Auschwitz

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002 16:49
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik » 04 Jun 2003 23:23

Thanks for your replies.

Mr. Thompson wrote:
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.
Since there is “every sort of evidence”… from Heydrich level on down, we know that Hitler gave “verbal orders”.

German historian Christian Gerlach, as quoted by Roberto, calls this a “principle decision”, “not taken all at once, but step by step”:
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.
Hitler gave verbal orders to Himmler, not "all at once", but "step by step", according to Gerlach(?).

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"?
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”).
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”)’].
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.
Why “concrete” contents?

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:
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.
Gerlach agrees:
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
the 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.
But still
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.
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”.

After the verbal order to Himmler was obtained, everybody knew that there was a moral to the extermination decisions, too.

As Mr. Thompson wrote:
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.
According to witness, Hitler wouldn’t have needed Himmler as a Mediator, though:

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.
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”.

Mr. Thompson wrote:
It should come as no surprise that Hitler did not do it all personally, since he had others to help him with the murders.
It seems he didn’t even have to decide it “personally”. An euphemism or two would do:

Roberto wrote to Pr. Reinhard:
Could you reasonably expect such statements to have been made explicitly, without euphemisms requiring a little interpretation and knowledge of the context?
And to Erik:
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.
It seems that the interpretators of the euphemisms need to be interpretated, too!

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23720
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 04 Jun 2003 23:40

Erik -- Surely the idea of a ruler commanding a death, whether directly or by euphemism and without a written order, is not too difficult to grasp. I don't recall that anyone found a written order to murder Thomas a Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, after the English King Henry II exclamed to his retainers, "Will no man rid me of this troublesome priest?" This manner of expression allowed King Henry II to deny that he had ordered the murder, although so few people found the explanation convincing that Henry II was forced, as a matter of public relations, to do penance for his foul assassination.

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

Post by witness » 04 Jun 2003 23:44

Eric wrote
According to witness, Hitler wouldn’t have needed Himmler as a Mediator, though:
8O :lol:
Where did you get it from in my post Eric
I wrote
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.
How from this do you arrive to this conclusion is beyond my comprehension.. 8O
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
Now you are getting it.. :)
except in this “speeches and writings”, of course, where he didn’t need to document any “meticulous attention to details”.
8O
What is this supposed to mean ? 8O
Do you imply that since he was openly anti-semitic in his speeches and writings it means that he would be careless enough to ussue a written order which would be an ultimate prove of his guilt ?
How silly..
You know Erik - generalalizations can not be used for incriminating guilt
You are boring .

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23720
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 05 Jun 2003 00:50

lestatsoul -- Welcome to the forum. How come your emotikon doesn't have pointy teeth?

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 05 Jun 2003 08:17

The discussion involved in this thread is one that will inevitably go round and round in circles, since it depends on a number of assumptions that are ultimately unprovable, such as whether Hitler involved himself in every detail of what was happening in his Reich, or whether he merely issued broad policy outlines and left it to his main men to get on with it.

(In that regard, a demonstration that Hitler "micro-managed" certain aspects of the war, to the extent of knowing everything about every single piece of equipmnt that the Wehrmacht possessed, does not not prove a similar level of micro-management of other parts of the German bureaucracy).

The most helpful approach would be to examine things that we know Hitler actually did, and information that we know he received, and se how they fitted into the overall picture.

In October 1939, Hitler appointed Himmler to the post of Reichskommissar fuer die Festigung deutschen Volkstums (Reich Commissar for the Consolidation of the German Nation). In that role, Himmler received authorisation to do two things; on the one hand, to take all measures to protect the German people and increase its area of settlement, and on the other to take any measures against any population considered to pose a threat to the German people.

It is clear that that authorisation allowed Himmler to order killings on a large scale of groups of people considered dangerous. Whether a particular population group was considered dangerous to the German people and therefore needing to have measures taken against it, up to mass-extermination, would be decided both by National Socialist idology and the objective situation; there was no need to specify particular groups, such as the Jews.

The fact that Hitler issued such an authorisation to Himmler shows that he expected that there would be threats to the German people posed by various population groups, and that he was prepared to allow any measures to be taken against those groups, including mass-killing. He also expected Himmler and his other subordinates to use their initiative to determine whether and when such measures were required, and against whom they should be implemented.

The practical results of that authorisation can be seen in a letter dated 30 May 1942, from the Reichsstatthalter for Reichsgau Wartheland, Artur Greiser, to Himmler. In that letter, Greiser refers to the authorisation which he had sought and received from Himmler and Heydrich to apply "Sonderbehandlung" to 100,000 Jews of his province; he reports that that action is nearing its end, and asks for permission to apply the same "treatment" to Poles with infectious tuberculosis.

The Greiser letter is highly significant, in that it demonstrates initiative coming from local German authorities to carry out large-scale killings (whether of groups of Jews or of othr population groups), and the power of Himmler to approve such initiatives. It is believed that the initiative from Greiser was what set in train the development of the killing centre at Chelmno, which was designd to exterminate the non-working Jews of the Lodz Ghetto and other localities in the Warthegau.

It is also significant that there is nothing to indicate that this initiative from Greiser was referred back to Hitler. It appears that Hitler's blanket authorisation of "measures" to be taken against any population group posing a "threat" (not specifically the Jews) was sufficient; with that authorisation in his pocket, Himmler was the person who could issue the implementation orders, either on his own initiative or in response to initiatives from local authorities like Greiser. Whether Hitler was specifically informed about the measures being taken against Jews in the Warthegau is unknown; it may well be that he did not want to know the details of the measures being implemented pursuant to his global authorisation of October 1939.

Given the role played by Jews in National Socialist ideology, it is fair to say that it was inevitable that they would be considered as a group posing a threat to the German people, and that once the position was taken that "measures" might be necessary against groups posing a threat, the Jews would be a prime target.

Another blanket authorisation that Hitler issued in October 1939 was for the appointment of specified doctors who would have the power to select persons for "euthanasia". That authorisation was not limited in space or time, nor was it limited in regard to the group of persons to whom it could be applied. Thus, while that authorisation had its first application to the inmates of German mental institutions, once issued it could be applid on a much wider scale.

The fact that the selection of concentration camp inmates for killing, on the basis of their inability to be used for labour, was performed by doctors or the staff working under them, is most probably to be traced back to that original authorisation by Hitler. At first the selection of camp inmats for "euthanasia" was carried out by teams of dotors from the euthanasia institutes in 1941, but by 1942 that function had passed to the camp doctors in general.

Again there was nothing in Hitler's "euthanasia" authorisation that specified its application to Jews, but once they began to be sent in large numbrs to concentration camps, it was inevitable that they would be hit by it in a big way.

Finally, there were the orders issued by Hitler in the lead-up to the invasion of the Soviet Union, authorising the killing of groups of people held to be the main supporters of Bolshevism. Jews were not specified by Hitler, but given that in his ideology Jews were Bolsheviks par excellence, thir inclusion, or at least that of the Jewish leadership and intelligentsia, was understood.

The three types of authorisation of mass killing issued by Hitler between late 1939 and early 1941 did not, as stated, specify their application to Jews in part or in whole. They are, however, to be regarded separately from the orders issued by Hitler for the deportation of Jews into the occupied Soviet Union, which according to the plan originally authorised by him, apparently early in 1941, was to commence after the successful conquest of the Soviet Union. That deportation plan did apply speifically to Jews, initially to the Jews of the Reich and then to those of all Grman-occupied Europe. However, it did not specifically mandate the killing of the deported Jews en masse.

The fact that the mass deportation, intitiated under a plan authorised by Hitler and developed by Heydrich, soon incorporated killing on a large scale, is probably a result of the interplay between that deportation plan and the various blanket authorisations given by Hitler that permitted mass killing, whether explicitly or implicitly. But there is no definitive indication that Hitler ordered that his authorisations for killing be applied specifically to Jews, or that he ordered that the mass deportation authorised by him include an exterminatory element; it is most likely that he left those decisions to Himmler and his other subordinates, based on their reading of the situation on the ground and logistical possibilities.

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

Post by Erik » 05 Jun 2003 17:31

Mr. Mills wrote:
The discussion involved in this thread is one that will inevitably go round and round in circles, since it depends on a number of assumptions that are ultimately unprovable, such as whether Hitler involved himself in every detail of what was happening in his Reich, or whether he merely issued broad policy outlines and left it to his main men to get on with it.
...
The fact that the mass deportation, intitiated under a plan authorised by Hitler and developed by Heydrich, soon incorporated killing on a large scale, is probably a result of the interplay between that deportation plan and the various blanket authorisations given by Hitler that permitted mass killing, whether explicitly or implicitly. But there is no definitive indication that Hitler ordered that his authorisations for killing be applied specifically to Jews, or that he ordered that the mass deportation authorised by him include an exterminatory element; it is most likely that he left those decisions to Himmler and his other subordinates, based on their reading of the situation on the ground and logistical possibilities.
...
The fact that Hitler issued such an authorisation to Himmler shows that he expected that there would be threats to the German people posed by various population groups, and that he was prepared to allow any measures to be taken against those groups, including mass-killing. He also expected Himmler and his other subordinates to use their initiative to determine whether and when such measures were required, and against whom they should be implemented.


A “mass deportation, intitiated under a plan authorised by Hitler”… “soon incorporated killing on a large scale”, and this as “a result of the interplay between that deportation plan and the various blanket authorisations given by Hitler that permitted mass killing, whether explicitly or implicitly.”

These “various blanket authorisations” are probably what Gerlach meant when he wrote:
It is difficult to comprehend that this decision was not taken all at once, but step by step, region by region.
“Difficult to comprehend”, but still necessary:
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.
A necessity “difficult to understand”, since mass murder obviously could do without such authorisation:
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.
Roberto quotes Goebbels (above):
Quote:
[…]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/
This parallells the contemporary prophesy of Trotsky:

Understanding the barbarity of Nazism, Trotsky foresaw the annihilation of the Jews. On 22 December 1938 he wrote:
'It is possible to imagine without difficulty what awaits the Jews at the mere outbreak of the future war. But even without war the next development of world reaction signifies with certainty the physical extermination of the Jews... Only audacious mobilisation of the workers against reaction, creation of workers' militia, direct physical resistance to the fascist gangs, increasing self-confidence, activity and audacity on the part of all the oppressed can provoke a change in the relations of forces, stop the world wave of fascism, and open a new chapter in the history of mankind.'

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr219/cliff.htm


Trotsky and Goebbels certainly wanted different chapters to be opened in the history of mankind, but neither were against using the opportunities offered by a world war.

They both wanted to make some kind of “virtue” out of a “necessary consequence”.

Once the blanket authorisation emanating from the “clean sweep” decision of the Führer left his lips, the “necessary consequence” of a “annihilation of Jewry” was obvious to all and sundry; but on the other hand, “he left those decisions to Himmler and his other subordinates, based on their reading of the situation on the ground and logistical possibilities”(Mr. Mills).
Whether Hitler was specifically informed about the measures being taken against Jews in the Warthegau is unknown; it may well be that he did not want to know the details of the measures being implemented pursuant to his global authorisation of October 1939.
To repeat the assessment of M. Mills (above):
The discussion involved in this thread is one that will inevitably go round and round in circles, since it depends on a number of assumptions that are ultimately unprovable, such as whether Hitler involved himself in every detail of what was happening in his Reich, or whether he merely issued broad policy outlines and left it to his main men to get on with it.
To discuss whether Hitler “merely issued broad policy outlines” for the annihilation of European Jewry or involved himself in its details, are both depending “on a number of assumptions that are ultimately unprovable, such as whether Hitler involved himself in every detail of what was happening in his Reich, or whether he merely issued broad policy outlines and left it to his main men to get on with it”.

And that would squarely be a parody of circular reasoning, wouldn’t it?

Mr. Thompson wrote:
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.


Gerlach 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.
Roberto wrote to Pr. Reinhard:

Could you reasonably expect such statements to have been made explicitly, without euphemisms requiring a little interpretation and knowledge of the context?
A decision was necessary, although an explicit one was not reasonably to be expected, but an euphemism requiring a little interpretation and knowledge of the context.

This is argued also by the historical parallell supplied by Mr. Thompson:
Erik -- Surely the idea of a ruler commanding a death, whether directly or by euphemism and without a written order, is not too difficult to grasp. I don't recall that anyone found a written order to murder Thomas a Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, after the English King Henry II exclamed to his retainers, "Will no man rid me of this troublesome priest?" This manner of expression allowed King Henry II to deny that he had ordered the murder, although so few people found the explanation convincing that Henry II was forced, as a matter of public relations, to do penance for his foul assassination.
So Hitler used euphemisms as a “manner of expression” to allow a later denial of having ordered the murder of the European Jews. He hoped that enough people would found this explanation convincing, “as a matter of public relations”, if the Germans lost the war, or if a victorious “Aryan” posterity should happen to regret the loss of the Jews.

He hoped that “an euphemism requiring a little interpretation and knowledge of the context” would work the other way around, if the necessity should happen to arrive.

He hoped for a “fallacy of composition” (see quote above) from posterity , i.e. a fallacy that assumes that a subsequent "order and planning and budget and technical assistance from informed engineering opinion" were unknown to Hitler, if he was euphemistic enough in his orders.

Once the Jews of Europe were exterminated, then “a little interpretation and knowledge of the context” would free him from any guilt concerning the result.

Why should he have used euphemisms otherwise?

We are threatened with the Scylla of “circular reasoning” by assuming about Hitler’s involvement in the Holocaust, or the Charybdis of a “fallacy of composition” if his euphemisms concerning the Final Solution are taken at face value, without “a little interpretation and knowledge of the context”(that is, “assuming” things).

According to Mr. Thompson, Hitler did it like this:
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.
So then we are left with the devil in the details of these “good records”--- “written orders, reports, plans and budgets, technical assistance, testimony of participants, bystanders and victims, forensic studies, etc”.
Heydrich insisted on keeping good records.
No need here of any “little interpretation and knowledge of the context”? No euphemisms or “Tarnsprache” to be reckoned with?

Or will Scylla and Charybdis(of circular reasoning and fallacies of composition) play the devil with those records, too?

But that is another topic, of course.

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

Post by Roberto » 05 Jun 2003 17:55

michael mills wrote:The fact that the mass deportation, intitiated under a plan authorised by Hitler and developed by Heydrich, soon incorporated killing on a large scale, is probably a result of the interplay between that deportation plan and the various blanket authorisations given by Hitler that permitted mass killing, whether explicitly or implicitly. But there is no definitive indication that Hitler ordered that his authorisations for killing be applied specifically to Jews, or that he ordered that the mass deportation authorised by him include an exterminatory element; it is most likely that he left those decisions to Himmler and his other subordinates, based on their reading of the situation on the ground and logistical possibilities.
It seems that this contention leads us back to a sequence of documents some of our readers are already familiar with, which suggests that, contrary to what Mills maintains, Hitler did order that his authorizations for killing be applied to Jews in the form of a program of wholesale killing aimed at achieving the greatest reduction of the Jewish population in Europe that, taking into consideration logistical restrictions, wartime production needs and the expectable reactions in the countries occupied by or allied to Germany, was practicable and convenient.

Goebbels' diary entry regarding Hitler's statements at a meeting with high-ranking party officials 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.[my emphasis] That wasn't just a catch-word. The world war is here, and the annihilation of Jewry must be the necessary consequence.[my emphasis][…]
Source:

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

What this "annihilation of Jewry" meant and how it was to be brought about becomes apparent from 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 translated in his judgement at Nuremberg:
[…]"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, at 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-working 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", 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:
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 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. It 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.[/my emphasis] 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.[my emphasis]

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.[my emphasis] 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.[my emphasis] 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.[my emphasis] 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[my emphasis] - and that's only right.


Source:

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

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

Post by Roberto » 05 Jun 2003 18:16

witness wrote:
You are boring .
Try to understand our poor philosopher, Michael.

He's a very unhappy fellow desperately screaming for someone's attention. He would like to cry out loud, but he doesn't know how. His repetitive attempts to construct far-fetched to non-existing and in any case irrelevant "parallels", to split every hair in search of supposed contradictions and to proclaim primitive "Revisionist" articles of faith in a "sophisticated" guise are his way of telling you "Please help me!".

So however much he may bore you, try to have a heart. Treat him like one would treat someone in his condition, i.e. by patting him on the back and writing nice words like "I don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re right, of course, you’re right."

There’s a poor old fellow in Lisbon who stands at night by the side of one of the major avenues and waves at every car that passes by. When you wave back, he smiles and looks happy like a child. So wave back at the philosopher once in a while, and make his day.

Best regards,

Roberto

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23720
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 05 Jun 2003 19:29

Michael (Mills) -- You said: "The three types of authorisation of mass killing issued by Hitler between late 1939 and early 1941 did not, as stated, specify their application to Jews in part or in whole. They are, however, to be regarded separately from the orders issued by Hitler for the deportation of Jews into the occupied Soviet Union, which according to the plan originally authorised by him, apparently early in 1941, was to commence after the successful conquest of the Soviet Union. That deportation plan did apply speifically to Jews, initially to the Jews of the Reich and then to those of all Grman-occupied Europe. However, it did not specifically mandate the killing of the deported Jews en masse."

"The fact that the mass deportation, intitiated under a plan authorised by Hitler and developed by Heydrich, soon incorporated killing on a large scale, is probably a result of the interplay between that deportation plan and the various blanket authorisations given by Hitler that permitted mass killing, whether explicitly or implicitly. But there is no definitive indication that Hitler ordered that his authorisations for killing be applied specifically to Jews, or that he ordered that the mass deportation authorised by him include an exterminatory element; it is most likely that he left those decisions to Himmler and his other subordinates, based on their reading of the situation on the ground and logistical possibilities."

This raises an interesting point. If "there is no definitive indication that Hitler ordered that his authorisations for killing be applied specifically to Jews," what do you make of:

(1) The statements by Heinrich Himmler to the effect that Hitler entrusted him with the task of exterminating the Jews, made:
(a) to Bruno Streckenbach in May or Jun 1941
(b) to Rudolf Hoess c. summer 1941
(c) to Otto Bradfisch, Horst Bender and officers of Einsatzkommando 8 in Aug 1941
(d) to Otto Ohlendorf in Oct 1941
(e) to Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski c. Mar 1942
(f) in a written order from Himmler to Heydrich, seen by Eichmann and Dieter Wisliceny
(g) on 2 Oct 1942, in an order regarding Jewish workers in armaments plants in the Generalgouvernement
(h) to Felix Kersten in Nov 1942
(i) to a number of high-ranking German Army officers on 26 Jan 1944

and

(2) The statements by Reinhard Heydrich to the effect that Hitler had ordered the extermination of the Jews, made:
(a) to Adolf Eichmann in Aug 1941
(b) to Bruno Streckenbach in Sept 1941
(c) to Admiral Canaris and other Abwehr officers in May 1942?

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

Post by Erik » 05 Jun 2003 21:30

Roberto wrote about Erik:
He's a very unhappy fellow desperately screaming for someone's attention. He would like to cry out loud, but he doesn't know how. His repetitive attempts to construct far-fetched to non-existing and in any case irrelevant "parallels", to split every hair in search of supposed contradictions and to proclaim primitive "Revisionist" articles of faith in a "sophisticated" guise are his way of telling you "Please help me!".


The “desperately screaming” Erik, who “would like to cry out loud”, but “doesn’t know how”, doesn’t have to go very far “in search of supposed contradictions”, as you can see for yourself.

But Roberto is right in his assessment of Erik’s “repetitive attempts”. They certainly are his (Erik’s) “way of telling you ‘Please help me’!”

Whether this “way” of asking for help is meant to “proclaim primitive ‘Revisionist’ articles of faith in a ‘sophisticated’ guise” – and at the same time! – Erik will leave to the discernment of the reader of it.

The said discernment may ponder the question why the “boredom” of Roberto (and witness!) results in such outbursts of scornful contempt for a fellow human being who cannot help himself.
So however much he may bore you, try to have a heart. Treat him like one would treat someone in his condition, i.e. by patting him on the back and writing nice words like "I don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re right, of course, you’re right."
Does this recommended treatment of poor Erik reflect a subconscious desire of Orthodoxy?

Of ALL Orthodoxy? Also the Holocaust Orthodoxy?

“Try to have a heart” for it. Pat its back, feel for it with empathy, but do not bother to ask what seems to be wrong. Use “nice words like ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re right, of course, you’re right.’”

The Holocaust is something that we are asked to accept without asking.

Since an explicit order from Hitler for the Holocaust isn’t extant, you must accept this fact and refrain from showing interest in the question.

Roberto wrote:
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.


Once you’re “really interested” you will ask the right kind of questions, and accept all the "off courses".

Like:
The question being "why is it important", an answer that goes like "it is very important" is manifestly insufficient.
If you’re really interested in the issue, you should ask yourself “why is it important”, and stop thinking that “it is very important”, since such a manifestation of interest in an issue “is manifestly insufficient”.

This refers to Hitler’s awareness of the killing methods of Auschwitz and the other camps, but the reasoning applies to Hitler’s order for the “final solution”, too.

It was “more of a ‘go ahead’ conferring the Führer's blessing to exterminatory initiatives from many sides”, rather than a “you shall” – it must have been, since the “you shall” order isn’t extant.

Roberto wrote:
As German historian Christian Gerlach has plausibly argued, it is reasonable to assume that Hitler's order for the "final solution", which was more of a "go ahead" conferring the Führer's blessing to exterminatory initiatives from many sides, a "you may" rather than a "you shall", was given at a meeting between Hitler and high-ranking officials of the Nazi party on 12 December 1941.
The procedure of annihilation only became imaginable gradually – despite the widespread preparedness for it.[Roberto’s 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 [Roberto’s 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.
If there is a “widespread preparedness” for the “procedure of annihilation”, as Gerlach argues, then “this monstrous process” certainly looks like “normal politics”, especially if “insisted on” by “many”, and decided upon “almost as in a ‘normal’ political deliberation”…

But Gerlach argues both ways, doesn’t he?

Compare …”As little as this monstrous process was normal politics, as much as Hitler produced it”, with “the ‘Führer’ did not take the decision all alone, but… approved the initiatives from the state and party apparatus”!

Here he is suggesting the proceedings of a democracy, really.

And this almost “in the same breath” with assessing the abnormality of the monstrous process, produced by Hitler!
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.
Then why the need for euphemisms etc?

Witness wrote:
Quote:
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"?
Does witness deny the following assessment of Gerlach? :
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.
The Gulag was a different “strategy” than Auschwitz, wasn’t it? (No gas chambers).

And Pol Pot was implementing the Morgenthau Plan rather than a Final Solution.

If the Holocaust wasn’t “different”, then the comparison with Stalin and Pol Pot would make sense, and Hitler’s eventual knowledge of the proceedings in the camps would be an “unimportant” question.

But a decision to murder all European Jews is a different decision.

The questions must “bore” to the core of the evidence for such an accusation against human kind, and the parallells must fetch far for any comparison.

Roberto and witness may be bored by the questions and the parallells.

But patting the Story "...on the back and writing nice words like 'I don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re right, of course, you’re right'"
can be a bit boring, too.

Can't it, Roberto?

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

Post by Roberto » 05 Jun 2003 22:39

Erik wrote:Roberto and witness may be bored by the questions and the parallells.

But patting the Story "...on the back and writing nice words like 'I don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re right, of course, you’re right'"
can be a bit boring, too.

Can't it, Roberto?
The degree of boredom doesn't compare, my dear philosopher. The merciful approach I suggested takes much less time and is therefore definitely preferable to deconstructing garbled ramblings that one has to decipher before one can address them (assuming they contain anything worth addressing, which they rarely do). That is boring as hell.
Last edited by Roberto on 05 Jun 2003 23:09, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by witness » 05 Jun 2003 22:44

Erik wrote:The said discernment may ponder the question why the “boredom” of Roberto (and witness!) results in such outbursts of scornful contempt for a fellow human being who cannot help himself.
How touching...
Cry baby cry ..since you can not help yourself not to pee on the graves of the innocent victims of Nazism every once in a while..It must be quite hard on you -trying to contain yourself..

Sorry Roberto but I don' have any compassion for such a "philosopher-fellow human being" from the cozy and for centuries untouched by wars prosperous Sweden - philosopher whose only "philosophy ' consists in the apology of the most bloody regime ever known..Whose only "empathy "( the word which caused him almost a nervous breakdown..) goes to the executioners not at all to the victims..


witness wrote :
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"?
Erik wrote
The Gulag was a different “strategy” than Auschwitz, wasn’t it? (No gas chambers).

And Pol Pot was implementing the Morgenthau Plan rather than a Final Solution.

If the Holocaust wasn’t “different”, then the comparison with Stalin and Pol Pot would make sense, and Hitler’s eventual knowledge of the proceedings in the camps would be an “unimportant” question.

But a decision to murder all European Jews is a different decision.

The questions must “bore” to the core of the evidence for such an accusation against human kind, and the parallells must fetch far for any comparison
Again what is it supposed to mean ?
What essentual difference is there ? Stalin and Pol Pot were guilty in authorizing the murder of the people belonging to the other "alien" classes ( or perceived to be belonging to the other classes ) while Hitler did the same towards the people who belonged to the other "alien" ethnic groups.
Why ackowledging the latter fact is "such an accusation against human kind " while acknowledging the former is not ..? What kind of logic is it ?

Roberto and witness may be bored by the questions and the parallells
Wrong. Not "by the questions" but by your ridiculous and rather monotonuous attempts to push Nazi apologetic propaganda which boils down to "the Nazi and SS were the good guys after all" kind of "revealation" and this all under the pretty ackward disguise of faked "philosophical" inquiry.

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

Post by Roberto » 05 Jun 2003 23:01

witness wrote:Sorry Roberto but I don' have any compassion for such a "philosopher-fellow human being" ...


Come on, Michael, don't be like that. There's something good in every creature. :wink:

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 18 Nov 2002 23:19
Location: UK

Post by Maple 01 » 05 Jun 2003 23:10

Come on, Michael, don't be like that. There's something good in every creature.
Even Adolf? :?

Come on Roberto, you can take this 'trying to understand your fellow man' a bit too far! :lol:

-Nick

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

Post by witness » 05 Jun 2003 23:11

In theory yes ,Roberto I agree.
But practically this "something good " is not that easy to spot in some peculiar cases .. :wink:

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”