The Kaiser and the Holocaust?

[Hektor]

This is rather circumstantial and not dealing with forensic things. It is also an allegation until now. Tracing it back it goes to one German-English historian, who is focused on the 'Kaiserreich' He is also a staunch 68er (cultural Marxist) according to his son.

Roehl claims to have found a quote in Kaiser Wilhelm's letter to Poultney Bigelow that says:
‘Jews and mosquitoes are pests which humanity must eliminate one way or another. I think gas would be the best way’
There were several versions of this in circulation in the media. As I noted while reading:
https://albert.ias.edu/bitstream/handle ... s_2020.pdf
authored by Karina Urbach, which also speaks here:


In my humble opinion they are grasping for straws. They can't prove the Holocaust with the usual means of investigation using testimony, documents and physical evidence. Especially on the last and important part they are weak. So why not brush the personalities of the era as rabid Anti-Semites by quote mining there correspondence, letters, diaries, etc.? Quotes are barely scrutinized and evaluated in terms of context even less. Simply rip what's suitable for your thesis out of context and then comment it accordingly.

I haven't seen the letters to Bigelow, yet. And it seems those citing them didn't do that neither. So I can't tell you how real that quote is or not. There is however quite some ranting against Jews in several texts assigned to Kaiser Wilhelm. It wouldn't surprise me neither. Given that he would be quite well informed on matters Jews were involved in during his reign and also afterwards.

The trick is to feed this to an audience that is already pre-conditioned by Holocaust Indoctrination and in fact has not much 'knowledge' of anything else.
Writing in line with a desired narrative is rewarded by those that have the power to do so. Employers give promotions, universities give grants and NGO's do give prices and medals. That's how the system is managed and most of the participants aren't even aware of this.

Damaging the reputation of the Kaiser and the Monarchy is definitely a goal for the Germanophobes. Reason? The Kaiserreich could serve as anchor for a German identity and that is not desired. 'Thou shall not have any Gods besides the Holocaust and Hitler' is the commandment of the present day intellectual elites in Germany, but also elsewhere.

[hermod]

Hey, that was Völkerkampf die Zukunft ("the future of the battles between peoples") in the days of the last Kaiser. At least according to hearsays reported in books published in the 1950s...

https://postimg.cc/2Vmh5mqx

https://postimg.cc/9RhFBXH8

No surprise after all. Wasn't the Holocaust a mere compilation of the best Allied propaganda lies told about the Kaiser and his troops during WWI?

https://postimg.cc/V08S416r

https://postimg.cc/zV0R0tdK

https://postimg.cc/JtZrXt6P

https://postimg.cc/dhWS3mGp

https://postimg.cc/zHbXVv40

https://postimg.cc/ykqCKL6M

https://postimg.cc/WtyQL2y2

https://postimg.cc/jCmyv7qq

https://postimg.cc/nCBLvswD

https://postimg.cc/F1gFPf45

[slob]

The Kaiser was to blame for all these (alleged)atrocities, well according to the paper.

[Hektor]

The Kaiser was to blame for all these (alleged)atrocities, well according to the paper.

Jip, it is a remake of 100 year old demonization of the Kaiserreich. It's easy to find media mud-slinging on this. Even secondary reports. Of course it is more powerful, when you can cite the Kaiser personally on this.

"Gas" was a new weapon during World War One. And it was one that scared people tremendously.

The Kaiser won't be the first person to wish Gas on other people.
Kurt Tucholsky (Jewish background, staunch leftist) wrote in the same year:

„Möge das Gas in die Spielstuben eurer Kinder schleichen. Mögen sie langsam umsinken, die Püppchen. Ich wünsche der Frau des Kirchenrats und des Chefredakteurs und der Mutter des Bildhauers und der Schwester des Bankiers, dass sie einen bittern qualvollen Tod finden, alle zusammen. Weil sie es so wollen, ohne es zu wollen. Weil sie faul sind. Weil sie nicht hören und nicht sehen und nicht fühlen.“
―Kurt Tucholsky
Quelle:
Dänische Felder, in: Die Weltbühne, 26. Juli 1927, S. 152f.

https://gutezitate.com/zitat/103569

Gas into childrens play-rooms to kill them. Then all kinds of professionals, civically active people's wives are wished a gruesome Death. That this wouldn't be received with applause by a German audience should actually be clear.

The date for the Kaiser quote on Gas is given as 15. August 1927
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/ ... 10631.html

Tucholsky's quote was a bit less than two weeks before the Kaiser's letter. I guess it's save to assume that the Kaiser had taken note of this and that his remarks were sort of retaliation to this.

Karina Urbach did not mention this, although the Tucholsky quote is actually quite well known. If she chose to ignore it, I don't know. Personally, I think a lot of the pc Historians are in a state of delusion. They often know about Revisionist arguments and also that the Revisionist are at least right as far as their argument in terms of 'lack of evidence' is concerned. They will of course never admit that, especially not publicly. Even if they would like to, they know, if they did, this would have major repercussions for them. So rather spin further on the narrative and desperately grasp for anything useful. They are running 'out of Nazis' so it's no surprise that they'd go for the Kaiser. The figure was moderately popular, seen as rigid and authoritarian. Although under the Hohenzollern German industry and standard of living took strong leaps to general prosperity. The taxation rates were also reasonable. Germany was at peace most of the time then. The Franco-Prussian War and First World War, plus some minor conflicts in their overseas protectorates/Colonies was all that there was. The leftists blamed the Kaiser and 'prussian militarism' for WW1 and went over the top with this. They hated the monarchy and also the aristocracy, which was resented in some circles although I think that hadn't broad support neither. The outcome of WW1 had however a discrediting effect for the Monarchy. There was only one staunchly monarchist party and that was the DNVP. SPD-KPD-DDP were leaning strongly against monarchy. DVP was perhaps. And the Centrum were Catholic with a disdain for a Protestant monarchy. The NSDAP wasn't monarchist either, viewed that as too old fashioned. Paul von Hindenburg (General of the Kaiser) was however more popular than Hitler, which the Presidential elections had clearly shown.

[hermod]

"Gas" was a new weapon during World War One. And it was one that scared people tremendously.

The Kaiser won't be the first person to wish Gas on other people.

The English journalist and prolific author of books Philip Gibbs, who served as one of five official British reporters during the First World War, reported after the end of WWI that the the British soldiers returning from leave experienced a deep hatred of civilian England and even "desired that profiteers should die by poison gas."

https://postimg.cc/kDYsznXX

https://postimg.cc/F1xzHRJN

https://postimg.cc/NKXm5cKj

[Hektor]

"Gas" was a new weapon during World War One. And it was one that scared people tremendously.

The Kaiser won't be the first person to wish Gas on other people.

The English journalist and prolific author of books Philip Gibbs, who served as one of five official British reporters during the First World War, reported after the end of WWI that the the British soldiers returning from leave experienced a deep hatred of civilian England and even "desired that profiteers should die by poison gas."
.....

Well, the suffering in the trenches must have made a huge impression on soldiers. And that would include the British soldiers. That impression also led to confusion, moral and otherwise. That also leaves a grudge... and that has to turn against someone. "Who brought us into the situation?" is a question that will be asked. Also that while many suffered, others became rich by profiteering from the war and armaments. Many 'unanswered problems' of social, economic and political nature existed in Britain, Germany and other countries.

Mainline Historiography tries to scape goat the Kaiser right now. People seem to get tired of the Hitler Myth, hence the culture producers turn onto 'the Kaiser'. Got the advantage that there is more distance in terms of time as well.

And the Kaiser said some not so favorable things about Jews. They cite it, but don't tell you about the actual context there.

[hermod]

Well, the suffering in the trenches must have made a huge impression on soldiers. And that would include the British soldiers. That impression also led to confusion, moral and otherwise. That also leaves a grudge... and that has to turn against someone. "Who brought us into the situation?" is a question that will be asked. Also that while many suffered, others became rich by profiteering from the war and armaments. Many 'unanswered problems' of social, economic and political nature existed in Britain, Germany and other countries.

Yes, that was an understandable reaction. It seems that wishing poison gas for one's enemies was quite widespread during and after WWII.

Mainline Historiography tries to scape goat the Kaiser right now. People seem to get tired of the Hitler Myth, hence the culture producers turn onto 'the Kaiser'. Got the advantage that there is more distance in terms of time as well.

Some Holohoaxers, desperate for real proofs, even try to portray Hitler's Mein Kampf quote about war profiteers and poison gas as an argument in favor of the intentionalist thesis.

[Hektor]

Well, the suffering in the trenches must have made a huge impression on soldiers. And that would include the British soldiers. That impression also led to confusion, moral and otherwise. That also leaves a grudge... and that has to turn against someone. "Who brought us into the situation?" is a question that will be asked. Also that while many suffered, others became rich by profiteering from the war and armaments. Many 'unanswered problems' of social, economic and political nature existed in Britain, Germany and other countries.

Yes, that was an understandable reaction. It seems that wishing poison gas for one's enemies was quite widespread during and after WWII.

And 'poison gas' grasped the imagination as did radiation later on. People understand that it is dangerous and you can't dodge it like a bullet. The injuries from it can be severe and it can kill a person after a longer struggle of agony. So fear and mystery are elements in this.

One advantage of poison gas attack was that they were almost purely technical... Get the gas released somewhere and the distribution of the gas will 'do its job'. No direct action necessary. It was also a mystery to historiographer that "The Nazis didn't use poison gas as a means of warfare". The homicidal gassing of Jews was standing as a singularity there. You would think this gives people second thoughts about the matter, but nay, it did add to the mystery of it.

Mainline Historiography tries to scape goat the Kaiser right now. People seem to get tired of the Hitler Myth, hence the culture producers turn onto 'the Kaiser'. Got the advantage that there is more distance in terms of time as well.

Some Holohoaxers, desperate for real proofs, even try to portray Hitler's Mein Kampf quote about war profiteers and poison gas as an argument in favor of the intentionalist thesis.

The quote is specific:

"If at the beginning of the War and during the War, 12 or 15 thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."

instigators and racketeers. That they were Jews is merely circumstantial. But it is twisted as a statement to 'gas Jews in the future'. Essentially a slippery slope argument. Hitler said A, hence B must have happened. Of course A CAN follow B, but it isn't a proof that B will happen, because someone said A.

Actually, when I first read the line of argument in a school book, I was wondering.... Obviously I subtly noted that the quote was being used in a suggestive and manipulative way. And no, no evidence for 'homicidal gassings' in that book neither. They did present the Rudolf Hoess testimony quote though, where he says he gassed 2.5 million Jews, while being commandant in Auschwitz. That this was a false confession/testimony they didn't tell. But it did grasp the imagination of youngsters that's for sure. It may not convince the readers at all, but it turns the affair into a subject people prefer to avoid to talk about. And that way the field will belong to those that can push through a message assertively. No evidence needed there. It's like the Church of Holocaustianity in this. The parish can't really contradict the preacher, because they can't process what was said or feel confident to say something back. Of course many preachers are real masters in wordsmithing and evasive argumentation. They say stuff in a way that attacks you, but from each sentence uttered you won't notice. Context of course plays a role here... also the way in which something said.

The Mein Kampf quote is a good rescue device, when cornered for evidence. And let me tell you. The Holocaust debates are full of rescue devices. Those promulgating it, are rarely technically competent. They are teachers, preachers, journalists with some background in the humanities. Hence able to read, write and speak well. Mathematical, Logical, Technical thinking isn't really their things. In fact they will get indignant about you starting to get technical on matters, even say that. Make as if you approaching the matter rationally is proof of your lack of empathy, compassion and respect for the victims. One could say that doing that is impious to them. The journalists will refer you to a book, but since the internet, they actually like to ignore comment. Teachers are in a more difficult position, when students/pupils ask a question. But most don't and they have experience in evading matters or use blubber to feed the mushrooms in the class. Preachers and churchlings may also refer to experts, they like to moralize or draw debate into a field where they feel save again.
They all have rather sanctimonious reasons for their Holovangelism. It isn't always exactly holy of course, rather humane:
* People that have heard a horrific story, tend to go and tell it to others. It's also a way to deal with shock and awe.
* Teachers and Preachers feel they have to 'educate others' so it 'won't happen again'.
* Teachers (in Germany) were actually obliged to do so. Not immediately. I think those that had adult experience from the war, still realized that there may have been a different angle to the affair. But those that were born after 1940 were of course different in this. Post-occupation Germany had a mostly controlled media and during their university years they were 'worked upon'.
* Preachers may take a moralistic/religious angle... 'To teach people a lesson'. There is a whole theology around this. Theologically conservative preachers tended to avoid the subject. theologically liberals embraced it. Jews as supposed 'children of Israel' added to the flavor for both of them. And then there was the issue of "Kirchenkampf" of course. The "Bekennende Kirche" was mostly theologically conservative like Martin Niemoeller. Others, like Barth, Bonhoeffer and some others: Not so much. But well, what Bonhoeffer wrote before his execution 1945 wasn't exactly affirming the Holocaust. He loathes Antisemitsm but says nothing about extermination, gassing or the like. His opposition against NS/Hitler was rather on benign grounds. Presenting Jews as "Brothers of Jesus", which doesn't sound to odd at first... until one investigates the matter of course. The judaistic attitude against christ and Christianity most Christians seem to be ignorant about. And let me put it mildly: Jews teach about Jesus. They got a lot to say about him... But isn't exactly nice.
* Additionally 'the Holocaust' would also be a dinner table conversation for educated middle class people. But then it will definitely turn anecdotal and hearsay... separated from even the academic literature.

With Germans loosing their confidence in the present political system and culture... they may start looking for other figures, ideals, systems. That's why the Kaiser may actually be 'dangerous' to those yielding power in Germany now. So why not disparage him as a 'rabid anti-semite'. Out of context quotes are the tool of choice to do so. There is also a risk in this of course. People may start looking why people in the 1920s had the attitudes they had.... And perhaps they had 'good reasons' for doing so.

[hermod]

And 'poison gas' grasped the imagination as did radiation later on. People understand that it is dangerous and you can't dodge it like a bullet. The injuries from it can be severe and it can kill a person after a longer struggle of agony. So fear and mystery are elements in this.

Most people are now unaware that poison gas used to be regarded as the most humane tool for the destruction of unwanted pets.

"Gas chamber for the humane destruction of animals"

https://postimg.cc/FYmQNr4c

"Close by the lethal chamber is the crematorium."

https://i.postimg.cc/mLrfqmPq/Holocaust ... cremat.jpg

One advantage of poison gas attack was that they were almost purely technical... Get the gas released somewhere and the distribution of the gas will 'do its job'. No direct action necessary. It was also a mystery to historiographer that "The Nazis didn't use poison gas as a means of warfare". The homicidal gassing of Jews was standing as a singularity there. You would think this gives people second thoughts about the matter, but nay, it did add to the mystery of it.

Some people argue that the Nazis didn't use poison gas on battlefields because they were afraid that the Allies would have drenched the German cities with poison gas as promised. During the WWII campaign of Holohoax atrocity propaganda, a noisy organization of Zionist activists (called the Bergson Group) said that the Allies had to drop poison gas on German cities in order to keep their word because the Germans had just used poison gas on what they termed "the Hebrew nation." But the Allies did nothing, as if they didn't believe in their own gas-chamber story.

The quote is specific:

"If at the beginning of the War and during the War, 12 or 15 thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."

instigators and racketeers. That they were Jews is merely circumstantial. But it is twisted as a statement to 'gas Jews in the future'. Essentially a slippery slope argument. Hitler said A, hence B must have happened. Of course A CAN follow B, but it isn't a proof that B will happen, because someone said A.

True. And anyway it sounded more like an alternative version of George Carlin's notorious statement on war. The words "being held under poison gas" didn't mean "being forced into a gas chamber" when Hitler wrote those words. It obviously meant "being sent to the frontline."

Actually, when I first read the line of argument in a school book, I was wondering.... Obviously I subtly noted that the quote was being used in a suggestive and manipulative way. And no, no evidence for 'homicidal gassings' in that book neither. They did present the Rudolf Hoess testimony quote though, where he says he gassed 2.5 million Jews, while being commandant in Auschwitz. That this was a false confession/testimony they didn't tell. But it did grasp the imagination of youngsters that's for sure. It may not convince the readers at all, but it turns the affair into a subject people prefer to avoid to talk about. And that way the field will belong to those that can push through a message assertively. No evidence needed there. It's like the Church of Holocaustianity in this. The parish can't really contradict the preacher, because they can't process what was said or feel confident to say something back. Of course many preachers are real masters in wordsmithing and evasive argumentation. They say stuff in a way that attacks you, but from each sentence uttered you won't notice. Context of course plays a role here... also the way in which something said.

Holohoaxers admit that Hoess confessed 1.5 million nonexistent murders (old death toll minus new death toll) at the Nuremberg show trial, but they still claim that Hoess' confession is a solid proof of 1 million murders (new death toll).