Primary Evidence about Hitler

[uberjude]

Anybody interested in reading me and Michael Mills debating about the agenda of the Wannsee Conference should check out this thread:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9&start=15

Suffice it to say that even Peter Longerich, the historian cited by Michael to support his claims, stated the following:

In the most serious crisis of the war thus far, the participants at the conference were given the impression that the RSHA was planning to have the mass murders started in the various occupied areas, leading to a 'total solution' ('Gesamtlösung') that was to be developed over the long term.

So without rehashing the debate, let it be noted that the most important witness to Wannsee, Eichmann, confirms that what was discussed was genocide, and that, to my knowledge, there is no credible historian who offers a counter-theory.

So with that in mind, with Eichmann's confirmation that "evacuation" at Wannsee was a euphemism for genocide, we can read the minutes of Wannsee as saying:

"Another possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of emigration, i.e. the liquidation of the Jews, provided that the Führer gives the appropriate approval in advance."

Wannsee was about extermination, and, according to the minutes, it required Hitler's prior approval.

[pacifritz]

I always felt the most chillingly inhuman facet of the Wannsee Conference was the following bland footnote, eloquently printed at the bottom of the 'programme of events' sent out to the German participants due to attend this meeting:



Refreshments, including a light buffet, will be served up afterwards.


Chilling in it's 'matter-of-factness' regarding the subjectmatter discussed at the Conference.

[michael mills]

So with that in mind, with Eichmann's confirmation that "evacuation" at Wannsee was a euphemism for genocide, we can read the minutes of Wannsee as saying:

Now you are engaged in manipulating the text of a document.

The text should be read exactly as it is written, ie it is describing a plan to deport Jews from all areas under German control into occupied Soviet territory.

Other parts of the text back up that interpretation, in that they specify a mass movement of Jews into that territory, where those fit for labour will be used for road-building projects.

The only hint of active killing is Heydrich's vague reference to a need to "treat appropriately" the remainder of the deported Jews at some unspecified time in the future. It is unclear from the text whether such "appropriate treatment" has actually been ordered by Hitler, or whether it is just a suggestion by Heydrich

[Michael Kenny]

It is unclear from the text whether such "appropriate treatment" has actually been ordered by Hitler, or whether it is just a suggestion by Heydrich

Ah but did you not say elsewhere:

The fact that evidence for something that may have happened over 60 years ago cannot be found today does not mean that that something definitely did not happen

[uberjude]

Michael, following your rules, according to the document, it is unclear if any Jews other than those fit for labor will be "evacutated." It is clear that all those sent for labor will either be worked to death or murdered, which means that, according to your interpretation, we are to believe that the Heydrich is proposing that those Jews who are of no economic use for Reich--the majority of Jews, in fact--will be kept alive and fed and housed.

At any rate, I don't know of any historians (even Peter Longerich) who argue that this, or any other historical document, is to be studied in isolation from testimony from participants. Adolf Eichmann has explained what was discussed, and what was meant by the various terms. In short, we know what was discussed, because the guy in charge of recording what was discussed testified about it.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

To repeat.....

Hitler was the executive head of state, government, and party in a one party state, to whom all armed forces, and others besides, swore a personal oath of loyalty.

So, unless someone is proposing that Hitler was none of these things, but rather some sort of symbolic figurehead mushroom (kept in the dark and fed on sh1t) we don't actually need a primary source showing Hitler ordered the slaughter of European Jewry.

It happened and he was demonstrably very much at the ultimate head and helm of every institution engaged in the so-called "Holocaust".

It would be convenient to have a signed confession by Hitler, but it is not, in historical evidential terms, at all necessary.

[thom]

The implementation of the “Final Solution,” in the sense of total extermination, is to a certain extent connected with the stoppage of emigration of Jews from territories under German influence. In his Statement T/37, the Eichmann says (on p. 171):
“As soon as the war against Russia began, Himmler forbade all emigration, even when opportunities existed for it.” (Eichmann's Memoirs, T/44 at pp. 93, 101.)Mr. Max Plaut, in his affidavit, T/665, also puts the date of the prohibition of emigration at the outbreak of war against Russia (p. 4 supra). In fact, the final order for the cessation of emigration seems to have been given by Himmler only in October 1941 (see T/394; T/395). All emigration of Jews was prohibited as from that date, except in special, individual cases. But it is correct that from the outbreak of war with Russia, practical emigration possibilities for Jews from German-influenced territories were limited to such an extent that during the months until October 1941 emigration proceeded only in “a tiny trickle” (see T/683). From the evidence given by Mrs. Henschel, it appears that the last transport of emigrants from Germany left for Lisbon on 15 October 1941, or one day earlier (Session 37, Vol. II, p. 668).

From the various statements above there is only one historically correct: Jewish emigration from Germany was prohibited in October 1941 (on 24th October). Opportunities for emigration were actually extremely limited since the outbreak of WW2 due to the restrictive immigration policies in most countries. After the outbreak of war with the Soviet Union, Jewish emigration from Germany actually increased slightly compared to the beginning of the year. After the prohibition in October 1941, a last transport ("the 25th emigration transport") was allowed to leave Germany in November 1941.

[john h]

The trouble with this thread is we may all think Hitler knew but as Micheal and many historians have found out there is not one document with his signature on that relates to the extermination of the jews in todays courts with todays lawyers verdict hearsay -not guilty

[waldzee]

"& if my Brother Adolf had known ANYTHING about those Jewish death Camps he would have shut them down the next Day, you just bet!"
The late Mrs Sicklegruber/Rabaul/Hammitsch...
(Zdral, Wolfgang. Die Hitlers. Campus Verlag GmbH. pp. 104. ISBN 3-593-37457-9.)

[waldzee]

Michael, following your rules, according to the document, it is unclear if any Jews other than those fit for labor will be "evacutated." It is clear that all those sent for labor will either be worked to death or murdered, which means that, according to your interpretation, we are to believe that the Heydrich is proposing that those Jews who are of no economic use for Reich--the majority of Jews, in fact--will be kept alive and fed and housed.

At any rate, I don't know of any historians (even Peter Longerich) who argue that this, or any other historical document, is to be studied in isolation from testimony from participants. Adolf Eichmann has explained what was discussed, and what was meant by the various terms. In short, we know what was discussed, because the guy in charge of recording what was discussed testified about it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome back. Your degree of logical sanity has been sorely missed.
the orignial OP's question was whether David Irving's claim could be 'substantiated' - does a specif paper exist-
this has been morphed into ' Since no signed paper trial exists, therefore there is no evidence'

Which any court of law would throw out in 5 minutes flat.
The Evidence is overwheming.
BTW, 'Angela awards' were a feature of the old National Lampoon.

[David Thompson]

john h – You wrote:

The trouble with this thread is we may all think Hitler knew but as Micheal and many historians have found out there is not one document with his signature on that relates to the extermination of the jews in todays courts with todays lawyers verdict hearsay -not guilty

The trouble with your statement is that

(1) a signed confession or admission has never been required for a murder conviction; and

(2) you apparently don't have any idea what "hearsay" is or isn't. Do yourself (and our readers) a favor and find out. Here are links to the relevant rules used in the United States and to a discussion of the rules in English courts:

US (from the Federal Rules of Evidence)
ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY
Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801
Rule 802. The Rule Against Hearsay
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_802
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay — Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803
Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804
Rule 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_805
Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant’s Credibility
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_806
Rule 807. Residual Exception
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_807

here's how it works in Great Britain:

Great Britain (from H. M. Law Commission):
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS (pdf link)
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/doc ... edings.pdf