Were German Documents Destroyed?

[fireofice]

It is commonly said that the reason we don't have any documents attesting to gas chambers (aside from a few very disputable ones) is that the Nazis destroyed their documents. Now we know that the Nazis razed some of the camps, like Treblinka, Sobibor, ect., but that makes sense to me since they could use those places for propaganda purposes. So this raises some questions:

1. Did the Nazis actually destroy a bunch of documents?

I know it is claimed to have happened but I would like to know if there is any evidence. It seems like a very hard accusation to disprove. I mean, what can you do? "Here are the documents. As you can see, none of them were destroyed." So unless there is some separate evidence of this destruction, we can't say it happened.

2. If the Nazis did destroy documents, what would be their motivation?

The most obvious that would get pointed to by the believers is that it was done to cover up their crimes. Maybe, but is that the only possible explanation? One other obvious explanation I can think of is that they didn't want innocent things they said to be distorted and taken out of context in ways that would be used against them. People who say "if the Nazis had nothing to hide, they should have let the Allies have access to everything" are using the same kind of logic as those who say that if you don't want the feds spying on you, that means you have something to hide. No, I just know not to trust them with information about my private life.

[Hannover]

There is no doubt that German documents were destroyed ... by the 'Allies' and 'friends' that is.

Of those documents were the outbound train records from the various sites that are said to be "death camps", "extermination centers".
Such records were necessarily kept for billing purposes and to keep track of valuable war time rail resources and the loads they contained.

The outbound records would have clearly shown that Jews were often aboard and were being transferred elsewhere, not murdered as the narrative states; therefore the propagandists were not about to allow those documents to see the light of day.

More:
Inbound train records, but no outbound records. Why?:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2355

My point on that has come up in many other threads as well.
Examples: search.php?keywords=outbound+train+records&fid%5B0%5D=2

An excellent inquiry, fireofice.

- Hannover

Only lies require censorship.

[borjastick]

I'm just wondering what sort of documents would have been in a camp such as Treblinka for example. I mean if it were a death camp as claimed, and remember the gas chamberists all claim that everyone sent there was killed instantly yet we know of many who went in and then left some hours later, what papers would they have or be necessary?

Surely if it were set up to kill all those sent there then all those who arrived would be murdered. If it were a transit camp then those coming in would leave soon thereafter and what papers or records would be needed? They would board the train which would take them back to Malkinia Junction just a few kms up the track they came down and then be transferred onto a train taking them east into Russia.

[Wachtman]

A point I've thought of, which is not really presented much, is that I would expect to see a series of documents following the chain of command for a large operation (like killing thousands of persons), and there would absolutely have to be hundreds of letters and/or orders in a variety of the dozens of different languages spoken throughout Central Europe involving all the different policing and governing officials. i've seen nothing like these - a True "body" of evidence.

[Otium]

A point I've thought of, which is not really presented much, is that I would expect to see a series of documents following the chain of command for a large operation (like killing thousands of persons), and there would absolutely have to be hundreds of letters and/or orders in a variety of the dozens of different languages spoken throughout Central Europe involving all the different policing and governing officials. I've seen nothing like these - a True "body" of evidence.

You'd think so:

Finally, his (Christopher Browning's) own personal explanation of a “policy of the extermination of the Jews” was the same as Hilberg’s. Everything was explained by the “nod” of Adolf Hitler. In other words, the Führer of the German people did not need to give any written or even spoken order for the extermination of the Jews. It was enough for him to give a “nod” at the beginning of the operation and, for the rest, a series of “signals.” And that was understood!

The First Zündel Trial (Castle Hill Publishers, 2020), Pp. 17.

It's interesting though because I specifically remember a time in 2016 when someone I was talking to online expressed doubts about the Holocaust, someone else he was conversing with, that I was observing, criticised him for being a 'conspiracy theorist' and all the rest of it. This person said that if the Holocaust didn't happen as alleged, then it would've taken millions of collaborators, including documents, to fake. The scope of such a "conspiracy" was said to have been unreasonable, and apparently couldn't have been perpetrated by the Allies post-war, even though they had a monopoly on information and were a massive power block of the worlds largest super powers.

Yet we're supposed to believe that there was this intricate "Nazi conspiracy" to exterminate the Jews and there's no paper trail for it! We're also supposed to believe that all the conferences supposedly held on the Holocaust didn't even discuss specifics but used coded language. Everything about how the Holocaust is alleged to have occurred is in the context of a conspiracy grand in scope that is impossible to achieve without communication. Yet we're told to believe they only communicated in this absurd way quoted above.

How can anyone believe this rubbish and reject the idea that it's at least possible for the Allies to have colluded in order to frame the Germans for imaginary crimes? Especially when at Nuremberg you could do something as simple as pick and choose which documents you want to levy at the defence, and because they're all re-typed copies, even forge documents? This is much more tenable even if you somehow think it's unlikely because it would amount to a "conspiracy". If this is so, then you must grapple with the incredible unlikelihood that the Holocaust story is legitimate due to some vague National Socialist conspiracy that wasn't even conducted directly.

[Breker]

Mr. HMSendeavour, you told us:

This person said that if the Holocaust didn't happen as alleged, then it would've taken millions of collaborators, including documents, to fake. The scope of such a "conspiracy" was said to have been unreasonable, and apparently couldn't have been perpetrated by the Allies post-war, even though they had a monopoly on information and were a massive power block of the worlds largest super powers.

Well sir, that person apparently has ignored or was hopelessly gullible to the fact that there were indeed 'collaborators & fake documents' by the bucket full.
As you mentioned, Nuremberg proves that in spades.
Combine Nuremberg with other proven fakes, from documents, to photos, to staged fake human soap, fake 'human skin lampshades', even a shrunken head of a South American tribesmen, and 're-created gas chambers', etc.
That person was on to something and naively didn't realize it.

We suggest that readers see these examples that are merely the tip of a very large iceberg, so to speak; staged 'human skin lampshade, shrunken heads, tattooed skin' placed on tables by the Allies and the likes of Hollywood's own Billy Wilder:
Buchenwald—A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil, By DenierBud
https://codoh.com/library/document/1529/?lang=en
and this little beauty:
Discovered! Iconic photo in Buchenwald is dishonest photo...
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7489

A list would be lengthy, but the point is made.
B.

[Justasking]

Yet we're supposed to believe that there was this intricate "Nazi conspiracy" to exterminate the Jews and there's no paper trail for it! We're also supposed to believe that all the conferences supposedly held on the Holocaust didn't even discuss specifics but used coded language. Everything about how the Holocaust is alleged to have occurred is in the context of a conspiracy grand in scope that is impossible to achieve without communication. .

Sorry to butt in, I am new here. But is the “official” story that Eichmann organised the round up of Jews with just a few SS using the local police for muscle? In Hungary at least. That would not need a large chain of command, or much paperwork, would it?

Isn’t there supposed to be some thing about the SS using spoken orders as a sign of competence (disdain for written orders and even using maps)?

[Otium]

Sorry to butt in, I am new here. But is the “official” story that Eichmann organised the round up of Jews with just a few SS using the local police for muscle? In Hungary at least. That would not need a large chain of command, or much paperwork, would it?

Welcome to the forum.

If you want to start a thread with information on how the chain of command worked in situations like that, with how many men used, and in the amount of time they deported the Jews feel free to do it. But you need to remember that deportations =/= Holocaust. The problem with the documentation is that there's nothing at all pointing to the National Socialists having discussed systematic killing the Jews as a means to solve the Jewish Question. If there was, you would think the idea had a point of conception, as it was always claimed to have, but the historians have now had to furnish new explanations for their untenable conspiracy theory. Where now, there's no longer a Hitler order, the Gas chambers and the organisation was hap-hazard and the Holocaust itself just came together conveniently without any documentation:

Compared to the construction of coastal fortifications in north-west Europe, flak defences in the Reich, or practically any other aspect of the war effort, in material terms the war against the Jews was a sideshow. It was ill-planned, under-funded, and carried through haphazardly at breakneck speed.

David Cesarani, Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949 (Macmillan, 2016), Pp. 459.

The fact is the historians haven't ever questioned whether their story was ridiculous to begin with when they used to take for granted the existence of a comprehensive well-structured plan with orders from Hitler to prove it. Now, in the last few decades, they've had to abandon that story and make concessions to the revisionists but without ever re-considering the foundation of their religious belief in the Holocaust. Once all the foundations of your house are knocked down, it falls down, it doesn't stay standing. What this shows us is what we already know, that the historians were always peddling the Holocaust as faith disguised as reputable fact. The fact is the sun doesn't set in the ocean as it was claimed by the Islamic faith, nor do horses have wings and fly. But it didn't matter that these things weren't true, because the Islamic religion, like all religions, are based on faith - like the Holocaust.

The Holocaust has always been taken to be true, without the proper research and critical inquiry ever having been done to verify or prove it in the first place. So, it should make you very suspicious that the alleged facts of how it occurred has dramatically changed while the story itself has somehow stayed exactly the same. As Ryan Faulk said:

Why revise the numbers downward? Because when you do, you call into question the validity of the charge in its first instance. Like, if someone was attacked by a Dragon, then someone else says to them 'That's impossible, Dragons don't exist.' but then the person goes 'Oh, well, I was attacked by a bear.' Okay so now we're supposed to believe that he was attacked by a bear? Just because he changed his story from the impossible to something possible? No.

Ryan Faulk, Proven at Nuremberg, time stamped: 9:00 - 9:33.
Youtube: https://youtu.be/6as_PprWngQ

If you think it didn't need much, if any documentation, then you better inform Deborah Lipstadt and tell her that the Holocaust was not in fact "the most well documented Genocide in humans history", but the least documented Genocide. And also, if this is true, then it would make it much more tenable for the post-war establishment to have lied about an alleged extermination of 6 million Jews, and conspired to push that narrative. This is because there is no documentation outlining a plan, it's procedure, or its execution. and therefore no barriers to inhibit a conspiracy being formed to push the idea that there was. So, the people who would claim it'd require documents and millions of people to coordinate such a conspiracy, they'd also have to admit defeat, because like religion, millions of people can propagate your faith because no standard of evidence is required to prove it.

It's weird isn't it, apparently the Nazis devised a humane way to kill the Jews, as was their intention:

A basic impulse for the dictatorship to change its method of genocide in the summer of 1941 was the perceived effects that the mass shootings of Jews were having on the killers, according to Hitler’s master planner of genocide, Heinrich Himmler. Himmler’s observation of mass murder by shooting in mid-August 1941 supplied a decisive motivation for the dictatorship’s decision to slaughter large numbers of people by gas instead. Observing the shooters, Hitler’s trusted adjutant fretted that mass shootings were creating “neurotics” or “savages” out of loyal Nazis. At the outset of Nazi “euthanasia,” Hitler reportedly asked about the most humane way to kill Germans who were an incurable burden to the fulfilment of Germany’s historical mission; he too must have been thinking about the perpetrators, not the victims

Nathan Stoltzfus, Hitler’s Compromises: Coercion and Consensus in Nazi Germany (Yale University Press, 2016), Pp. x.

Stoltzfus tells us there was a 'decision' made by 'the Nazi regime', yet where is this decision? And how does this square with the idea that no documentation was needed? How do you go about making such decisions with winks and nods? Especially since the "Holocaust by bullets" narrative is still quite popular, and totally contradicts the idea that Gas could've been implemented as the main killing method.

Methods of killing is yet another problem as we can see for the Holocaust story. If it required no documentation and simply relied on winks and nods to let whatever underlings know that the Jews were supposed to be killed, presumably with no discussions about the methods of destruction, how is this possible? Surely a meeting would need to have taken place and have been documented to prove who knew what about the extermination method. It makes a lot more sense to just claim the method was ad hoc and not particularly important, that's to say, not "part of the plan". But of course, there was no plan.

Yet this presents another problem because if it was supposed to be some organic murder, where the Nazis would mobilise without communication, without documentation to kill the Jews, one has to wonder how they devised the rules about who was going to know about it and who wasn't. That would require documentation, as would the claim that it was supposed to be a secret. If you want it to be a secret, you have to initiate some kind of meeting or planning conference with only those involved who are supposed to know. And how were the right documents supposed to have been destroyed using the wink and nod method? What about the alleged evidence of the crimes? How do you communicate with winks and nods that the Jews buried in massive pits need to be dug up, burned on pyres, have their bones grinded and then reburied to cover-up the evidence to exculpate the Nazi regime? That's very intricate and specific.

Isn’t there supposed to be some thing about the SS using spoken orders as a sign of competence (disdain for written orders and even using maps)?

If you can furnish evidence of this feel free to share it. It sounds incredibly silly though, especially if you're attempting to claim millions of Jews were organised to be murdered. You simply cannot coordinate such a large "plan" during the biggest, most chaotic war in human history, with simple winks and nods. You certainly can't claim Hitler himself had anything to do with it even if you were going to pretend this is true.

[Justasking]

Isn’t there supposed to be some thing about the SS using spoken orders as a sign of competence (disdain for written orders and even using maps)?

If you can furnish evidence of this feel free to share it. It sounds incredibly silly though, especially if you're attempting to claim millions of Jews were organised to be murdered. You simply cannot coordinate such a large "plan" during the biggest, most chaotic war in human history, with simple winks and nods. You certainly can't claim Hitler himself had anything to do with it even if you were going to pretend this is true.

I don't think anyone says it was just winks and nods. There were full discussions, and debates, and Hoess reports being shown new methods for building pyres to dispose of bodies, and showing other SS officers their own procedure for executions. Eichmann claims the same thing. they just didn't write it all down. Or if they did then perhaps those would be the very first documents you would destroy...

but this might interest you (the whole document is fascinating)

"One of the notable points in their doctrine here is the preference for verbal as against written orders.
In training maneuvers, U. S. observers were repeatedly impressed with the fact that from regimental commands down, verbal orders were regularly used.
One observer, visiting an Armored Troop School, was struck by the lack of reference in maneuvers to written orders (as well as notebooks, maps, overlays, and compasses):
It is believed that the procedure whereby all orders and instructions are given and repeated orally in the presence of all
unit commanders concerned is a matter of special training in
the German Army. Such procedure enables each unit commander to understand the part his unit is to play in the general
action. This facilitates coordination and saves time in the long
run.
Another observer points out the degree to which
German officers are. instilled with the sort of mental
habits that fit them for this phase of leadership. As a
logical frame for issuing good orders, the commander
must make an estimate of the situation in terms of his
mission, must arrive at a decision, and must formulate a plan for carrying out this decision. Through
many contacts, the observer found that this attitude
is so thoroughly engrained in the German officer that
he applies this frame of approach to every kind of
problem, civilian as well as military.
No trained German officer (we are told) begins the
day without a mission. If the mission has not been
received from higher authority, he gives himself a
mission for the day, and one which is definitely not a
mere compliance with a printed schedule. The printed
schedule is nothing but a time allotment or control.
He approaches each day's task as he would a battle, in
order that eventually he will approach battle as he
would a day's task.
It may be said that no German officer or noncommissioned
officer is ever without a mission. If a superior should direct
him to state his mission-and that is frequently done--the
junior is prepared to answer immediately and without hesitation, with a clear statement of his mission, his estimate, and his
plan. This makes a habit of logical thought and decision, both
of which are necessary to real accomplishment.

The manual of "Troop Leadership"' says on this
subject of orders:
The order puts the decision into effect.
Clear orders are an essential for the frictionless cooperation
of all commanders.
For the higher commander, the written order provides the
foundation for the leadership. It is communicated to the
lower units printed, in carbon copy, typewritten or written
by hand, or by technical communication means. Frequently
it is dictated over the telephone. In every instance the most
sure and suitable method of transmission is to be chosen.
Ordinarily, lower commanders use the oral order. Their
orders are written if the oral or telephonic order is not possible,
or if the oral order is insufficient or there exists the danger
of interception.
The more pressing the situation, the shorter the order.
Where circumstances permit, oral orders are given in accordance with the terrain, not the map. In the front lines and
with the lower commanders this is particularly the case.
With important orders it is often advisable to use two or
more means of transmission.
It is easy to underestimate the time required to get an order
through.
Too many orders, especially in battle, during which the communication means may miscarry, produce the danger of impairing independence of action of lower commanders.
An order shall contain all that is necessary for the lower
commander to know in order for him to execute independently
his task. It should contain no more. Correspondingly, the
order must be brief and clear, decisive in tone and complete,
adapted to the understanding of the receiver and, according to
conditions, to his peculiarity. The commander must never fail
to place himself in the position of the receiver.
The language of orders must be simple and understandable.
Clarity, which eliminates all doubts, is more important than
correct technique. Clarity must not be sacrificed for brevity.
Negative expressions and changes lead to half measures and
are objectionable. Exaggerations are equally bad.
Orders may bind only insofar as they correspond to the situation and its conditions. Still, it is often necessary to issue
orders in uncertain situations.
If changes in the situation are to be expected before the order
is put into execution, the order should not go into details. In
great strategical operations, especially when orders must be
issued for several days in advance, this avoidance of details is
to be especially observed. The general intention is expressed;
the end to be achieved is particularly stressed. In the execution of the impending action, the main instructions are given.
and the immediate conduct of the engagement is left to subordinate commanders. In such a way is the order fully
executed.
Suppositions and expectations are to be indicated as such.
Reasons for the measures ordered belong only exceptionally
in the order. Detailed instructions, covering all possible contingencies, are matters of training and do not belong in the
order."

http://www.easy39th.com/files/Special_S ... g_1942.pdf

pages 40-42 of the PDF, pages 38 onwards of the original document.



"18. KNOWLEDGE OF TERRAIN
The usual attention is paid in German training
to correct use of maps as a basis for utilizing the terrain in maneuver. But the German doctrine is that
maps should be so thoroughly studied that they can
be largely dispensed with during maneuvers. An observer who commented on the small use of maps during tank exercises was told that the officer who must constantly refer to a map for orientation purposes is
considered poorly trained. The map, once studied,
should be "carried in the mind rather than in the
hand. "



Given that this is for training of ordinary soldiers, not SS, perhaps we can expect that the elite of the SS would also be required to be able to act on oral orders, and to develop plans to carry out simple directives by adding whatever complexity was needed. According to Eichmann and Hoess (and yes I am aware that there is reason to doubt some of their testimony, but not to dismiss it all) and other sources, the group that was in the know about what was ordered was small. The orders were given in person to camp commanders by Eichmann and/or Himmler, and they proceeded from there (and they were told these were being passed on from Hitler). None of that needs paperwork. All of it would function easily and well. A camp commander had large labour forces at his disposal and a good latitude in demanding building materials - none of that needs large numbers of written orders.

none of that would require huge paperwork. Indeed, think of groups like the Taliban or Isis or other freedom fighter/ terrorist cells in other conflicts. Often they fight for years, mustering thousands of men, moving supplies and material and troops, and all with minimal written orders. And they often routinely destroy any written orders on receipt, once read and memorised.

None of this is winks and nods. And I don't think anyone claims it was done on winks and nods. To suggest that is a disservice to your own argument.

[Sannhet]

None of this is winks and nods. And I don't think anyone claims it was done on winks and nods.

Celebrated Holocaust historian Raul Hillberg held this view from at least the 1980s until his 2007 death:

Hilberg summarized his new thesis before an audience of nearly 2,700 at Avery Fischer Hall in New York City: the entire German policy for the physical destruction of the Jews was to be explained by mind reading! No document attesting to this criminal policy could be found, because no such document existed. For several years, the entire German bureaucratic machinery operated through a kind of telepathy. As Hilberg put it:

But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.

Let us note again those final words: "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy."

Two years later, Hilberg confirmed those words and this explanation during the first "Holocaust trial" of Ernst Zündel in Toronto. [...] That same year (1985) the "revised and definitive" edition of his book appeared. In it, the University of Vermont professor did not use the expression "consensus" or "mind reading." And yet he wrote:

In the final analysis, the destruction of the Jews was not so much a product of laws and commands as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization.

https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n1p15_Faurisson.html

[borjastick]

Most troops of any decent country are asked to use their initiative on the battleground and wouldn't expect written orders as to which way to approach a village etc. But when planning to exterminate millions of jews in the holocaust to not have written orders and plans as to the processes and methods to be used is plainly just ludicrous. What's more they claim that every camp seemed to have its own way of doing it and could make any decision about how to commit mass murder from shootings, to poison gas showers, to diesel engine exhaust to Zyklon B crystals is beyond stupid.

[Justasking]

That quotation from Hilberg is of course out of context. It isn't the final word he had to say on the matter. He expanded greatly on the idea, and it is absolutely clear that he did not mean it was all winks and nods.

He meant that ad hoc solutions were found for problems encountered on the spot, which all presumed the same mindset - one that had been inculcated in the SS and the nazi party for years.

“The destruction of the Jews was thus the work of a far-flung administrative machine. This apparatus took each step in turn. The initiation as well as the implementation of decisions was largely in its hand. No special agency was created and no special budget was devised to destroy the Jews of Europe. Each organization was to play a specific role in the process, and each was to find the means to carry out its task.”

That is not to say that certain high ranking persons did not give orders. The alleged mass shootings on the eastern front that believers talk about could have been ordered by one office to solve a problem, while the alleged shootings of jews in camps in poland some years later , or the alleged gassings, could have been ordered by someone else to solve a different local problem. None of that requires a single overarching authority, although the SS seem to be at the center of most of the work. and none of it needs telepathy or winks and nods.

It is easy to ridicule a quote taken out of context. But not persuasive.

[Justasking]

But when planning to exterminate millions of jews in the holocaust to not have written orders and plans as to the processes and methods to be used is plainly just ludicrous.

I think this is called an argument from incredulity. Not persuasive

[EtienneSC]

For the higher commander, the written order provides the foundation for the leadership. It is communicated to the lower units printed, in carbon copy, typewritten or written by hand, or by technical communication means. Frequently it is dictated over the telephone. In every instance the most sure and suitable method of transmission is to be chosen. Ordinarily, lower commanders use the oral order. Their orders are written if the oral or telephonic order is not possible, or if the oral order is insufficient or there exists the danger of interception.

http://www.easy39th.com/files/Special_Series,_No._3_German_Military_Training_1942.pdf

This is a good find, with some relevance to the subject under discussion. It would be better to have something in German of course, e.g. Staff College training manuals. There is a problem of scope though, as it seems to refer most naturally to Wehrmacht units and to near-combat situations. And the content indicates that there would be a large number of printed, typewritten and handwritten copies, difficult to control and subject to capture by the enemy.

[Otium]

I don't think anyone says it was just winks and nods. [...] None of this is winks and nods. And I don't think anyone claims it was done on winks and nods. To suggest that is a disservice to your own argument.

Not only, as has been pointed out, does Hilberg believe this and you have done nothing to disprove it. But so does Christopher Browning (as quoted above), Ian Kershaw and probably Peter Longerich. This has been persuasively shown in the transcripts of the Zundel trials in 1985 and 1988, which you can find here: The First Zündel Trial https://shop.codoh.com/book/the-first-z%C3%BCndel-trial-en/837/, The Second Zündel Trial https://shop.codoh.com/book/the-second-z%C3%BCndel-trial-en/875/

The idea is that the Jews were killed because Hitler's underlings were "working towards the Fuhrer" and doing what they thought he would want is ridiculous, and puts the blame on Hitler even though he didn't necessarily have to even know or acknowledge what was "going on". It's a very convenient way to make the National Socialist regime appear fatalistic in its treatment of the Jews, that despite the lack of planning and resources into killing them, it was always somehow going to come to it just because Hitler used ugly language and 'radicalised' the Reich's Jewish policy as Longerich would put it.

Kershaw, as I've discussed here: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13610&p=99265#p99264 tries to implicate Hitler by twisting and distorting his speech to the Reichstag on January 30th, 1939. Only through his own words does Kershaw twist the evidence to appear in his favour, and it relies on the pre-existing belief in the mythical Holocaust.

There were full discussions, and debates, and Hoess reports being shown new methods for building pyres to dispose of bodies, and showing other SS officers their own procedure for executions. Eichmann claims the same thing. they just didn't write it all down. Or if they did then perhaps those would be the very first documents you would destroy...

Hoess and Eichmann aren't reliable whatsoever. We've had very recent discussions about Hoess with other believers, you might want to read those threads. Anyway, you're saying they had full "debates" and argued over the disposal of the bodies, yet none of this was documented. So what's left to us? Alleged first, second and third hand witness testimony. This isn't good evidence. There's no physical evidence for the pyres having ever existed to the extent claimed, and that would be necessary to substantiate the Holocaust story.


(PDF) Commandant of Auschwitz—Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/35-coa.pdf

Wyatt admits to torture of Hoess; claims he's a reliable source despite "no evidence" for the absurd claims
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12725&p=93751&

John C. Zimmerman proves Hoess Memoirs legitimate?
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13248&p=96523&#p96498

Auschwitz Commandant Hoess 'confessions' debunked in review
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2429

The Confessions of Rudolf Hoess
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2656

Eichmann tapes
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6479

Trying to explain why something doesn't exist that would be helpful to your narrative if it did, most believers forget, still requires them to make claims about how this is to be explained and still relies on the fact that they need evidence. For example, how do you explain that nobody ever explicitly spoke about the "plan" to murder the Jews? Well, the obvious way to get around that is with 'coded language', but then you cannot just claim coded language was used, you'd need to furnish evidence to prove that the National Socialists agreed to use coded language in the first place. Or, as you claimed, there really were conferences and "debates", which sounds promising, yet you claim they just "didn't write it down", and for some reason you just expect me to believe that? Without actually proving that these meetings occurred and that they simple "didn't write it down". You seem to forget that you'd still need to prove that. Then you're also left with the problem of how you actually know the contents of these alleged discussions and debates.

Believers are somehow convinced that they're going to be put into a situation by mere rhetoric, where they don't have to supply evidence for their claims.

but this might interest you (the whole document is fascinating) [...] Given that this is for training of ordinary soldiers, not SS, perhaps we can expect that the elite of the SS would also be required to be able to act on oral orders, and to develop plans to carry out simple directives by adding whatever complexity was needed.

The document doesn't prove that the Third Reich just dispensed with administrative decrees/orders. Such an implication is nonsense, and you'd probably agree. But it doesn't matter if you agree, because you implied it. If you're going to apply this principle (of discarding orders) to the case of the Holocaust purely because it's convenient for you - even though there's no link connecting the alleged explanation of how the Holocaust came to be "ordered" and "planned" and these observations about the German army - then it must also be applied to other realms of the Third Reich administrative process. And of course, many directives, plans, and orders existed for a great many other things.

in 1977 I offered a thousand pounds to any person who could produce even one wartime document showing explicitly that Hitler knew, for example, of Auschwitz – my critics resorted to arguments ranging from the subtle to the sledgehammer (in one instance, literally). They postulated the existence of Führer orders without the slightest written evidence of their existence. John Toland, Pulitzer prize winning author of a Hitler biography published in the United States, appealed emotionally in Der Spiegel for historians to refute my hypothesis, and they tried by fair means and foul.

[...]

So far the conformist historians have been unable to help Mr. Toland, apart from suggesting that the project was so secret that only oral orders were issued. Why however should Hitler have become so squeamish in this instance, while he had shown no compunction about signing a blanket order for the liquidation of tens of thousands of fellow Germans (Philipp Bouhler’s T-4 euthanasia programme); his insistence on the execution of hostages on a one hundred to one basis, his orders for the liquidation of enemy prisoners (the Commando Order), of Allied airmen (the Lynch Order), and Russian functionaries (the Commissar Order) are documented all the way from the Führer’s headquarters right down the line to the executioners.

David Irving, Hitler's War and the War Path (Focal Point Publications, Millennium Edition, 2002), Pp. xxvii, xxviii.

That you're expecting us to believe that there were orders for these things, yet none for the alleged Holocaust, or at least, no documents that prove Hitler knew or had anything to do with it whatsoever is ludicrous. The only way Longerich, for example, could implicate Hitler was he admits by using ''various documents and fragments of documents' that have 'been pieced together' and the 'codified language of the dictator deciphered.' which is just all based on sinister interpretation, cherry picking, and manipulation of evidence. It's the ridiculous Jean-Claude Pressac 'convergence of evidence' routine applied to Hitler, where in reality, no such evidence exists, and it's particularly less convincing if you don't already believe the lie. The codified language nonsense is the biggest most blatant historical distortion with no basis in fact. Yet I'm guessing you believe in it too, since at the beginning of your post you spoke of conferences and debates, heavily implying that there were discussions that took place about the planning and implementation of the Holocaust.

According to Eichmann and Hoess (and yes I am aware that there is reason to doubt some of their testimony, but not to dismiss it all) and other sources, the group that was in the know about what was ordered was small. The orders were given in person to camp commanders by Eichmann and/or Himmler, and they proceeded from there (and they were told these were being passed on from Hitler).

The only reason you don't dismiss it, is because it's convenient to you and you don't want to let it go.

There were no orders, and there is no evidence of any orders, verbal or otherwise. All references to any alleged Hitler order from, for example, Eichmann and Kurt Gerstein, are both relayed as coming from second or third hand sources. Whatever they claimed is unreliable on that fact alone.

None of that needs paperwork. All of it would function easily and well. A camp commander had large labour forces at his disposal and a good latitude in demanding building materials - none of that needs large numbers of written orders. [...] none of that would require huge paperwork.

It does need paperwork. If you're going to implement a plan to exterminate millions of people, then you need a plan to direct resources into that effort. Especially while coordinating a major war, which you conveniently seem to forget.