Mr. Thompson wrote:
Since there is “every sort of evidence”… from Heydrich level on down, we know that Hitler gave “verbal orders”.He did it like this: He gave a verbal order to Himmler to murder the Jews. We know Hitler did this because Himmler repeatedly referred to this fact while Hitler was still alive, and because Himmler thereafter did undertake a program of mass murder and Hitler certainly didn't punish him for it. At first, Himmler put Heydrich in charge of the job. Heydrich insisted on keeping good records. From his level on down, there is no shortage of every sort of evidence -- written orders, reports, plans and budgets, technical assistance, testimony of participants, bystanders and victims, forensic studies, etc. After Heydrich's assassination in 1942, his successors in the murder operation -- Kaltenbrunner and Pohl -- also kept good records.
German historian Christian Gerlach, as quoted by Roberto, calls this a “principle decision”, “not taken all at once, but step by step”:
Hitler gave verbal orders to Himmler, not "all at once", but "step by step", according to Gerlach(?).It is surely difficult to understand that Hitler took a principle decision on the murder of all European Jews after the mass murder in a number of countries had already victimized almost a million Jewish people. It is difficult to comprehend that this decision was not taken all at once, but step by step, region by region.
But Gerlach also wrote:
Hitler’s decision was necessary for the authorities involved both in regard to the murder of the German Jews an in order to obtain the basis for a central planning of the genocide.
So Hitler’s verbal order must be obtained, after all.
"Step by step", and yet "in principle"?
Hitler’s order – which was unnecessary except as a “principle” decision (mass murder of Jews was already going on) – was taken “step by step”, the murders having hitherto been masked as “political” decisions without the “authorization by the state leadership” [‘(e.g. those “unfit to work”)’].The prevailing assumption that the basic decision already occurred between the spring and the autumn of 1941 is based on the belief that before crossing the border to mass murder of the Jews there need to have been something like an authorization by the state leadership. Yet for the National Socialists these extermination decisions were political, not moral decisions. They thus could be limited to certain territories or even groups of people (e.g. those “unfit to work”).
Why “concrete” contents?This passage of the speech was already unequivocal, but by itself not yet concrete. The contents of Hitler’s separate meetings with Himmler, Bouhler, Frank, Rosenberg and others we must assume to have been much more concrete.
Perhaps “..to obtain the basis for a central planning of the genocide..”?
Mr. Thompson assumes no such thing:
I responded that there was no explicit indication that Hitler specified the means by which European Jews were to be murdered, but instead left the technical aspects of the job to his subordinates.
The “concrete” takes care of itself:
Gerlach agrees:From his level on down, there is no shortage of every sort of evidence -- written orders, reports, plans and budgets, technical assistance, testimony of participants, bystanders and victims, forensic studies, etc. After Heydrich's assassination in 1942, his successors in the murder operation -- Kaltenbrunner and Pohl -- also kept good records.
This shows that with his possibly strongest intervention in the extermination process Hitler by no means decided or had to decide all, and that his intervention had clear-cut but in a certain sense limited consequences. The findings of research on the crucial responsibility of other instances, especially the authorities in the very areas of occupation, is hereby confirmed.
So Hitler’s unnecessary order confirms itself by the fact that
“with his possibly strongest intervention in the extermination process Hitler by no means decided or had to decide all, and that his intervention had clear-cut but in a certain sense limited consequences”,
and this since
But stillthe pressure by the police and parts of the civilian administration… in the direction of a large-scale extermination was already so great that it would have inevitably led to terrible consequences sooner or later.
This murder “pressure” (see above) , on “the initiatives from the state and party apparatus”, needed the approval of Hitler as a moral “basis” for its “fait accompli”. There was a need for this in the system, in order to for the Nazis to “begin with it systematically”. “The pressure by the police and parts of the civilian administration”, however great, was not enough, since “for the National Socialists these extermination decisions were political, not moral decisions”.As little as this monstrous process was normal politics, as much as Hitler produced it – in this respect the decision about the lives of the European Jews were taken almost as in a “normal” political deliberation: the “Führer” did not take the decision all alone, but after a given time, in a given situation and on a given occasion he approved the initiatives from the state and party apparatus. Many insisted on the murder of all European Jews, but before they could begin with it systematically, there was the need in the National Socialist system for a decision taken by Hitler.
After the verbal order to Himmler was obtained, everybody knew that there was a moral to the extermination decisions, too.
As Mr. Thompson wrote:
According to witness, Hitler wouldn’t have needed Himmler as a Mediator, though:We know Hitler did this because Himmler repeatedly referred to this fact while Hitler was still alive, and because Himmler thereafter did undertake a program of mass murder and Hitler certainly didn't punish him for it.
Hitler, “famous for his meticuolous attention to details”, was careful not to compromise himself in relation to his “favorite detail”, so he took care not to make the extermination order in writing – except in this “speeches and writings”, of course, where he didn’t need to document any “meticulous attention to details”.The mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis
whose leader was Adolf Hitler ( Again -the leader who was famous for his meticuolous attention to details and of course it is clear that what was related to his favorite detail - evil Jews, would not escape his attention which is absolutely obvious to anybody familiar with his speeches and writings ) did take place in reality ( unless you would like to deny this fact as well.)which was very well documented.
Mr. Thompson wrote:
It seems he didn’t even have to decide it “personally”. An euphemism or two would do:It should come as no surprise that Hitler did not do it all personally, since he had others to help him with the murders.
Roberto wrote to Pr. Reinhard:
And to Erik:Could you reasonably expect such statements to have been made explicitly, without euphemisms requiring a little interpretation and knowledge of the context?
It seems that the interpretators of the euphemisms need to be interpretated, too!While our audience reads the above quote, maybe the philosopher can try to answer the questions regarding the possible interpretations of Hitler's and Goebbels' euphemisms that I asked his predecessor Pr. Reinhard. It would be a more interesting contribution on his part than his boring attempts to present beaten "Revisionist" articles of faith in a "philosophical" shape.