Auschwitz

[Roberto]

What "more humane means" could Hitler have been talking about in his political testament?

I do not know, Roberto, i rather not speculate. But maybe you can help me, and proof Adolf Hitler knew about or ordered mass gassings?

The circumstantial evidence is telling, your evasive response to my questions rather lame.

Before we go any further, how about telling us what you would accept as "proof" and showing that your standards conform with those of historiography?

[witness]

It really always puzzles me.
The claim that Hitler didn't know about the Final Solution and demanding for the evidence that he did.
Hitler was a leader of the nation. He was known to be fiercely anti-semitic
( do we need a proof for this ? ) He was also known for his punctual attention to the all kinds of details .
His political speeches betray his preoccupation with the Jews ( blaming them for the all possible crimes ,conspiracies etc ).
Now his preoccupation with the Jewish question combined with his punctuality expressed in his meticulous attention to details would make quite an oxymoron from the claim that Hitler was not aware of the Final Solution ,would not it ?
And indeed why it is so important to know if Hitler was aware or not about it ?

[David Thompson]

Pr. Reinhard -- I asked: "If Hitler was aware of the mass murders of Jews, why is his knowledge of the technique of mass gassings important?"

You answered: "I study Adolf Hitler for some time now, and i would very much like to know if he knew about or ordered mass gassings, ofcourse this is also very important for history's sake."

Like Roberto, I find your response evasive. One does not answer the question "Why is it important?" by repeating the conclusion "It is very important." Are you unable to answer the question directly?

[Roberto]

Roberto very nice. But still there has been no proof showed to me that Adolf Hitler knew about or ordered mass gassings.

See my last post. I have shown you a number of indications that should give you something to think about, if you're really interested in the issue. I suggest you try to answer my questions and come up with a convincing alternative explanation to Hitler's having been aware of the killing method, whatever that matters (I don't think he ordered it, of course; such details a man of his standing would leave to his subordinates). This would be more convincing than repetitively dismissing the evidence I show you without telling us why.

If Hitler was aware of the mass murders of Jews, why is his knowledge of the technique of mass gassings important?

David Thompson, as moderator of Holocaust and Warcrimes you maybe do not think it is important. I study Adolf Hitler for some time now, and i would very much like to know if he knew about or ordered mass gassings, ofcourse this is also very important for history's sake.

The question being "why is it important", an answer that goes like "it is very important" is manifestly insufficient.

[Kelt]

There is no evidence Adolf Hitler ever ordered, or knew about mass gassings, please do not feel confident about that wich is not proven.

Interesting.

Perhaps you might present some evidence that he <i>didn't</i> know about it?

At this point it's all speculation as to whether or not Hitler knew of the genocide being practiced against the jews.

I retain the right to have my opinion and, despite your request that I not speculate until I have proof. If we had proof either way then it would no longer be speculation, would it?

several million dead jews would <i>suggest</i> very strongly that Hitler was aware of what was going on in his own Reich. As leader of the NAZI Party and Fuhrer of the German Reich he is ultimately the man responsible for what goes on in his organization. For him NOT to know what is going on regarding the jews is criminal negligence.

So, either the man was a genocidal maniac, which I personally feel is true, or he was criminally negligent in allowing this to go on under his nose.

Either way he's guilty.

But to even suggest that Hitler somehow had no idea that mass exterminations were occurring on such an enormous scale is a fairly incredible theory on your part.

Perhaps I should request you supply the proof that Hitler <i>didn't</i> know?

[Pr. Reinhard]

What "more humane means" could Hitler have been talking about in his political testament?

I do not know, Roberto, i rather not speculate. But maybe you can help me, and proof Adolf Hitler knew about or ordered mass gassings?

The circumstantial evidence is telling, your evasive response to my questions rather lame.

Before we go any further, how about telling us what you would accept as "proof" and showing that your standards conform with those of historiography?

The circumstantial evidence is telling, i agree, but still nothing about mass gassings?

I accept any kind of copy of documents, i even accept plain text as proof if it is explicit and not dependant upon any imaginative kind of interpretations, or "reading between the lines", just something explicit.

[witness]

Reminds me David Irving' line of reasoning ...

[Pr. Reinhard]

Pr. Reinhard -- I asked: "If Hitler was aware of the mass murders of Jews, why is his knowledge of the technique of mass gassings important?"

You answered: "I study Adolf Hitler for some time now, and i would very much like to know if he knew about or ordered mass gassings, ofcourse this is also very important for history's sake."

Like Roberto, I find your response evasive. One does not answer the question "Why is it important?" by repeating the conclusion "It is very important." Are you unable to answer the question directly?

Actually i was unable to answer the question directy. But i can only tell you i find it important for my self-knowledge and for understanding the man Adolf Hitler. Also i believe many people here think Adolf Hitler knew about, or ordered amss gassings, so here i see also a important role for the truth what ever that may be.

[Pr. Reinhard]

It really always puzzles me.
The claim that Hitler didn't know about the Final Solution and demanding for the evidence that he did.

I think Adolf Hitler knew about the final solution.

[witness]

It really always puzzles me.
The claim that Hitler didn't know about the Final Solution and demanding for the evidence that he did.

I think Adolf Hitler knew about the final solution.

Sorry, probably I misunderstood you then.

[Pr. Reinhard]

But to even suggest that Hitler somehow had no idea that mass exterminations were occurring on such an enormous scale is a fairly incredible theory on your part.

I have never suggested such thing.

Perhaps I should request you supply the proof that Hitler <i>didn't</i> know?

I do not have that proof, but i am not claiming he did not know. I ask for proof for what people are claiming or thinking he knew, since that kind of proof is not known to me, i ask people here for this proof.

[Roberto]

What "more humane means" could Hitler have been talking about in his political testament?

I do not know, Roberto, i rather not speculate. But maybe you can help me, and proof Adolf Hitler knew about or ordered mass gassings?

The circumstantial evidence is telling, your evasive response to my questions rather lame.

Before we go any further, how about telling us what you would accept as "proof" and showing that your standards conform with those of historiography?

The circumstantial evidence is telling, i agree, but still nothing about mass gassings?

I accept any kind of copy of documents, i even accept plain text as proof if it is explicit and not dependant upon any imaginative kind of interpretations, or "reading between the lines", just something explicit.

Ach so, something containing the word "gassings" or "gas chambers".

Then I can't help you, for obvious reasons.

Now to the second part of my question, which you haven't answered:

Is your request for "something explicit" reasonable?

Is it in line with the standards of historiography?

Could you reasonably expect such statements to have been made explicitly, without euphemisms requiring a little interpretation and knowledge of the context?

I'm eagerly looking forward to your replies to these questions. Which doesn't mean that the previous ones have been forgotten. I have just duly noted that you dodged them.

[Roberto]

Also i believe many people here think Adolf Hitler knew about, or ordered amss gassings, so here i see also a important role for the truth what ever that may be.

Well, we seem to have different ideas of what is relevant and what is not. I never assumed Hitler would bother himself with such trifles as ordering a given killing method. As whether or not he knew about it has also never given me sleepless nights.

[Kelt]

[quote="Pr. Reinhard]I do not have that proof, but i am not claiming he did not know. I ask for proof for what people are claiming or thinking he knew, since that kind of proof is not known to me, i ask people here for this proof.[/quote]

Ah, you want some kind of physical document stating that Hitler knew?

Here's a line from Mein Kampf...

"If at the beginning of, or during, the war 12,000 or 15,000 of these Jewish corrupters of the people had been plunged into an asphyxiating gas...the sacrifice of millions of soldiers would not have been in vain."

Eerily prophetic, wouldn't you say? Or perhaps mere coincidence that he had earlier mulled over the idea of gassing jews?

Further....

December 12, 1941 - Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that;

Hitler ordered the extermination of all Jews at a meeting on Dec. 12 of Nazi German regional governors in Berlin at the Reich Chancellery.

"With regards to the Jewish question, the Fuhrer decided to make a clean sweep." The first extermination camp was Chelmno in Poland that began mass killings December 8 using the carbon monoxide mobile vans. In 1942, the camps of Belzec, Sobibor, Majdanek, and Treblinka were opened. The largest extermination camp was Auschwitz-Birkenau with four Zyklon B gas chambers built by 1943, killing 8000 Jews per day. Special prisoner units (Sonderkommandos) were used to dispose of the bodies in large pits and in cremetoria.

I don't think I've seen documentation where Hitler specifies how to make this 'clean sweep', but it seems fairly clear he wasn't talking about asking forgiveness from the jews for how he'd been treating them.

[Pr. Reinhard]

What "more humane means" could Hitler have been talking about in his political testament?

I do not know, Roberto, i rather not speculate. But maybe you can help me, and proof Adolf Hitler knew about or ordered mass gassings?

The circumstantial evidence is telling, your evasive response to my questions rather lame.

Before we go any further, how about telling us what you would accept as "proof" and showing that your standards conform with those of historiography?

The circumstantial evidence is telling, i agree, but still nothing about mass gassings?

I accept any kind of copy of documents, i even accept plain text as proof if it is explicit and not dependant upon any imaginative kind of interpretations, or "reading between the lines", just something explicit.

Ach so, something containing the word "gassings" or "gas chambers".

Then I can't help you, for obvious reasons.

Now to the second part of my question, which you haven't answered:

Is your request for "something explicit" reasonable?

Is it in line with the standards of historiography?

Could you reasonably expect such statements to have been made explicitly, without euphemisms requiring a little interpretation and knowledge of the context?

I'm eagerly looking forward to your replies to these questions. Which doesn't mean that the previous ones have been forgotten. I have just duly noted that you dodged them.

Roberto i have read some of your posts and you seem very intelligent, for that i feel honoured to recieve all this questions from you .

I will answer them this time, but after that please email or personal message me because i really would like my awnser questioned (that is all i ask), thank you.

Is your request for "something explicit" reasonable?

Yes and no, some people find some things reasonable and other people find other things reasonable. But if something is explicit then for me that is very reasonable indeed.

Is it in line with the standards of historiography?

I do not know the todays standards of historiography, i think these standards change in time, sometimes people find things acceptable and other times not. But for what is proven by without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity can (should) not be denied in any "standards of historiography".

Could you reasonably expect such statements to have been made explicitly, without euphemisms requiring a little interpretation and knowledge of the context?

If they are euphemisms that can be interpretated in more than one way then i do not consider it history (or truth).

Roberto if you have any more questions i will answer them by PM or email.

Now is there anyone who can awnser the question over wich all this started?