BA's case for orthodoxy

[Hektor]

Dalton is an unapologetic Nazi sympathizer. What he thinks is worthless. He has a clear agenda.

And all "historians", without question, are unapologetic anti-Nazis and anti-fascists with a clear agenda to smear and even lie about Hitler and the Third Reich - or at the very least have no intention of objectively researching and presenting the evidence as it pertains to a rational and objective account of this epoch. Yet you don't come to the same conclusions about what they saying being "worthless", which if you were consistent you'd have to do. But you're cut from the same cloth, so you won't.

If we apply somedudes own standards to the establishment historians, what is there political sympathies (and antipathies)? That's now the big Holocaust Historiographers. of course. Indeed they will say that they are Anti--Nazis and Antifascists . But generally that means that they are either Communists or some extreme form of Leftism. They won't blatantly say that they are Communists, though. Communists rarely do. Hannes Heer is perhaps exception for this. They tend to say that they are Humanists, which is their code-word of choice. In some cases they may admit that they are Marxists, just that they 'are not dogmatic'. Cultural Marxism is dominant at universities, so is Deconstructionism, especially in the Humanities. The leftists have noticed that importance of historiography a long time ago, since it builds identity and people's understanding of their own communities.

Even the more moderate or conservative historians in Allied countries had a clear bias in this. Writing an American or British hagiography, in which their enemies had to play the role of the 'bad guy' and subsequently got a diablography. Historians mostly work with documents and perhaps testimony, that's a highly biased source at best. If the source confirms the bias 'it must be real'. Then the authenticity of this is checked hardly ever. When problems with documents are pointed out to them, they get highly defensive and will try explain it in line with the narrative. They ignore valid doubts about authenticity, not even admitted that there are problems. If they admit then that's just a 'coincidence'. The horse is put behind cart. They assume the Holocaust Myth and then try to support it by anything they find anywhere. The bigger picture gets completely ignored. It works, because it is a loaded subject and people commonly don't dare to challenge the Myth. Because then you'll face ostracism or worse.

A more moderate Historian, Ernst Nolte, tried to bring a bit more objectivity into the debate (he still presumed 'Holocaust') and got an angry response in big media. He dared to compare 'fascism' with 'communism' that was too much for the West-German leftists and the debate became rather personal. The remaining second generation Frankfurt School philosopher, Juergen Habermas, was at the helm of the attacks. One needs to bear in mind that the Frankfurt School was at the helm of Reeducation and Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung in Germany. Terms like "Aufarbeitung der Geschichte" (Reprocessing of History) came from folks like Theodor Adorno. He wrote a speech/lecture on this, which makes quite clear what it is about (Hint: It's not accurate Historiography).

[hermod]

Dalton is an unapologetic Nazi sympathizer. What he thinks is worthless. He has a clear agenda.

And Elie Wiesel, Yehuda Bauer and Deborah Lipstadt are unapologetic Zionist sympathizers disseminating the Holocaust story in order to ease the Jewish seizure of Palestine and the full dispossession of the Palestinian people (i.e. "the Hebraisation of the land [of Palestine]"). But you wouldn't say that their words are useless because of that (as Otium said), would you?

Nobody cares about the opinions of Copernic and Galileo Galilei on the Catholic Church? Their astronomical model (Heliocentrism) was the correct one. That's all that matters. Their positive, negative or neutral feelings on the Catholic Church never affected that truth.

[Some Dude]

Dalton is an unapologetic Nazi sympathizer. What he thinks is worthless. He has a clear agenda.

And Elie Wiesel, Yehuda Bauer and Deborah Lipstadt are unapologetic Zionist sympathizers disseminating the Holocaust story in order to ease the Jewish seizure of Palestine and the full dispossession of the Palestinian people (i.e. "the Hebraisation of the land [of Palestine]"). But you wouldn't say that their words are useless because of that (as Otium said), would you?

Of the three, only Bauer is a proper Holocaust historian.
And Bauer is hardly an extremist. He’s at worst a moderate.

[fireofice]

He doesn't provide any such reasoning.

You can clearly see the reasoning here. You are just denying what the document says.

In fact there's no documents around this time that do, or that specify on any level of detail what is going to happen to the resettled Jews, or what did happen to them. There's more documents that have Nazis asking for clarity regarding resettlement plans.

OK and? Not being clear on the details of what will happen is expected.

Holocaust documents often provide rationale. I quoted from Hoppner earlier, who takes a humanitarian angle. "This winter there is a danger that not all of the Jews can be fed anymore. One should weigh honestly, if the most humane solution might not be to finish off those of the Jews who are not employable by means of some quickworking device. At any rate, that would be more pleasant than to let them starve to death."

Doesn't mean it was actually done. These are the kinds things, scarcity of resources and the implications, that are thought about during a war. Doesn't prove anyone was put in gas chambers and dumped into pits.

As things now are, there are no objections if the Jews who are not capable of work, are eliminated with the Brackian remedy. In this way, events such as those that, according to a report in front of me, took place on the occasion of the shootings of the Jews in Vilna, and which, considering that the shootings were carried out in public, can hardly be excused, will no longer be possible.

Even if real, this is just talking about something that never ended up happening. That's the position of Holocaust historian Patricia Heberer. Although it's probably fake. It's addressed by MGK on page 234 of The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt":
https://archive.org/details/extermination-camp-1-500

Wetzel again (when planning mass deportation of Soviet citizens following victory, Jews were not included in the figures)

Jews that were deported to the east would not be "Soviet citizens". There would be an entirely different plan for them, of course they would not be included.

But the physical evidence supports mass murder.

It really doesn't. I would suggest reading the Holocaust Handbooks series. Here are some places to start in regards to physical evidence:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=24
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=2
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=28

Or maybe not. It’s not like the people doing these things didn’t know they were inherently criminal. It’s why they attempted to minimize of eliminate evidence, particularly once it was clear they’d lose the war.

It would have been criminal within the Nazi state to do this without explicit orders. The supposed cover up was to not get in trouble with the Allies. An order would have been necessary so that people know that they won't be punished by the Nazi state.

[Some Dude]

It would have been criminal within the Nazi state to do this without explicit orders. The supposed cover up was to not get in trouble with the Allies. An order would have been necessary so that people know that they won't be punished by the Nazi state.

Really? Who says? You?

[Hektor]

Dalton is an unapologetic Nazi sympathizer. What he thinks is worthless. He has a clear agenda.

And Elie Wiesel, Yehuda Bauer and Deborah Lipstadt are unapologetic Zionist sympathizers disseminating the Holocaust story in order to ease the Jewish seizure of Palestine and the full dispossession of the Palestinian people (i.e. "the Hebraisation of the land [of Palestine]"). But you wouldn't say that their words are useless because of that (as Otium said), would you?

Nobody cares about the opinions of Copernic and Galileo Galilei on the Catholic Church? Their astronomical model (Heliocentrism) was the correct one. That's all that matters. Their positive, negative or neutral feelings on the Catholic Church never affected that truth.

They even don't care that Galileo's arguments were bad. I think it's Isaac Newton that actually confirmed him.

But indeed, if it's against some traditional religion in Europe, than anyone with any conviction goes. (Well, perhaps not Mathilde Ludendorff, but there is plenty of books/authors to pick from and they get packed in book shops, promoted in the media, get good reviews, etc.)... But Revisionism ist the big No, no. Regardless of the arguments being made. The Holocaust is a dogma, and you better believe this. It has obviously become a replacement religion. A myth that helps the political class to have control and make decisions.

[fireofice]

It would have been criminal within the Nazi state to do this without explicit orders. The supposed cover up was to not get in trouble with the Allies. An order would have been necessary so that people know that they won't be punished by the Nazi state.

Really? Who says? You?

I do indeed say that, because I provided evidence that murder of Jews was a crime in the Third Reich that came with a potential death sentence. So there would need to be written orders to know it was OK.

Which proves nothing, and actually refute the narrative rather than confirm it, as Kola's "inadvertant" findings did the opposite of establishing eyewitness accounts for example, and actually refuted them!

Did or did not Kola find evidence of multiple mass graves at Belzec?

Another point to consider: Treblinka and Sobibor both had revolts and escapes. Belzec did not. How many known survivors of Belzec were there?

Tregenza has also been shredded.

“Shredded” like Kola, who found the mass graves you guys said don’t exist?

There are no pictures confirming the mass graves.

[hermod]

I provided evidence that murder of Jews was a crime in the Third Reich that came with a potential death sentence.

Reminded me this thing...

Murder of Jews a Crime in the Third Reich
by Mark Weber
Published: 1995-01-01

Death Sentence for Murderer of a Jew. The Reich guarantees protection of law for all residents. Terrible crime in a train punished." Under these headlines, this report appeared in December 1937 in numerous German newspapers.

https://codoh.com/media/files/jhr-15-1-weber4-l.jpg

A jury court in Stettin, the paper informed readers, had sentenced Josef Reinhardt to death for killing a Jewish businessman named Abraham and his non-Jewish wife. One accomplice was sentenced to life imprisonment, and a second to six years imprisonment. The newspaper report continued: "That the victim was a Jew made no difference in passing sentence, the presiding Judge stressed. The Third Reich is a state of law, in which Jews enjoy the protection of law every bit as much as other residents. Murder is still murder, and will be punished most severely in each case."

Murder remained a crime during the war years. Paragraph 211 of the revised German penal code (published in October 1943), defined murder without any qualification about the victim's race, religion or nationality, and designated capital punishment for the crime. German military regulations were even more strict. The updated, 1943 code spelled out severe punishment for the soldier who carried out orders in violation of the law. "The subordinate... is punishable as a participant... when he knows that the superior's order would have the aim of leading to a military or other crime or violation." (New York Review, Oct. 7, 1993, pp. 51-52.)

During the Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, evidence was presented to show that German soldiers who had murdered civilians, including Jews, were severely punished. (IMT "blue series," Vol. 42, pp. 23s.-:.242.)



The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 15, no. 1 (January/February 1995), p. 32

https://codoh.com/library/document/murd ... -reich/en/

[Merlin300]

To shift direction a bit, the orthodoxy of the International Military Tribunal trial at Nuremberg is clearly in tatters.
Does BA still believe that the Germans were responsible for the Katyin murders?
Does BA still believe that 1.4 million people were murdered at Majdanek?
Does BA still believe that 4,000,000 (or 2,500,000) people were murdered at Auschwitz.
Does BA still believe that there was human soap produced by the Germans during the War?
Does BA still believe the debunked Intentionalist theory?

The above were all "proven" at the IMT trials or were points in the Indictment (in the case of Katyin)
All are now abandoned by all but the most obdurate Believers.

So, BA, are you willing to admit that the Orthodoxy of the IMT circa 1946 is fraught with gross inaccuracies?

[Turpitz]

Can anyone just clarify who, or what a "BA's" is?

[Hektor]

To shift direction a bit, the orthodoxy of the International Military Tribunal trial at Nuremberg is clearly in tatters.
Does BA still believe that the Germans were responsible for the Katyin murders?
Does BA still believe that 1.4 million people were murdered at Majdanek?
Does BA still believe that 4,000,000 (or 2,500,000) people were murdered at Auschwitz.
Does BA still believe that there was human soap produced by the Germans during the War?
Does BA still believe the debunked Intentionalist theory?

The above were all "proven" at the IMT trials or were points in the Indictment (in the case of Katyin)
All are now abandoned by all but the most obdurate Believers.

So, BA, are you willing to admit that the Orthodoxy of the IMT circa 1946 is fraught with gross inaccuracies?

There is tons of other tales I doubt orthodox Holocaust historians will be ready to defend in a public forum. Neither will they state with high publicity that those stories were untrue or even propaganda lies of course. When confronted its dodging and rescue devices with them. Really despicable that they are often financed by the very people whose grand parents they insult.

[bombsaway]

He doesn't provide any such reasoning.

You can clearly see the reasoning here. You are just denying what the document says.

you said about the Rademacher Document: "Their reasoning was that there was more space in the east than anywhere else."

Here's the document again,

In August 1940 I gave you for your files the plan for the final solution of the Jewish Problem, drafted by my office, for which purpose the Madagascar Island was to be demanded from France in the Peace Treaty, while the Reich Security Main Office was to be charged with the actual execution of the task. In accordance with the plan, Gruppenführer Heydrich has been ordered by the Führer to carry out the solution of the Jewish Problem in Europe.

In the meantime the war against the Soviet Union has offered the possibility of putting other territories at our disposal for the final solution. The Führer accordingly has decided that the Jews shall not be deported to Madagascar but to the East. Therefore it is no longer necessary that Madagascar be taken into consideration for the final solution.

Where does it say anything about space? You may be making an arguably logical inference here (though also illogical, see below), but it's not in the document.

In fact there's no documents around this time that do, or that specify on any level of detail what is going to happen to the resettled Jews, or what did happen to them. There's more documents that have Nazis asking for clarity regarding resettlement plans.

OK and? Not being clear on the details of what will happen is expected.

I think my point is that no documents describe what resettlement is in concrete terms (the Rademacher is actually the most explicit) from 1942 on, the period in which supposedly 1.5 million Polish Jews were brought into Russia.

The reason for such documents existing is that moving this many people in less than a year is logistically challenging, and then there is the challenge of housing them. Millions of pounds of food and water would have to be delivered to them every week, vast camps built to house them, firewood or some other fuel provided for keeping them warm enough to survive in winter time. All of this in near a warzone where frontline troops were already at a logistical bottleneck. I was just listening to an audiobook about the German retreat from Moscow in 1941 and this passage stood out to me

If the German troops retained a general measure of faith in their commanders, this is not
to say it came without qualifications. The most common complaint was the absence of
winter clothing, which by early December 1941 was a criticism that had been dragging on
for two months. The extent of the problem justified, in the starkest of terms, a questioning of
faith in the German leadership. More than a month earlier, on November 1, the army’s
senior quartermaster-general, Major-General Eduard Wagner, gave absolute assurances that
the Ostheer would be adequately supplied for the winter. Goebbels was thrilled and wrote in
his diary: “Everything has been thought of and nothing forgotten. If the enemy places his
hopes in General Winter and believes that our troops in the east will freeze or go hungry he
is completely mistaken.”31 However, Wagner’s assessment went beyond the wildly
optimistic; it was simply impossible. According to Colonel Wilhelm von Rücker, attached to
the planning staff of the quartermaster-general’s office, “a few hundred additional trains
would have had to be sent” to meet the needs of the troops for the coming winter.32 Not
only was there not the transport capacity for winter equipment, but also other high-priority
matériel, such as fuel and ammunition, were already failing to arrive in the required
quantities, and the quartermaster-general had to have known this.33
By November 13 Wagner had had a complete change of heart and acknowledged there
were nowhere near enough trains reaching Army Group Center, meaning the urgently
requested winter clothing could only be transported to the front at the expense of other
supplies and in any case would not arrive until February 1942

They had clothes but lacked the ability to get them to their troops. All this makes me automatically gives me serious doubts about the practicality of housing millions of Jews in this area. Was the army even informed of this, was there any deliberation?

Some might also say there was no need to specially house these Polish Jews, they could have been put in Russian ghettos or just left to their own devices a la the Jews deported into Transnistria.

The ghetto theory doesn't hold water for me, because as far as I know, there's not a single ghetto in Russia that wasn't totally depopulated by 42/43.

The 'left to their own devices' theory is even less plausible due to the massive security risk Jews supposedly posed to the the German army. We remember Kube's report on the killing of most of the Jews in Belarus. This included German Jews incapable of work. But according to Kube, Polish Jews were far more threatening:

The Polish Jew, exactly like the Russian Jew, is an enemy of the German nation. He represents a politically dangerous element, a danger which far exceeds his value as a skilled worker.

If these people were even going to be kept alive, one can be certain they would be tightly guarded. This is why the reasoning they were sent to Russia because there was more space there doesn't make sense -- they would have have to have been concentrated in internment and labor camps, otherwise guarding them would have been impossible.

To shift direction a bit, the orthodoxy of the International Military Tribunal trial at Nuremberg is clearly in tatters.
Does BA still believe that the Germans were responsible for the Katyin murders?
Does BA still believe that 1.4 million people were murdered at Majdanek?
Does BA still believe that 4,000,000 (or 2,500,000) people were murdered at Auschwitz.
Does BA still believe that there was human soap produced by the Germans during the War?
Does BA still believe the debunked Intentionalist theory?

The above were all "proven" at the IMT trials or were points in the Indictment (in the case of Katyin)
All are now abandoned by all but the most obdurate Believers.

So, BA, are you willing to admit that the Orthodoxy of the IMT circa 1946 is fraught with gross inaccuracies?

Yes of course. My historical approach is 'evidence based' so any uncorroborated rulings by the IMT are groundless.

Regarding your first example, Katyn, the US and British side did not render a verdict here against the Germans, but we can still look into this.

So did any Germans confess to Katyn at Nuremberg? Were German documents presented in support of the Soviet theory?

The same applies to your other examples. There's very little witness testimony or documentary evidence (or archeological studies a la Kola) backing up say 1.4 million dead at Majdanek. This is why Hilberg in 1960 put a figure of I believe 60k killed there (mostly during Aktion Erntefest, which is heavily corroborated by witness testimony)

Your theory that Goebbels had misunderstood what was actually happening to the deported Jews makes sense. But one can see that the matter had been fully clarified to him a few months later. In December 1942, when Rabbi Stephen Wise (the co-founder of American Zionism) and his Zionist colleagues were arousing Britiain and the United States with Holohoax atrocity propaganda lies for the postwar Zionist seizure of Palestine, one can't seriously believe that Goebbels would have called that campaign of atrocity propaganda in his own diaries "the alleged atrocities" perpetrated on the Jews in Poland (see December 1942 entries in the link above) if he had really believed that the Germans had been butchering millions of Jews of all ages and genders for many months in some German-run slaughterhouses located on Polish soil. If Goebbels had really believed in the death-camp theory, he would have referred to the December 1942 Zionist & Soviet-Allied accusations of mass slaughter as a fully-deserved punishment, but not of "alleged atrocities" as he did.

I think certainly some of the atrocities Goebbels refers to were false - eg the widespread rumors that Jews were being turned into commercial soap. But others very well may have been true

What do you make of these December 1942 entries? (bold mine)

Dec 12, 1942 (II.6.434)

The atrocity propaganda concerning Poland and the Jewish Question is taking on abnormal forms on the other side. We will not, I fear, be finished with this thing in the long run by remaining silent. We already have to answer to some things, if we do not want to run the risk of becoming gradually discovered. It is best now to go on the attack, and bring up the British atrocities in India or the Middle East. In any case we will have changed the subject.

Dec 13, 1942 (II.6.438-439) **

The question of Jewish persecution in Europe is being given top news priority by the English and the Americans…. At bottom, however, I believe both the English and the Americans are happy that we are cleaning up (aufräumen) the Jewish riff-raff. But the Jews will go on and on and turn the heat on the British-American press. We won’t even discuss this theme publicly, but instead I give orders to start an atrocity campaign against the English on their treatment of Colonials.

On Dec 12 he explicitly says that they have to answer to some of the 'atrocity propaganda' and there are further things that might become "gradually discovered". What is he talking about?

And why wouldn't they provide some level of evidence for Jews being maintained and resettled in the East? We know this was something they were interested in doing with regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_(1944_film)

Lastly let us return to the Goebbels diary entry which might be a result of him "misunderstanding" what happened to the Jews (he thought they were being killed but they weren't.

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

Clearly, in Goebbels' mind, evacuation eastward does not preclude mass killing. To me this is blatant use of euphemistic language and casts doubt about similar language seen in his diaries. But at times he is explicit about the fate of the Jews

Mar 14, 1945 (II.15.498) ***

The Jews are reemerging. Their spokesman is the well-known and notorious Leopold Schwarzschild; he is now arguing in the American press that under no circumstances should Germany be given lenient treatment. Anyone in a position to do so should kill these Jews like rats (wie die Ratten totschlagen). In Germany, thank God, we have already thoroughly attended to this. I hope that the world will take this as an example.

Goebbels diaries are not helpful to revisionists I think

PS I have posts here that haven't been responded to, owing I think to the very long time it takes my posts to be approved

viewtopic.php?p=108101#p108101

viewtopic.php?p=108180#p108180

[fireofice]

Where does it say anything about space? You may be making an arguably logical inference here (though also illogical, see below), but it's not in the document.

Right here:

In the meantime the war against the Soviet Union has offered the possibility of putting other territories at our disposal for the final solution.

Again, I don't know how many were transported to the east. I think it's a real possibility that there were no mass deportations and the references to it in the government records are not accurate. That doesn't prove anyone was killed. You have to do more than disprove that there were deportations to the east.

I think certainly some of the atrocities Goebbels refers to were false - eg the widespread rumors that Jews were being turned into commercial soap. But others very well may have been true

Uh, no. To turn someone into soap requires killing them first. If a certain aspect of an atrocity turns out to be false, you don't say "alleged atrocities" even though atrocities are still happening. They are being killed either way. Yes, certain methods of extermination the Allies were claiming were false, but you don't say it's "alleged" if they just got the method wrong. That's like if someone got murdered by gunshot, someone says they were stabbed, and then the accused writes in their diary that it's an "alleged murder". No, it's murder either way. Someone writing "alleged murder" thinks that the murder just plain didn't happen. Same here. If Goebbels thought they were getting the method of murder wrong, he would say that. But he didn't.

[Hektor]

In brief, BA's argument seems to be:
There is documents like diaries wherein rather harsh statements against Jews are made.

This isn't really in dispute that such documents and statements exist. But those are documents that were in hostile hands for very long. They commonly have no signature or verifiable hand-writing on them. So how can we be sure those documents aren't forgeries. How can we know those documents are authentic? And that is the first thing one needs to be sure of, before even considering using it as evidence.

Not so, the exterminationists. They pick up any snippet that can be made look useful for their thesis. Even if they have to bend those snippets and torture the data to be able to arrive at their conclusion. That shows a malicious bias on their side, but it does not prove that their thesis is correct.

They also lack the integrity to even deal with the issue of lack of authentification and forgeries in terms of NS-documents that were in Allied hands for longer periods.

But even, if one assumes those documents to be genuine originals. Do they really support the thesis that was made by exterminationists for decades. The "six million Jews", "industrial homicidal gassings", 'general plan to kill all Jews" is simply missing. Cherry-picking angry statements by NS-figures does not proof the case. People make angry statements about others all the time, how they should be killed, etc. But in the vast majority of the cases no concrete action follows upon this.

The other thing is that they keep on changing their story over and over again, because it turns out that the previous thesis are false, because the evidence doesn't support it.
Shouldn't they first apologize for having lied to the public for so long?
They never do that. The only ones I heard apologize were revisionists and that for rather benign errors they made.

Besides that: The Goebbels quote seems to have as context that Goebbels thinks that the general German treatment of Jews was to lenient. That means he couldn't get much consensus for treating Jews badly even among members of his own party. And that fact doesn't make the Holocaust exactly believable. And is btw. something older Jews told me about their experience in Europe during NS-rule/occupation. They never have been treated badly by Germans, be they officials or ordinary citizens. They only heard about 'the Holocaust' AFTER the War and were shocked of course.
That is of course only anecdotal evidence, but I've never seen any better evidence for the Holocaust Hypothesis than the evidences that count against it. And since the Holocaust is a monstrous accusation, this only allows to dismiss the accusation entirely. Anything else would be libel, slander it's almost like claiming that Jews abduct Christian children to extract their blood and drink. Now should that be in history books presented as fact and common practice of Jews? Because that would be the equivalent of the gas libel.

[hermod]

Your theory that Goebbels had misunderstood what was actually happening to the deported Jews makes sense. But one can see that the matter had been fully clarified to him a few months later. In December 1942, when Rabbi Stephen Wise (the co-founder of American Zionism) and his Zionist colleagues were arousing Britiain and the United States with Holohoax atrocity propaganda lies for the postwar Zionist seizure of Palestine, one can't seriously believe that Goebbels would have called that campaign of atrocity propaganda in his own diaries "the alleged atrocities" perpetrated on the Jews in Poland (see December 1942 entries in the link above) if he had really believed that the Germans had been butchering millions of Jews of all ages and genders for many months in some German-run slaughterhouses located on Polish soil. If Goebbels had really believed in the death-camp theory, he would have referred to the December 1942 Zionist & Soviet-Allied accusations of mass slaughter as a fully-deserved punishment, but not of "alleged atrocities" as he did.

I think certainly some of the atrocities Goebbels refers to were false - eg the widespread rumors that Jews were being turned into commercial soap. But others very well may have been true

The other rumors on the mass slaughter of Jews publicized at that time were atrocity stories claiming that the deported Jews had been suffocated in overcrowded train cars or electrocuted "in small electrified metal-floored cells, in groups of twenty to fifty persons, dying almost instantly" and that the Germans had found out "the most efficient method is for a doctor to inject an air bubble into the victims' veins." (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, November 25, 1942)

http://pdfs.jta.org/1942/1942-11-25_272 ... 1650968551

What do you make of these December 1942 entries? (bold mine)

Dec 12, 1942 (II.6.434)

The atrocity propaganda concerning Poland and the Jewish Question is taking on abnormal forms on the other side. We will not, I fear, be finished with this thing in the long run by remaining silent. We already have to answer to some things, if we do not want to run the risk of becoming gradually discovered. It is best now to go on the attack, and bring up the British atrocities in India or the Middle East. In any case we will have changed the subject.

Dec 13, 1942 (II.6.438-439) **

The question of Jewish persecution in Europe is being given top news priority by the English and the Americans…. At bottom, however, I believe both the English and the Americans are happy that we are cleaning up (aufräumen) the Jewish riff-raff. But the Jews will go on and on and turn the heat on the British-American press. We won’t even discuss this theme publicly, but instead I give orders to start an atrocity campaign against the English on their treatment of Colonials.

On Dec 12 he explicitly says that they have to answer to some of the 'atrocity propaganda' and there are further things that might become "gradually discovered". What is he talking about?

Don't know. Perhaps he just feared that enemy propagandists might make up atrocity stories even more far-fetched than the story of doctors injecting an air bubbles into the veins of Jews.

And why wouldn't they provide some level of evidence for Jews being maintained and resettled in the East? We know this was something they were interested in doing with regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_(1944_film)

Lastly let us return to the Goebbels diary entry which might be a result of him "misunderstanding" what happened to the Jews (he thought they were being killed but they weren't.

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

Clearly, in Goebbels' mind, evacuation eastward does not preclude mass killing. To me this is blatant use of euphemistic language and casts doubt about similar language seen in his diaries. But at times he is explicit about the fate of the Jews

According to Goebbels' personal press expert (a man informing Goebbels on enemy propaganda on a daily basis), Moritz von Schirmeister, Goebbels and his close collaborators made several inquiries about the alleged German death camps "at the RSHA or other authorities concerned " and "again and again the answer came: "No, there is no word of truth in this." "

https://postimg.cc/DS0mqSCg

Mar 14, 1945 (II.15.498) ***

The Jews are reemerging. Their spokesman is the well-known and notorious Leopold Schwarzschild; he is now arguing in the American press that under no circumstances should Germany be given lenient treatment. Anyone in a position to do so should kill these Jews like rats (wie die Ratten totschlagen). In Germany, thank God, we have already thoroughly attended to this. I hope that the world will take this as an example.

Goebbels diaries are not helpful to revisionists I think

Your opinion, not mine.

Those words just sound like the jubilation of a war leader over the death of some enemies. Any Jew could have said the very same thing about the Germans at that time, when refering to the many millions of German civilians firebombed by the Allied flying crematories. Wars kill. And war leaders rejoice at the death of their enemies. Nothing new or unusual.