans Frank delivered an infamous address. In several of its passages he alluded unmistakably to Hitlers announcement of his decision on December 12" - followed by a lengthy quotation from Frank's speech, which elsewhere he connects to a Rosenberg diary entry.
This quote of mine is only related to Goebbels entry, which only the part related to the Jewish Question is quoted in Gerlach article.
I said that although i have not Goebbels entry in my hand, it is said to be 7 pages long. So whatever sources might be available for the 12th according to you, it remains that the quote regarding the Jews taken from Goebbels entry of the 13th is a couple of lines among 7 pages. It has no thing to do with what took place on december 16th. Again, Gerlach would not have been able to connect Frank speech of the 16th without Goebbels entry.
My remark being that Goebbels entry where this quote is to be found is 7 pages long.
I maybe naive but in my interpretation it means that this 2 and half hour meeting was not just about the Jewish policy.
That's not what I wrote: I said that he reviewed some other possible scenarios and explained why he rejected those. That Gerlach went through these shows that he considered alternative hypotheses.
You are playing with words here.
Once again, he would not have been able to isolate the meeting of the 12th among all the meetings that took place during that crucial month of December without Borman's entry and Goebbels, Borman's one having no significance except to confirm that a meeting took place.
In the best case scenario, he would have concluded that the decision had to have been taken between the 7th and the 14th.
To maintain this you must ignore the other sources which Gerlach discusses. And the larger context. I feel you've shown a commitment to ignoring these, indeed.
Why the hell do you keep coming with other sources when regarding specifically the 12th meeting there aren't any????
The others sources can of course determine that some kind of decision has been taken in December, but none by themselves can identify the 12th.
As I have several times made clear, I am leaving aside our differences of interpretation and here objecting to your distortions of what Gerlach said, such as that he relied only on Goebbels' diary or that he didn't pay attention to who attended the meeting on the 12th.
There is no distortion on my part, and it seems that there are quite a few who distort this article.
As i explained above, he paid attention to the audience as long as the people invited have a link to the Holocaust...about 10 names, quite obvious, as even i mentioned some in my reply to Balmoral, Himmler, Forster, Greiser, Frank, Lohse, Koch...Gerlach adds names like Bouhler, Borman, Rosenberg, Goebbels and Von Schirach...but leaves aside all the others, except to make his point you don't want to comment that he wanted to assure the NSDAP was to be on the front line regarding the Final Solution.
Any others Gauleiter i would have missed, among the at least 40 others?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Post by Balsamo » Tue Jul 24, 2018 1:46 am

nickterry wrote:
Balsamo wrote:
I completely agree with your observation, and thanks for confirming that this speech was understood as the the destruction of "European Jewry".
I have promised to Statmec, i i guess you will be relieved as well :lol: , not to come back with my interpretations which are based on the same information you just gave.

to outline one sentence of you:
But the basic principle of destruction as a pan-European principle dates from December 1941.
Well probably, yes.
I admit that i changed my mind quite often in this regards. It can also be defended that some kind of green lights was given sooner, that the first transports of German Jews to the East were some kind of test, but yes, December is probably where inferences are pointing to the most.
But, as of course, there is a BUT, it does not mean that the exact nature - if this aspect was already decided - had been shared with those who not had to know. But one thing i am sure of, is that the 12th is probably the worst date one could have picked. To declare that the Jewry (and the distinction is important) will be doomed given the new situation does not mean that "systematic physical extermination of every Jews in Europe" will be used in order to achieve the declared goal. Again, the destruction of Jewry can be achieved by other means that systematic murder...not in Hitler's mind obviously(or the three HHH)...but that was not of the old comrades business and was not needed to be shared on the 12th of december or even after.

To conclude, your last pòst is quite different from Gerlach article, at least in the details.
Given that we went into all this "AT LENGTH" into the details no need to go further into it.
Thanks for your post.
There seems to be a semantic confusion at work here, partially caused by translation issues. The primary sources such as the Goebbels diary speak of the destruction of Jewry in Europe, so I am just repeating the contemporary language.

Gerlach's original German article
https://werkstattgeschichte.de/wp-conte ... FERENZ.pdf
speaks in terms of 'Hitlers politische Grundsatzentscheidung, alle Juden Europas zu ermorden'

The English translation speaks of a 'decision to exterminate'
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jewishnb/hr ... annsee.pdf

Destruction (Vernichtung) would be murder regardless of whether it it caused directly by shooting/gassing or indirectly by privation and exhaustion. But to avoid confusion, I would err on the side of speaking simply of destruction, and looking at the text of the Wannsee protocol to understand what was meant by biological destruction or physical destruction, as well as to figure out what the Nazis had in mind at the turn of 1941/42 to bring about the destruction of Jews. The answer is: a lot more ghettos and forced labour than was eventually the case, since we see projects like DG IV receiving more emphasis. But, nonetheless: destruction.

This would absolutely include partial exterminations, mass killings and massacres, since these were ongoing in the USSR, the destination of many deportations was meant to be the Soviet Union, and key players knew about the shootings.

German Auftragstaktik as well as Hitlerian tendencies towards delegation easily explain why a Hitler decision to 'destroy' European Jews could remain firm while the methods and proportions and pacings of who was to be destroyed when and in what ways, changed.
Sorry, i have missed this post.
I will have a look on the original version tomorrow.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22658
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:58 am

Balsamo wrote:Do it again, copy/paste whatsoever.
No, this is getting absurd.
Balsamo wrote:Are you going to argue now that Gerlach did not pretend to identify the 12th of december as the date?
Why would I do such a thing, after explaining how I think Gerlach came to the conclusion that Hitler discussed the decision on December 12th?

To be clear, my view is that the chief value of Gerlach's article was (in contrast to Browning, for example) establishing the approximate time frame (December) and the context for the decision in principle. His pinpointing the meeting date only strengthens the case.
Balsamo wrote:Frank was asking for his GG to be judenfrei, was begging for it, as soon as he took in charge only to see his kingdom becoming the reservoir for Jews. That he understood Hitler speech this way is no wonder, it must have sounds like caviar to his ears - we shall always keep in mind that we are talking about Sons of B...here.
But if his situation had been the same he would have been full of joy in listening to every Hitler's rants from 1939 onward.
But back to the core of the topic, without Goebbels entry, Gerlach would not have been able to connect Franks speech to the 12th of December.
Again, you're missing my point, which is what Gerlach argued, not what you wish he'd argued or why you object to what he argued. Where have I said that Goebbels' diary entry wasn't a key part of Gerlach's case?
Balsamo wrote:And those sources would be?
Specifically dedicated on the 12th meeting, there are not many.
Listed and discussed in earlier posts. I think you don't apprehend Gerlach's procedure, which was to survey various direct and indirect pieces of evidence, and this is why we keep posting at cross purposes.
Balsamo wrote:Without Goebbels entry, whatever you might think, the 12th meeting would just be like the 13th, 18th etc. Not useful to determine a decision date.
Gerlach discusses other meetings and sources which help him zero in on the time frame and day (I listed some above - just to highlight three, a letter from Brautigam to Lohse, a letter from Lohse to Rosenberg - this letter being more specific, and postwar testimony of Mildner - PS-2376), and he explains his reasoning, which is not as simple as you make it. Taking just Lohse to Rosenberg, to what other “confidential address to the Reichsleiter and Gauleiter” made by Hitler shorty before would Lohse have been referring? I don't know, I do know what Gerlach concludes. Gerlach's approach in the paper was to try making sense of the developments of 1941 and the sources on/references to various December-ish meetings and discussions. Which is how historians work, not just in this instance.
Balsamo wrote:it remains that the quote regarding the Jews taken from Goebbels entry of the 13th is a couple of lines among 7 pages. It has no thing to do with what took place on december 16th.
Balsamo, calm yourself. Geez. I didn't say anything about the length of Goebbels' diary entry or that it influenced or referred to anything on December 16th; I mentioned Frank's speech of the 16th because Gerlach treats it as convergent evidence, just as he treats Brautigam's 18 December letter ("As for the Jewish question, oral discussions that have taken place in the meantime have brought about clarification") as convergent evidence. Again, I get that you disagree with how Gerlach assesses these sources. But I was addressing your claim about what Gerlach says.
Balsamo wrote:Gerlach would not have been able to connect Frank speech of the 16th without Goebbels entry.
My remark being that Goebbels entry where this quote is to be found is 7 pages long.
To quote Gerlach in a different context, a document is to be "read in connection with other documents that help shed some light on its meaning." Gerlach also explains forthrightly how he came to his conclusions: "Several tightly woven elements contributed to the reasoning behind Hitler’s decision and the timing of its announcement." It wasn't, for Gerlach, a question of smoking guns, so to speak.
Balsamo wrote:I maybe naive but in my interpretation it means that this 2 and half hour meeting was not just about the Jewish policy.
Did anyone say that it was just about Jewish policy? In fact, in another of his publications, quoted in the Brayard thread, Gerlach wrote of the announcement that "his utterances on 12. December were but a relatively short passage of a long speech. . . ."
Balsamo wrote:You are playing with words here.
No, I am writing very straightforwardly and trying to keep you from distorting what is being said. Gerlach reviewed different hypotheses and gave reasons for doubting them; this is exactly what a historian should do - and it is not anything like my "confirming that he picked the date by elimination," which is both playing with words and unbecoming BS.
Balsamo wrote:he would have concluded that the decision had to have been taken between the 7th and the 14th.
Well, that's what he does, using Rosenberg's New York speech - and then he uses other sources, including Goebbels and others mentioned above, to be more precise. Also, Gerlach writes, "It is possible, hypothetically, that Hitler had already announced his decision before a smaller circle at some point between December 7 and December 12." He discards this possibility, citing Eichmann's testimony concerning Heydrich's informing him of the final solution. He continues, "Hitler announced his decision to liquidate European Jewry to the party leadership on December 12." You may disagree with Gerlach's reasoning here, of course, but your insistence that Gerlach relied exclusively on Goebbels' diary doesn't match with what's in the article.
Balsamo wrote:Why the hell do you keep coming with other sources when regarding specifically the 12th meeting there aren't any????
I have listed some of them. The sources don't say, "We met on the 12th and Dolfy told us to kill all Europe's Jews." They are pieces in the chain of evidence used by Gerlach.
Balsamo wrote:There is no distortion on my part, and it seems that there are quite a few who distort this article.
Well, several times I've pointed out the two distortions you keep making - that Gerlach relied on a single piece of evidence concerning the announcement and that Gerlach was inattentive to who attended the meeting. You've written not a word to dispel my conclusion.
Balsamo wrote:As i explained above, he paid attention to the audience as long as the people invited have a link to the Holocaust
This is gibberish, I was referring to your claim that Gerlach gave "no consideration on who the public of this meeting actually was." Your response to my quoting where he addresses the meeting attendance, giving "consideration," was to ask about its location and to disagree with Gerlach's reasoning - about the audience!

I'm done on this, Balsamo, as we are simply repeating disagreements from the Brayard thread, which I have no interest in doing.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2321
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Post by Balmoral95 » Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:44 am

Balsamo, congratulations, the Jewish community here at SSF/HD Forum is proud to award you our "Toscanini of Tedium" award for Summer 2018.

Details on the award to follow...

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2087
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Post by Denying-History » Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:40 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:here
Yeah that doesn’t have a citation because it’s from the London review of books. Which wasn’t published in “2012” but November 4th, 2010:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n21/richard-j ... -the-poles

You can read the full article here free:

http://defendinghistory.com/wp-content/ ... -Books.pdf

It’s just a reprint in another one of his publications.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Post by Balsamo » Tue Jul 24, 2018 7:32 pm

Balmoral95 wrote:Balsamo, sorry, not buying the some Gauleiter more worthy than others to attend the meeting notion... regardless of other ranks, proximity to Dolfy, or anything else, the centralization concept necessarily requires that Bormann ensured full attendance at the meeting.
:?
It is not what i said, i think.
As it is presented, all Gauleiters and Reichsleiter were invited, at least those in function. More worthy i do know, but with more power and authority than others, it is undeniable. Would you compare Greiser with Fritz Schelssmann? That Goebbels was equal to Emil Sturtz? Would you consider that Karl Wahl had a determinant role in the Holocaust, as opposed to Lohse, Forster, Meyer or even Kube?
Actually i do not understand what you are not buying. ;)

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Post by Balsamo » Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:48 pm

Ok last post for me:
Statmec:
Why would I do such a thing, after explaining how I think Gerlach came to the conclusion that Hitler discussed the decision on December 12th?
All i am saying that he would not have come to this date without Goebbels entry.
I know very well how he used other sources to propose 1./ that a decision was taken in December 41 2./ that using Brack's letter and Rosenberg, he reduced it between the 7th and the 14th...at this stage there are already room for discussion, actually...and then 3./ he pinpoints the 12th using Goebbels entry. Without Goebbels entry he would not have chosen the 12th...

I don't know how many times i have to repeat that i do not oppose December 41 as the turning point in the Jewish policy.
To be clear, my view is that the chief value of Gerlach's article was (in contrast to Browning, for example) establishing the approximate time frame (December) and the context for the decision in principle. His pinpointing the meeting date only strengthens the case.
the choice of the 12th of december being the issue here. Actually, it does not strengthen his case, because it is when he starts to defend his choice than his arguments get weaker.
Again, you're missing my point, which is what Gerlach argued, not what you wish he'd argued or why you object to what he argued. Where have I said that Goebbels' diary entry wasn't a key part of Gerlach's case?
Once again, what Gerlach is defending (or was) is that on the 12th of December 1941, Hitler announced to the elite of the NSDAP, around 50 gauleiter and Reichsleiter (maybe more) his decision to murder the European Jews. " alle Juden Europas zu ermorden" as posted by Nick.

Sorry but it is not what i wish to agrue, it is Gerlach main point!

I never said you did not consider Goebbels entry as a key part, but that despite of all consider Gerlach's main point as a conclusion based on multiple sources, while i say that he used multiple sources to support his main point. Some may have difficulties to spot the nuance here.

Of course, one of the main issue for me is that you cannot interpret Goebbels entry as a call to "murder all European Jews", as Goebbels used the term " destruction of Jewry"
Bezüglich der Judenfrage ist der Führer entschlossen, reinen Tisch zu machen. Er
hat den Juden prophezeit, daß, wenn sie noch einmal einen Weltkrieg herbeiführen
würden, sie dabei ihre Vernichtung erleben würden. Das ist keine Phrase gewesen.
Der Weltkrieg ist da, die Vernichtung des Judentums muß die notwendige Folge
sein. Diese Frage ist ohne jede Sentimentalität zu betrachten. Wir sind nicht dazu
da, Mitleid mit den Juden, sondern nur Mitleid mit unserem deutschen Volk zu
haben. Wenn das deutsche Volk jetzt wieder im Ostfeldzug an die 160.000 Tote
geopfert hat, so werden die Urheber dieses blutigen Konflikts dafür mit ihrem Leben
bezahlen müssen.
Based on this, Gerlach makes his statement, his main point, that:
Und folgerichtig- im Rahmen seiner
antisemitischen Weltsicht folgerichtig- verkündete Hitler nunmehr den Beschluß,
alle europäischen Juden zu ermorden.
Note that Goebbels does not even write the term "europaischen".
And this is how he got his DATE.

Statmec:
To quote Gerlach in a different context, a document is to be "read in connection with other documents that help shed some light on its meaning." Gerlach also explains forthrightly how he came to his conclusions: "Several tightly woven elements contributed to the reasoning behind Hitler’s decision and the timing of its announcement." It wasn't, for Gerlach, a question of smoking guns, so to speak.
Gerlach's date of the 12th being established, he can now connect Frank's speech held on the 16th in front of his officials of the GG.
Yes Frank do mention the prophecy, but by using the term: "once" (which is quite vague if it means 4 days ago). And in his speech, noticeably Frank has still no idea on what will take place and on how it will take place. He is referring to Wannsee, insists that those measures are still under discussion with the Reich. Of course, he do want his 3.5 millions Jews to be liquidate, looking with envy what is going in the East. Is there anywhere he suggests that a decision has been taken and that it was just a matter of time until the GG will be judenfrei? Nope.

As for the woven elements, what are they?
- the generic in use since 1939 or even earlier that the Jews are responsible for the war, that they up to anti-germans activities, etc.
- the entry of the USA into the war.
- the silly idea that because of this entry, the Jews have lost their value as hostages. (It is Hitler who declared war)
- the will of Hitler to create a official Eurpoean genocide as "fortress mentality" among the Germans in the prospect of a second front (highly unlikely even at the end of 1941).
Did anyone say that it was just about Jewish policy? In fact, in another of his publications, quoted in the Brayard thread, Gerlach wrote of the announcement that "his utterances on 12. December were but a relatively short passage of a long speech. . . ."
I may be meticulous to the extreme, but in my opinion, Gerlach should have presented at least a summary of Goebbels entry, in order to let his readers know that others subjects were talked about during those 2h30. By reducing it to the sole Judenfrage, it is kind of misleading. And most readers would have concluded that this speech was about the Final Solution, almost exclusively. Which was certainly not the case.
No, I am writing very straightforwardly and trying to keep you from distorting what is being said. Gerlach reviewed different hypotheses and gave reasons for doubting them; this is exactly what a historian should do - and it is not anything like my "confirming that he picked the date by elimination," which is both playing with words and unbecoming BS.


Again you speak about distorsion when i am presenting my disagreement with a thesis, clearly expressed...I do not need to distort anything when the author is claiming several time that on the 12th of December Hitler announced to a bunch of 50 NSDAP members his decision to murder all Jews in Europe.
Underscored is all i am focusing on.
Well, that's what he does, using Rosenberg's New York speech - and then he uses other sources, including Goebbels and others mentioned above, to be more precise. Also, Gerlach writes, "It is possible, hypothetically, that Hitler had already announced his decision before a smaller circle at some point between December 7 and December 12." He discards this possibility, citing Eichmann's testimony concerning Heydrich's informing him of the final solution. He continues, "Hitler announced his decision to liquidate European Jewry to the party leadership on December 12." You may disagree with Gerlach's reasoning here, of course, but your insistence that Gerlach relied exclusively on Goebbels' diary doesn't match with what's in the article.
Would you finally agree that the Goebbels source came first? Maybe not.
Actually, he uses Rosenberg to identify the 7th of December, although we do not know what kind of changes were really made, not that it does matter much, but Rosenberg always maintained that the decision was the declaration of war...of course he can be lying...but given the pace of killing Jews in his own jurisdiction, i really wonder why a decision presented as "principle" (later on) would have changed a content.
Anyway, that is how the 7th is fixed...

For the 14th, Gerlach relies on the infamous Brack's letter of 23rd of June 1942 in which Brack refers to an earlier opinion expressed by Himmler. Given that Gerlach found out that the only precedent meeting between him and Himmler was on the 14th of december 1941. Of course, one could say that an expressed opinion does not require automatically a physical meeting, and could have been passed through a phone call or a letter...or one could not?
But here we have the 14th of december 1941.

So yes hypothetically, and he quickly dismisses it - i love that part - using Eichmann...Eichmann so essential to our understanding of the Wa...ee C. (oups almost did it).

But however you turn it, without the Goebbels entry, they would have been no reason to suspect the 12th meeting at all and would not have identify it, and with good reasons.
I have listed some of them. The sources don't say, "We met on the 12th and Dolfy told us to kill all Europe's Jews." They are pieces in the chain of evidence used by Gerlach.
Come on...Some time you can take a short cut and go to the basic.
Exactly my point being that the sources DON'T say anything like "I have listed some of them. The sources don't say, "We met on the 12th and Dolfy told us to kill all Europe's Jews.", But Gerlach does.

And sometimes, yes when refuting, one starts with the conclusion and do ask for sources that specifically and directly concern it.

Well, several times I've pointed out the two distortions you keep making - that Gerlach relied on a single piece of evidence concerning the announcement and that Gerlach was inattentive to who attended the meeting. You've written not a word to dispel my conclusion.
Wrong, i have insisted many times, and again in this post, that Gerlach would not have been able to identify the 12th without Goebbels entry...Or please, explain to me how he would have done without! There is no way his "line of evidences" would have led to this date (12th of December) without it.

As for those who attended, i said it...he cites the 10 names which can be related to the Holocaust, but that is it. He does not address the issue of secrecy that surrounded the Final Solution, although he did indirectly using Brack's letter, but without realizing the contradiction. You do not share the intention of "murdering all European Jews" hoping the 50, among them 40 "Alte Kampfer" would keep secrecy. T-4 leaked with way less people in the known. Absurd.

Note that Gerlach does not even evaluate how many attendees there was. It is Goetz Aly who gives the number (well it is how i learned about it) , and i would add that given the number of Gau and Reichsleiter, there was probably more than 50 people.
This is gibberish, I was referring to your claim that Gerlach gave "no consideration on who the public of this meeting actually was." Your response to my quoting where he addresses the meeting attendance, giving "consideration," was to ask about its location and to disagree with Gerlach's reasoning - about the audience!
Yes because he does not explain or even supported with further evidences that every Gauleiter and Reichleiter knew perfectly, from that date, that the European Jews were to be killed. He does not even care to proof, except by mentioning a oath of secrecy, how such a crowed would have kept the secrecy for at least 1 year and a half, he does not even care to explain the benefits of such an open declaration of genocide. He does not inform his reader of what actually was the NSDAP responsibility during the war and the Holocaust, but he only gave some example how much Gauleiter wanted to get rid of their Jews...What a surprise since the Final Solution had been adopted in 1939, replaced in October 41 by "evacuation". There all were good Nazi fellows.

Now as a conclusion, here is a quote from Nick who tempered the meaning of the "decision"
Note that I said 'destroy European Jewry', which fits with the trajectory of policy radicalisation at this time. No order to massacre, kill or exterminate European Jews as a whole was given at this time; destruction was understood as something that would be brought about by a mixture of decimatory killings (or killings of swathes in certain regions, such as the USSR) together with deaths through deportation, privation, forced labour, ghettoisation, etc.
concluding with
There simply isn't another moment for which there is better evidence than for December 1941. The evidence is not good for any moment in time, but December 1941 best fits all of the evidence and the trajectory of developments - as long as one understands that 'destruction' is not synonymous with extermination-by-gassing or immediate killing, and as long as one understands that the decision in question concerned generalising policies of destruction to all of Europe's Jews.
Which i agreed with from the start, while keeping the door open for other hypothesis, like November was quite busy regarding the Final Solution - but the issue being not the month of December 41, but the 12th, the issue being not that Hitler induced a new shift on that date, THE ISSUE is that Gerlach wrote that Hilter announced the murder of all European Jews on that date. Using the term "ermorden" not "Vernichtung", using the term "Juden" instead of "Judentum".

To confirm that i will point out that he even introduced the famous letter from Gauleiter Kube of the 16h of december 41 in his argumentation, explaining that this letter - protesting against the shooting of German Jews, decorated ones, mischlinger, even second degree - by saying that it was because Gauleiter Kube had not been invited at the meeting...because he was a Gauleiter only by ranks (?), but not in function (???)...

Which can be translated as : "Had he been at the meeting of the 12th, Kube would have known that the decision to KILL/MURDER had been announced by Hitler, so if he had been present, he would not have written his protest letter, because he would have known that the order to murder the European Jews had been given.
This proves that Gerlach was without ambiguity when he stated that Hitler shared with the NSDAP "the decision to murder all Jews from Europe", that it was announced plain and clearly to the audience. And indeed, Kube opposed the slaughter of those German Jews.

PS:
Brayard thread started at Wannsee, and i made my best to isolate my posts on December the 12th...
In Hollywood, one would call this thread a "prequel"... :lol:

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22658
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:50 pm

Naw, I'm out. Like I said. It's an opportunity cost calculation. I have more important things to do.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Hitler's Final Solution order was given on Dec 12th, 1941

Post by Balsamo » Fri Jul 27, 2018 2:16 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Naw, I'm out. Like I said. It's an opportunity cost calculation. I have more important things to do.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
From someone who spent the last 10 years (or more) to debate deniers...Well it is funny, which makes suspect that you got some sense of Swedish humor...and that is a good think.

Speaking about Sweden, i have read a couple of days ago a story about a young swedish woman who stood up against a legal deportation of a 51 years old Afghan(?) by refusing to sit down on her seat - thereby making impossible for the plane to take of - while keeping filming live through facebook, managing the live audience to grow to such a level that the crew gave up, that the captain ordered the deportee to be put out of the plane.
Not only was the fantastic women not prosecuted for any form of rebellion (or apology of terrorism), but it is said that the Swedish government revised the case, and aborted the expulsion order. He is now free to stay in Sweden, and this brave young Swedish not only probably saved one person's live, but risked a lot and in the end managed to gave this deportee the hell of an opportunity for a new life.
It is to be noticed that no other passengers even considered to press charges against her, neither.

Given that my internet is breaking every now and then, and sometimes for hours or days, i was wondering if you could found a link and post it on the European Nationalism forum...Sometimes, good news and good actions should be reported as well.

To go back one last time to this topic, i have just noticed you wrote:
"Gerlach...does not "distance himself" from his earlier article...his 2016 book puts it like this, following right on discussion of US entry into the war: "As a batch of documents shows, Hitler announced his decision in principle to murder all of Europe's Jews on or around December 12, 1941"
Well, my apologize for not having read carefully your fist post, but then why did you suggest that Gerlach did not "distance himself" from his article? When it is so obvious!
So where are the reasons for any critic toward Richard Evans (which is not my favorite historian) expressed in this thread?

Actually, it gave me the opportunity to read Gerlach 2016 opus which i find rather excellent, opening great new perspectives, especially regarding the European mood toward the Jews..and i have still about 300 pages to go...

Not wanting to waste you time any longer...

Post Reply