Auschwitz

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Pr. Reinhard
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: 15 May 2003 09:44
Location: Dietsland

Post by Pr. Reinhard » 02 Jun 2003 17:54


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.
Still nothing on your part that even comes close to suggesting he knew about or ordered mass gassings.
Ah, you want some kind of physical document stating that Hitler knew?
No i do not.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 02 Jun 2003 18:24

You don't accept "the circumstantial evidence ".
And you say that you don't want "some kind of a physical document" .. 8O
So what do you want then ?

Pr. Reinhard
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: 15 May 2003 09:44
Location: Dietsland

Post by Pr. Reinhard » 02 Jun 2003 18:31

witness wrote:You don't accept "the circumstantial evidence ".
And you say that you don't want "some kind of a physical document" .. 8O
So what do you want then ?
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... ht=#207055 http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... ht=#207081
Answer my question or if not related to that PM me.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 02 Jun 2003 18:58

Pr. Reinhard wrote:
Roberto wrote: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).
Can the euphemisms I showed you be interpreted as anything other than references to mass murder by a particular method, in the context in and under the circumstances under which they were made?

That was what my questions were about. I wanted to see whether you could come up with a plausible alternative explanation.
Pr. Reinhard wrote:Roberto if you have any more questions i will answer them by PM or email.
I'd rather have your reply in public. That's what we're here for.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23721
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 02 Jun 2003 19:10

Pr. Reinhard -- Roberto wrote: "I'd rather have your reply in public. That's what we're here for."

I couldn't have put it better myself. It is antithetical to the idea of a discussion forum to raise public questions and then ask to continue portions of the discussion in private messages.

Pr. Reinhard
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: 15 May 2003 09:44
Location: Dietsland

Post by Pr. Reinhard » 02 Jun 2003 19:19

David Thompson indeed i think you could not have put it better.
But my question remains unanswered, i feel i have given enough answers to questions related to my question. That is why i message that if people need to know more about what i think they should PM me, because i see now Roberto nor you are going to give me an answer.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23721
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 02 Jun 2003 19:41

Pr. Reinhard -- Your question was in the form of a statement: "But maybe you can help me, and proof Adolf Hitler knew about or ordered mass gassings?"

The proof consists of the reasonable inferences which can be drawn from a large number of deeds, statements and documents, and knowledge of the character and personality of Adolf Hitler. It is necessary to rely on reasonable inferences because the main participants (Hitler, Bormann, Himmler, Heydrich, etc.) are dead, and no explicit written order, signed by Hitler, for mass gassings (or mass killings, for that matter) has survived.

If you are dissatisfied with the fact that there is nothing explicit showing that Hitler ordered that people be killed with poison gas, you may take comfort in the fact that there is no explicit evidence that Hitler specified small arms fire or ill-treatment as a method either. For rulers, the technique of murder is a mere detail. For the past thousand years or more, it has been their custom to simply specify the object, and leave the technique to subordinates.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 02 Jun 2003 19:46

Pr. Reinhard wrote:David Thompson indeed i think you could not have put it better.
But my question remains unanswered, i feel i have given enough answers to questions related to my question. That is why i message that if people need to know more about what i think they should PM me, because i see now Roberto nor you are going to give me an answer.
I remember having told you that you will hardly find an explicit statement containing what you are looking for, due to reasons that should not be too hard to understand.

I also remember having asked you a number of questions, some of which are still outstanding.

Once again:

Can the euphemisms I showed you be interpreted as anything other than references to mass murder by a particular method, in the context in and under the circumstances under which they were made?

Can you come up with a plausible alternative explanation?

If so, which is it?

On the forum, please.

User avatar
Johnny
Member
Posts: 525
Joined: 06 May 2003 13:37
Location: Sweden, Scania

Post by Johnny » 04 Jun 2003 13:42

Hitler had extensive contacts with Himmler. Himmler sometimes reported the dayly qouta of "evacuated" jews to Bormann over the phone. Perhaps Bormann had a greater knowledge of the gassings than Hitler actually did. But that doesn't make Hitler less of a murderer.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 04 Jun 2003 14:46

Johnny wrote:Hitler had extensive contacts with Himmler. Himmler sometimes reported the dayly qouta of "evacuated" jews to Bormann over the phone. Perhaps Bormann had a greater knowledge of the gassings than Hitler actually did. But that doesn't make Hitler less of a murderer.
There was also a short version of the Korherr Report prepared especially for the Führer. A transcription thereof can be found under the link

http://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/korh ... kurz.shtml

I can prepare a translation into English, interest provided. My translation of the report's long version for Himmler can be read on the following thread:

The Korherr Report
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... e2970279ec

The site featuring the transcriptions of the Korherr Report also contains the scan of a transcription for Hitler of a report of Himmler's on the "fight against bandits" in Southern Russia, Ukraine and Bialystok in the months August to November 1942 (Hitler had a sight problem but didn't want to use glasses, for which reason reports were transcribed for him on a typewriter with especially large types). The report states, among other things, that 363,211 Jews were executed in the mentioned areas during the period in question. The scan can be viewed under

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/sowjetuni ... onen.shtml

User avatar
Johnny
Member
Posts: 525
Joined: 06 May 2003 13:37
Location: Sweden, Scania

Post by Johnny » 04 Jun 2003 15:35

thx a bunch :)

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002 16:49
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik » 04 Jun 2003 19:51

Pr. Reinhard wrote:
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.
Roberto answered:
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.
Mr. Thompson wrote:
Pr. Reinhard -- Your question was in the form of a statement: "But maybe you can help me, and proof Adolf Hitler knew about or ordered mass gassings?"

The proof consists of the reasonable inferences which can be drawn from a large number of deeds, statements and documents, and knowledge of the character and personality of Adolf Hitler. It is necessary to rely on reasonable inferences because the main participants (Hitler, Bormann, Himmler, Heydrich, etc.) are dead, and no explicit written order, signed by Hitler, for mass gassings (or mass killings, for that matter) has survived.

If you are dissatisfied with the fact that there is nothing explicit showing that Hitler ordered that people be killed with poison gas, you may take comfort in the fact that there is no explicit evidence that Hitler specified small arms fire or ill-treatment as a method either. For rulers, the technique of murder is a mere detail. For the past thousand years or more, it has been their custom to simply specify the object, and leave the technique to subordinates.

Maybe Pr. Reinhard can be compared to a scientist who is dissatisfied with the Story of the Creation?

How did God do it?

”Let there be light!”

OK, he said so, but how did light ”materialize” itself?

Perhaps it didn’t? Maybe it doesn’t matter at all? The Creation just ”is” to anybody with eyes to see?

”Why do you ask?” (That’s a quote, actually!)

To paraphrase Mr. Thompson:

>>For Gods, the technique of Creation is a mere detail. For the past thousand years or more, it has been their custom to simply specify the object, and leave the technique to subordinates.<<

And:

>>The proof (of Creation) consists of the reasonable inferences which can be drawn from a large number of deeds, statements and documents, and knowledge of the character and personality of God.<<

Roberto asked:
Is your request for "something explicit" reasonable?

Is it in line with the standards of historiography?
There have been times when “the standards of historiography” did not allow any questioning of this sort, and when the Grand Inquisitors of Revealed Truth got wind of a distinct smell of fish emanating from any such “request”.

Erik isn’t suggesting that Roberto and Mr. Thompson regard Hitler as a Deity whose power to “create” is comparable to the Allmighty.

Neither is Erik’s questioning of Hitler’s power in this respect an attempt to make him a more “decent” bloke.

But how did he do it? How was such a deed – as it is described by “standard historiography” – POSSIBLE without and explicit order and planning and budget and technical assistance from informed engineering opinion?

Roberto asked:
Could you reasonably expect such statements to have been made explicitly, without euphemisms requiring a little interpretation and knowledge of the context?
How could euphemisms “requiring a little interpretation and knowledge of the context” be enough to exterminate the Jews of Europe?

How could it be EXPECTED to be enough?

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 04 Jun 2003 20:20

Erik wrote:But how did he do it? How was such a deed – as it is described by "standard historiography" – POSSIBLE without and explicit order and planning and budget and technical assistance from informed engineering opinion?
A standard "Revisionist" herring clad in pseudo-philosophical considerations that make it no less nonsensical. These people seem to labor under the infantile and uninformed conviction that on day X the Führer would have decided to bump off all Jews in Europe, whereafter a plan would have been drawn up for the purpose, a budget decided upon and technicians called in to discuss how it was to be done.

That the supposed "deed" was not one but several processes resulting from the initiatives of a number of persons and entities, gradually developing and eventually put on a common basis by the highest state authority's "go ahead", wouldn't occur to these pillars of wisdom, of course. It is exactly what historical research has concluded on, however.

The following passages I translated from the book Krieg, Ernährung, Völkermord, by German historian Christian Gerlach.

Page 131:
[…]The ministry’s directive passed on by Bräutigam did not, on the other hand, mean that all Jews were to be killed immediately; it only indicated a line of principle. This is important for the understanding of Hitler’s initiative in December 1941 as a whole, which was not a concrete instruction to begin with the murder of the Jews immediately and everywhere or to conclude it, but a decision of principle. The practical organization and the speed of extermination were to a great extent left to the competent bodies.[…]
Pages 160 and following:
[…]The principle decision of December 1941 is a central missing link in the decision process for the murder of the European Jews. It put the planning for this crime against humanity on a new basis. It does not relieve anybody, however, for it only had the consequence that the many already existing ideas, suggestions and initiatives for extermination actions on a regional level were supported, legitimized, systematized and got a new impulse[my emphasis].

Characteristically the first extermination camp, Chelmno, had initiated its murder activity four days prior to the Führer’s decision and independently of it. Greiser had for this purpose literally obtained a special authorization from Himmler and Heydrich for the killing of 100 000 Jews. It does not seem very probable that Hitler was involved, given that Greiser, had be had the authorization of Hitler, would not have had to thank Himmler for it. This he did, however.

To make it clear: my exposition does not mean that I want to dismiss the results of the past more than twenty years of research on the bases, especially by the so-called Functionalist school. The extermination of the Jews was by no means based simply on this one decision of Hitler’s or only on his decisions, directives and initiatives as a whole, but we are talking about just one, though an important point within the scope of the process that led to the murder of the European Jews.[my emphasis] The analysis of this impulse can contribute to also visualize more accurately the role of Hitler. 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. Yet especially the case of Chelmno indicates that this is how it was. 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”).[my emphasis]

How are the contents and consequences of Hitler’s principle decision to be assessed? First of all, his utterances on 12 December were but a relatively short passage of a long speech, and at this time there were political questions that required the German leadership’s attention far more and seemed more urgent to it than the persecution of the Jews. 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.[my emphasis] The issue regarding the occurrences in December 1941 is not whether the actors used a more or less radical language (they also did that at other times), but the verifiable results. The three essential results of the speech on 12 December and the ensuing meetings can be summarized as follows:

1.) new principle guidelines for the murder of the Jews by the government of the General Government and the Eastern Ministry – the administrative entities with power over the greatest number of Jews within the German area of influence,
2.) the intensification of the planning and preparations for the murder of Jews in various areas by poison gas,
3.) by announcing the murder of all European Jews, Hitler had also decided on the fate of the German Jews[my emphasis]. This is shown e.g. by Hans Frank’s utterance in Cracow on 16 December 1941 that in regard to the murder of the Jews in the General Government “what is happening in the Reich will at the very least have to happen here as well”. This decision contrasts clearly with Himmler’s telegram to Jeckeln fifteen days before. About the systematic murder of Jews in the German Reich only Hitler could decide, for it was he alone who according to the Nuremberg Laws had the right to exempt Jews and so-called half-breeds from the restrictions of these laws and had in 1941 vehemently pointed out that he was the only one to decide on an eventual worsening of the situation of the half-breeds.[my emphasis]

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. Despite all use of camouflage language the indications in Frank’s speech on 16 December in Cracow and in Heydrich’s address after the writing of the protocol of the Wannsee Conference must be taken serious in this respect, for we can see in them the first drafts of an overall planning of the crime. Such an overall planning for short-term murder had obviously not existed before. For the murderous proceeding against the Jews in the occupied Soviet territories the guideline of December 1941 represented only a small step further. The step was somewhat greater in the General Government, where the pressure by the police and parts of the civilian administration was in the direction of a large-scale extermination was already so great that it would have inevitably led to terrible consequences sooner or later[my emphasis].

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[my emphasis]. The findings of research on the crucial responsibility of other instances, especially the authorities in the very areas of occupation, is hereby confirmed.

For the understanding of the decision process towards murder an approach via the term of the utopian seems useful. Of course ideas about the annihilation of the Jews and the respective preparedness had been there for many years prior to 1941, especially on the part of Hitler. Yet there was a difference between ideas, firm intentions to commit genocide and the implementation thereof.[my emphasis] The first plans for a “final solution” contained strongly destructive aspects of slow decimation through horrible living conditions and impediment of reproduction, but also utopian aspects characterized by the impossibility of carrying out these seriously pursued solutions in practice. This applies to the plans of 1939/40 for the “pushing away” of the Jews to the Lublin district as well as to Madagascar. The destructive elements became stronger in the plan to deport Jews to the Soviet Union after a military victory over that country. The procedure of annihilation only became imaginable gradually – despite the widespread preparedness for it.[my emphasis] The steps from utopian resettlement and extermination programs to actually executable murder programs were decisive for the execution of the mass murder. Thus the plan decided upon at the beginning of 1941 to force about 30 million people in the Soviet Union to starve to death in order to guarantee the feeding of German-dominated Europe turned out to be unfeasible. It was thereupon replaced in the autumn of 1941 by programs for the murder of certain segments of the populations, such as millions of Soviet prisoners of war “unfit to work”. For the intentions directed against the Jews the point-settings in December 1941 constituted a crucial step towards the realization, i.e. the implementation of the plans for genocide.[my emphasis]

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 [my emphasis]. 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.
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.
Last edited by Roberto on 04 Jun 2003 20:59, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 04 Jun 2003 20:32

Erik wrote:There have been times when “the standards of historiography” did not allow any questioning of this sort, and when the Grand Inquisitors of Revealed Truth got wind of a distinct smell of fish emanating from any such “request”.
Favorite Revisionist comparison - "witch trials ,inquisition " blah,blah
Obviously flawed comparison. 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.
The "Truth " which the Grand Inquisitors were extracting from their victims didn't have anything to do with any documented reality.
And please don't refer to the documented protocols full of the victims ' confessions.. Besides those the fact of the mass murder by the Nazis is
supported by numerous material evidences - photographs. eyewitness accounts ( both of perpetrators and survivors )etc.
How was such a deed – as it is described by “standard historiography” – POSSIBLE without and explicit order and planning and budget and technical assistance from informed engineering opinion?
Perhaps Eric can show us an "explicit " Stalin's order to murder millions of Soviet citezens ?
Or the similar Pol-Pot's order ?
Or any other explicit order written by some bloody dictator which would unequivocally prove him to be guilty in "such a deed"?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23721
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 04 Jun 2003 20:43

Pr. Reinhard asked for proof that Hitler explicitly ordered mass gassings.

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.

Erik then asked: "But how did he do it? How was such a deed – as it is described by “standard historiography” – POSSIBLE without and explicit order and planning and budget and technical assistance from informed engineering opinion?"

He did it like this: He gave a verbal order to Himmler to murder the Jews. We know Hitler did this because Himmler repeatedly, openly and even publicly 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. After Heydrich's assassination in 1942, his successors in the murder operation -- Kaltenbrunner and Pohl -- also kept good records. From the level of Heydrich, Kalternbrunner and Pohl 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.

So Erik, your question starts with a fallacy of composition. Your question mistakenly assumes that there was not an "order and planning and budget and technical assistance from informed engineering opinion." It should come as no surprise that Hitler did not do it all personally, since he had others to help him with the murders.

Unlike the creation, where God created everything else first and then created man, this historical incident took place only 60 or so years ago. Consequently there were people around who saw what happened.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”