Earldor:
I'd like to quote the document 4024-PS to reinforce my point (unfortunately I don't have the original German one).
Why do you think that Globocnik writes:
"However the recognition given me for the Action also impels me to give you, Reichsfuehrer, an account of the economic side, in order that you, Reichsfuehrer, may thereby see that in this respect also, the work was in order."
(emphasis by Earldor.)
What other ”work was in order”, and in what other ”respect”?
Earldor:
We need to have the knowledge of the "expulsion" (or "deportation", the term used a bit later) and the sheer size of it to realize what that simple, innocuous term entails.
Mr. Kaschner quoted:
[…]Globocnik himself stated that:
The entire Action Reinhardt is divided into four spheres: A. The expulsion itself. B. The employment of labour. C. The exploitation of property. D. Seizure of hidden goods and landed property.
In this quote, ”A.” is ”expulsion”, which is that ”work” of AR (see first Globocnik quote above) that is not ”economical” in the same way as ”B”, ”C” and ”D” are.
So: in order to answer Earldor’s question…
Why do you think that Globocnik writes:
[…]in this respect also, the work was in order. (emphasis by Earldor.)
we must know that
[…]even though the documents only allude to the extermination of the GG Jews, that was the main objective of the operation.
”Expulsion” =
extermination was the main objective of the operation, i.e., number ”A” in order.
The US court, while in possession of many of the documents, was not able to draw the right conclusions as to the primacy of the economic side, or our reading of the decision is wrong. I believe that the reason that the tribunal may say that the gist of AR was economic was that the court didn't have all the facts.
The US court was mislead by the fact that the AR camps were placed in Poland? That looked like ”expulsion” instead of ”extermination” to them, since ”extermination” would appear to have been easier to execute in camps situated inside Germany, the home of the Nazis. The court didn’t have all the facts about the death camps that was ”brought aboard” later:
The fact remains that the later court cases and studies by historians has brought aboard a wealth of knowledge, that has led to nearly all historians to conclude that the primary purpose of the AR was to eliminate the Jewish population of the GG. The fact that the man in charge of the operation was Globus, not Pohl, is crucial in this matter.
”
Later court cases and studies by historians has brought aboard a wealth of knowledge” concerning the camps placed inside Germany proper, making it clear that the elimination must have been taking place in Poland instead of in Germany, and ”
the fact that the man in charge of the operation was Globus, not Pohl, is crucial in this matter”, since we now have ”a wealth of knowledge” about this man Globus and his camps, thanks to the historians.
Less is known about Pohl now than was known then, on the other hand – just like we know more nowadays about the gas chambers of Treblinka, than we know about the gas chamber of Dachau.
Repeat I :
I believe that the reason that the tribunal may say that the gist of AR was economic was that the court didn't have all the facts.
From Mr. Kaschners posting on side 3 of the present thread:
In this compounded crime of genocide, the WVHA played a very essential part. This extermination of peoples, this mass deportationof slave labor in concentration camps, gave rise to the confiscation, or to put it more precisely, the theft of property on a gigantic scale. To the defendant Pohl and his collaborators in the WVHA fell the task of collecting that property and mustering those slaves for use by the Third Reich.
(emphasis added).
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... fca#598732
Repeat II :
We need to have the knowledge of the "expulsion" (or "deportation", the term used a bit later) and the sheer size of it to realize what that simple, innocuous term entails.
The court apparently had the knowledge to call the ”mass deportation of slave labor” an ”extermination of peoples”, and in the same breath, without having ”all the facts”, according to Earldor.
Perhaps the term ”extermination” entailed a more ”simple, innocuous” sense in
their parlance instead?
A U.S. court maybe saw those terms in a ”precedent” historical ”Redskin” sense, rather than in a Holocaust one, realizing where their U.S. ”property” came from?
From an emphasized part of Mr. Kaschner’s posting again:
It was the task of special staff "G" to seize and account for all property in the Government General of occupied Poland derived from the extermination and enslavement of Jews. This ghoulish program was called "Action Reinhardt" presumably in honor of Reinhard Heydrich who was assassinated in the summer of 1942.
What later ”facts” could improve on the ”knowledge” of the court concerning either the ”sheer size” (”all the property”) or the ”ghoulish” (”extermination and enslavement”) aspects of the program?
Why did they put ”extermination” and ”enslavement” side by side? Exterminated Jews cannot very well be enslaved?
Earldor again:
And even though the documents only allude to the extermination of the GG Jews, that was the main objective of the operation. In other words, the primary objective of the Aktion Reinhardt was to eliminate the GG Jews, and later others as well, and the secondary objective was to profit economically from the primary objective. "Waste not", was the German thinking here.
Globus and the U.S. court agree with Earldor : ”Expulsion” was point ”A” to Globus, and ”extermination” was put before ”enslavement” by the court – i.e., ”primary objective” to both.
This extermination of peoples, this mass deportation of slave labor in concentration camps, gave rise to the confiscation, or to put it more precisely, the theft of property on a gigantic scale.
(emphasis added.)
”Primary objective”, indeed!
The court didn’t write…
The confiscation, or to put it more precisely, the theft of property on a gigantic scale, gave rise to this extermination of peoples, this mass deportation of slave labor in concentration camps.
…did they?
But on the other hand:
It was a program of deliberate wholesale brigandage which was, at the same time, an added aspect of the extermination program. [Note that in the Court's view, Action Reinhardt was not the extermination program itself, but an aspect added to it.]
(Mr. Kaschner’s quote, emphasis and comment.)
Mr. Kaschner wrote:
In my view what is needed, assuming the findings of the Military Tribunal are insufficient or in doubt, is a firm focus on the issue: i.e., why was Action Reinhardt formed, what was its specific purpose, and what was the source of its name - together with a greater and more focused assembly and critical analysis of whatever evidence may be out there; and much less emotional reaction and ready acceptance of preconceived notions, which may or may not have firm evidential support.
I know this is a peripheral and certainly not a critical issue, and surely pales into insignificance[…]
Perhaps this last aspect is the critical issue?
If other aspects than the emotional and ready ”ghoulish” one of extermination and elimination are added to the reaction and accepted notion of the Holocaust (like the ”t” to ”Reinhard”), the ”firm evidential support” of it will eventually
pale?
If a court
pales its ”findings” in the following way…
This extermination of peoples, this mass deportation of slave labor in concentration camps, gave rise to the confiscation, or to put it more precisely, the theft of property on a gigantic scale.
…by making the Holocaust look like the rest of our inhuman history that Mr. Kaschner once marvelled at how anyone could not see….
Paul 278 wrote:
Quote:
I really cannot in anyway see how one can dehumanize a child, to the extent that one could kill it, and its mother and father.
I marvel at how sheltered a life Paul 278 must have led! No newspapers, no magazines, no TV, no history books, not even the Bible! The most recent events of the last few weeks in Israel, in Iraq, in Beslan all seem to have passed him by, unnoticed and unmarked. His unwillingness to accept the testimony of thousands of witnesses and centuries of history to the inhumanity of man is indeed touching, but it touches me as somewhat curious and perhaps - but only perhaps - just a wee bit disingenuous.
But of course I do admit to being a cynical old geezer by nature.
Regards, Kaschner
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 489#537489
…..then perhaps the following assessment by Prof. Browning will look different?
I believe that the Holocaust was a watershed event in human history -- the most extreme case of genocide that has yet occurred. What distinguishes it from other genocides are two factors: first, the totality and scope of intent -- that is, the goal of killing every last Jew, man, and women, and child, throughout the reach of the Nazi empire; and second, the means employed -- namely, the harnessing to the adminstrative/bureacratic and technological capacities of a modern nation-state and western scientific culture.
Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers, p. 32
”
The harnessing to the adminstrative/bureacratic and technological capacities of a modern nation-state and western scientific culture” will perhaps once again give ”
rise to the confiscation, or to put it more precisely, the theft of property on a gigantic scale” (the US court above)?
The murder of women and children will be known already.
