Holocaust "Timeline"

[Roberto]

Mr Muehlenkamp wrote:

Another thing: How could the extermination of the Jews of Poland be explained under this “partisan threat” theory?
Not to mention the Jews of the German Reich, Austria, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Hungary, …

Mr Muehlenkamp is up to his usual trick of dishonestly and deceitfully distorting what I wrote.

Did I at any time claim that the killing of the Jews of Poland was because they were considered a partisan threat? Did I at any time claim that the Jews of any other European country were considered a partisan threat?

Poor Mr. Mills is suffering from another of his bouts of paranoia. I didn't accuse him of having stated that the Jews of any European country other than the Soviet Union were considered a "partisan threat". I just wanted to illustrate the utter ridiculousness of the contention that this was so in the Soviet Union by pointing out that, in other European countries, Jews were eventually massacred with the same intensity as in the Soviet Union although relating them to partisans was not only a far-fetched pretext, but completely out of the question.

NO, I did not. If Mr Muehlenkamp has read my earlier posts, he will have noted my contention that Himmler's note "als Partisanen auszurotten" referred ONLY to the Soviet Jews, who were considered "Bolsheviks".

If that was Mills’ contention, I didn’t miss anything by not reading it before. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to read Himmler’s note as an indication that Soviet Jews were to be exterminated because they were considered Bolsheviks/partisans. Interpreting the statement in the sense of “make them look like partisans and wipe them out as such” seems to be a lot more reasonable.

Mr Muehlenkamp will also have noted my point that the Germans themselves clearly distinguished between the Soviet Jews, whom they considered dangerous Bolsheviks, and the Polish Jews, who were not considered dangerous.

A distinction that did not help them much. In regard to the former, the pretext that they were “dangerous Bolsheviks” came in handy, but it seems more probable that they were actually seen as “useless eaters” just like the Jews of Poland, insofar as they were not needed as forced laborers for the German war effort. The “useless eaters” theory, on the other hand, is an insufficient explanation for the killing of the Jews of Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary and other European countries.

The only group of Jews deported specifically for security reasons was probably the Jews of Salonika. The German authorities feared an Allied invasion through Salonika (as had happened in the First World War) after the conquest of North Africa, which could be foreseen by the beginning of 1943.

A brilliant theory indeed. It the Jews of Salonika were exterminated for “security reasons”, then why were the other Jews of Greece killed? And those of Yugoslavia, the Protectorate, Slovakia, Hungary, etc.?

Note that I, as an honest man, made clear that I am not quoting Professor Ezergailis himself in support of my contention, only using a document contained in his book.

Coming from the proponent of apologetic theories the far-fetched nature of which should be more than obvious to himself, I take the “honest man” as an expression of sarcasm.

What a contrast between my character and that of the self-proclaimed macho-man from Latin America!

A contrast that Mills will have to demonstrate, first of all. I need not remind him of how he once pretended that Dr. Dick de Mildt supported a far-fetched thesis of his about the Aktion T4 killings having been aimed at “targeting” a mortality in German mental health institutions that was expected to occur anyway due to wartime conditions, do I?

[michael mills]

Mr Muehlenkamp wrote:

I need not remind him of how he once pretended that Dr. Dick de Mildt supported a far-fetched thesis of his about the Aktion T4 killings having been aimed at “targeting” a mortality in German mental health institutions that was expected to occur anyway due to wartime conditions, do I?

That is an outright and contemptible lie, demonstrating the low nature of Mr Muehlenkamp's character, to which I referred.

I never at any time claimed that de Mildt supported any theory. I quoted material from his book in support of that contention. That material consisted of
(1) data about the mortality of German mental patients in the First World War, and
(2) reactions of various German doctors to that mortality, the conclusions they drew from it, and the effect those conclusions had on the developemtn of the Euthanasia program.

The above items were raw data which I quoted in support of my thesis. Nowhere did I say or imply that Dr de Mildt himself supported that thesis, and Mr Muehlenkamp lied most damnably and deceitfully in representing to de Mildt that I had said or implied that.

[Roberto]

Mr Muehlenkamp wrote:

I need not remind him of how he once pretended that Dr. Dick de Mildt supported a far-fetched thesis of his about the Aktion T4 killings having been aimed at “targeting” a mortality in German mental health institutions that was expected to occur anyway due to wartime conditions, do I?

That is an outright and contemptible lie, demonstrating the low nature of Mr Muehlenkamp's character, to which I referred.

Is that so, Mr. Mills?

Then let our audience have a look at the respective thread and judge for themselves.

It's on the old forum:

> more assassinations...
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =114.topic

The contentious statement can be found in Mr. Mills' post # 91
(12/11/01 4:47:56 am) on that thread and reads as follows:

De Mildt discusses the mortality of mental patients in Germany during the First World War due to the British blockade, and shows how it created a predisposition to active killing during the Second World War. He also shows how the observation by public health administrators that, since active, working patients and the bedridden received the same rations, it was the latter who survived while the former died (since the active patients expended more energy), led to the determination that in a future war the situation would be reversed through active intervention, with the lives of active patients who could work being preserved, while the bedridden were left to die.

The transcription of my inquiry about this statement to Dr. Dick de Mildt and de Mildt's reply is in my post ("medorjurgen1168") # 1076
(12/12/01 11:43:24 am) on the mentioned thread. It reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Muehlenkamp,

If, as you say, Mills is "trying to make out that the Nazi "euthanasia" killings were related to a concern about the expectable mortality in mental health institutions in the event of a wartime blockade, due to the experiences of the First World War", he's certainly not arguing along the lines of my
book, and he's, no doubt, well aware of this.

It is true that I pointed to the mortality rates during WWI (p.53 and 335, note 19). I also referred to the survival ratio of active vs. bedridden patients (p.101) in a passage which discusses the testimony of Dr Hermann Pfannmüller (a notorious killer of mental patients), who argues that he
witnessed "how the patients died away like flies under the most horrible cirumstances bevause of nutritional oedema. Mostly they consisted of the working patients, while the incurable and non-working patients, 'the human corpses', stayed alive." Pfannmüller, at his trial, argued that these
experiences led him to favour 'euthanasia'. Whether or not this testimony was merely intended to present himself and his motives in a more favourable light (which, considering, his role in the killings, I'm inclined to think), is open to discussion. What is obvious, however, from even the briefest glance at Pfannmüller's record, is that his activities within the context of Nazi 'euthanasia' were a far cry from the role of the concerned humanitarian which he claimed in retrospect. On the contrary, as a 'mercy killing' accomplice,Pfannmüller was an enthusiastic killer of his (and others') patients and certainly no humanitarian concerned with the well-being of his suffering patients.

Greetings,

Dick de Mildt

At 19:14 11-12-01 -0000, you wrote:
>Dear Mr. de Mildt,
>
>As I learned from Michael Mills (David Irving's friend and supporter at the
>Irving-Lipstadt trial) on a discussion forum
>under the link:
>
>pub3.ezboard.com/fskalman...=114.topic
>
>you wrote a book with the title
>
>"In the Name of the People: Perpetrators of Genocide in the Reflection of
>their Post-War Prosecution in West Germany: The 'Euthanasia' and 'Aktion
>Reinhard' Trial Cases"
>
>I intend to order this book as I am interested in the "Aktion Reinhard"
>trial cases, which the title suggests that it deals with. As it will take
>some time for the book to arrive, however, I would be grateful if you could
>give me your opinion on the following assessment of
>your book by Michael Mills:
>
>"De Mildt discusses the mortality of mental patients in Germany during the
>First World War due to the British blockade, and shows how it created a
>predisposition to active killing during the Second World War. He also shows
>how the observation by public health administrators that, since active,
>working patients and the bedridden received the same rations, it was the
>latter who survived while the former died (since the active patients
>expended more energy), led to the determination that in a future war the
>situation would be reversed through active intervention, with the lives of
>active patients who could work being preserved, while the bedridden were
>left to die."
>Michael Mills is trying to make out that the Nazi "euthanasia" killings were
>related to a concern about the expectable mortality in mental health
>institutions in the event of a wartime blockade, due to the experiences of
>the First World War. He is quoting you as an authority to support his
>thesis.
>Is he rendering your writings accurately, or is he
>misunderstanding/misrepresenting the contents of your book?
>I look forward to your reply.
>Best regards,

[Roberto]

Hello all,

I had just completed reading "Masters of Death" by Richard Rhodes, and it certainly provided a few more insights to help me compile a "timeline" of the holocaust, incorporating the documents, meetings and memoranda that currently exist today, and relate them to the transitional process of genocide from mobile (the Einsatzgruppen) to stationary (the gas chambers) killing centres.

---

July, 1941 : Hitler orders the murder of Jews to include women and children in Russia.

15 Aug, 1941 : After seeing the Einsatzgruppen in person, Himmler believed that "death by shooting is not humane", and ordered SS General Artur Nebe to think about it, and submit a report.

24 Aug, 1941 : Hitler orders an end to the T4 euthanasia program, which has, up to this timepoint, killed many thousands of Germans using various techniques, including gas.

Sept, 1941 : Hoss tested Zyklon gas on Russian prisoners-of-war at Auschwtz.

Sept, 1941: Himmler orders that all Jews, even including Jewish farmers in the Ukraine, to be exterminated.

12 Dec, 1941 : Goebbels records in his diary that Hitler has made a decision and will make a "clean sweep" regarding the Jewish Question.

14 Dec, 1941 : Hitler met with Rosenberg and Himmler. Hitler re-emphasises his plans to exterminate all European Jews.

16 Dec, 1941 : Hans Frank made his "I can tell you quite frankly that one way or another, we have to put an end to [the Jews]" speech.

18 Dec, 1941 : Himmler records in his diary "Jewish question / to be exterminated like partisans". With the extermination of the Russian Jews already well on the way, Himmler note is an important reference that the Jews of Europe will be deported and killed.

20 Jan ,1942. Wannsee conference. The statistics show that 11 million Jews throughout Europe, including Spain, Italy and Britain, are to be "evacuated".

---

That all I have at the moment. I hope to add a bit more later on, and if anyone has any input, I look forward to your contribution.

Goebbels' diary entry regading Hitler's statements on 12 December 1941 read as follows:

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.

Translation:

In respect of the Jewish Question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that if they again brought about a world war, they would experience their annihilation in it. That wasn't just a catch-word. The world war is here, and the annihilation of Jewry must be the necessary consequence.

Source:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/nazis-words/

Emphasis is mine.

What this "annihilation of Jewry" meant and how it was to be brought about is made clear by the recollections of Hitler's statements by another participant in the meeting, governor of Poland Hans Frank. In a speech to members of his staff on 16 December 1941, he stated the following:

"As far as the Jews are concerned, I want to tell you quite frankly, that they must be done away with in one way or another. The Fuehrer said once: should united Jewry again succeed in provoking a world war, the blood of not only the nations which have been forced into the war by them, will be shed, but the Jew will have found his end in Europe * * *
"Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourselves of all feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to maintain here the structure of the Reich as a whole. This will, naturally, be achieved by other methods than those pointed out by Bureau Chief Dr. Hummel. Nor can the judges of the Special Courts be made responsible for it, because of the limitations of the framework of the legal procedure. Such outdated views cannot be applied to such gigantic and unique events. We must find at any rate, a way which leads to the goal, and my thoughts are working in that direction.
"The Jews represent for us also extraordinarily malignant gluttons. We have now approximately 2,500,000 of them in the General Government, perhaps with the Jewish mixtures and everything that goes with it, 3,500,000 Jews. We cannot shoot or poison those 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation, and this in connection with the gigantic measures to be determined in discussions from the Reich. The General Government must become free of Jews, the same as the Reich. Where and how this is to be achieved is a matter for the offices which we must appoint and create here. Their activities will be brought to your attention in due course."

Source:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Frank.htm

Emphases are mine. The first is to point out the similarity with Goebbels' diary entry, which suggests that Frank was referring to the same source as Goebbels - the Führer's utterances on 12 December 1941 in which he harked back to his "prophecy" made years before. The second is to point out a passage where it becomes very clear that "annihilation" was meant in a physical, homicidal sense and that it had been decided upon on an overall and not just regional level, hence Frank's reference to "gigantic measures to be determined in discussions from the Reich". The "discussions from the Reich" that Frank referred to were the so-called Wannsee Conference that took place on 20 January 1942, in which Frank was represented by State Secretary Dr. Bühler and where the intended fate of European Jews was outlined as follows:

Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.

The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)

In the course of the practical execution of the final solution, Europe will be combed through from west to east. Germany proper, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, will have to be handled first due to the housing problem and additional social and political necessities.

Source of quote:

http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/wanneng.html

While these passages expressly address only the fate of the able-bodied Jews capable of working, the intended fate of non-Jews is implicit. If the working Jews were to be "eliminated by natural causes" (i.e. worked to death) and the survivors were eventually to be "treated accordingly" (i.e. killed), there can be no doubt that the non-working and therefore useless Jews were to be "treated accordingly" right away.

The original plan to "comb" Europe from west to east suffered an alteration pursuant to the request formulated by State Secretary Dr. Bühler:

State Secretary Dr. Bühler stated that the General Government would welcome it if the final solution of this problem could be begun in the General Government, since on the one hand transportation does not play such a large role here nor would problems of labor supply hamper this action. Jews must be removed from the territory of the General Government as quickly as possible, since it is especially here that the Jew as an epidemic carrier represents an extreme danger and on the other hand he is causing permanent chaos in the economic structure of the country through continued black market dealings. Moreover, of the approximately 2 1/2 million Jews concerned, the majority is unfit for work.

Source of quote:

http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/wanneng.html

Contrary to the original intention, the "final solution of this problem" thus commenced in the General Government, as noted by Goebbels in his diary entry of 27 March 1942, ten days after the first deportations from Lublin to Belzec extermination camp. It is worth while to read the whole of Goebbels' diary entry of that day, for Goebbels' notes make clear that the "barbaric process" of deportation and liquidation of the Jews from the General Government was but the beginning of the execution of the "final solution of this problem" outlined at the Wannsee Conference. They also leaves no room for doubt about the genocidal nature of this "final solution":

Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophesy which the Fuehrer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us. It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.

The ghettoes that will be emptied in the cities of the General Government now will be refilled with Jews thrown out of the Reich. This process is to be repeated from time to time. There is nothing funny in it for the Jews, and the fact that Jewry's representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany must be paid for dearly by its representatives in Europe - and that's only right.

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... 942-mar-27

Emphases are mine.

[michael mills]

In his letter to Dr De Mildt, which he has quoted again on this thread, Mr Muehlenkamp wrote:

Michael Mills is trying to make out that the Nazi "euthanasia" killings were related to a concern about the expectable mortality in mental health institutions in the event of a wartime blockade, due to the experiences of the First World War. He is quoting you as an authority to support his thesis.
Is he rendering your writings accurately, or is he misunderstanding/misrepresenting the contents of your book?

The sentence "he is quoting you as an authority to support his thesis" is a blatant misrepresentation of my use of the material in De Mildt's book, and clearly misled De Mildt himself, as is obvious from his reply, also quoted by Mr Muehlenkamp.

I used data included in De Mildt's book in support of my thesis, but never claimed that De Mildt himself supported it. De Mildt's reply in fact shows that I used the material in his book accurately and without distortion.

[Roberto]

In his letter to Dr De Mildt, which he has quoted again on this thread, Mr Muehlenkamp wrote:

Michael Mills is trying to make out that the Nazi "euthanasia" killings were related to a concern about the expectable mortality in mental health institutions in the event of a wartime blockade, due to the experiences of the First World War. He is quoting you as an authority to support his thesis.
Is he rendering your writings accurately, or is he misunderstanding/misrepresenting the contents of your book?

The sentence "he is quoting you as an authority to support his thesis" is a blatant misrepresentation of my use of the material in De Mildt's book, and clearly misled De Mildt himself, as is obvious from his reply, also quoted by Mr Muehlenkamp.

I used data included in De Mildt's book in support of my thesis, but never claimed that De Mildt himself supported it. De Mildt's reply in fact shows that I used the material in his book accurately and without distortion.

Hey Mills, why these puny and laughable attempts at self-justification?

Let the those interested read the thread in question and judge for themselves.

Everything they need to know can be found in my post of Wed Jul 10, 2002 1:22 pm and under the link mentioned therein:

more assassinations...
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =114.topic