BA's case for orthodoxy

[Some Dude]

The documentary case for the Revisionists is clearly better since the documents plainly state what Revisionists claim happened.

Oh, sure. You just don't have any physical evidence or eyewitnesses to back it up.

Physical evidnece? The lack of huge mass graves of 100s of thousands at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, and Belzec are all the physical evidence [or lack thereof] that is needed.

I suggest you respond to these 10 questions:

Simple challenge to bombsaway on alleged physical "evidence of a genocidal program"
viewtopic.php?t=14850

Oh yeah, they're fit for labor. Might as well draft them while you're at it."

I thought the allegation is that they were "unfit for labor" thus undraftable.

Here's the thing most of you guys don't know about Stalin. He was a big "let's move this population around" guy. Moved populations a lot. Like there are still Koreans in Uzbekistan because of these programs, as well as a Russian-speaking majority in Crimea that wasn't there in 1919. And here's the thing -- all those movements around are documented in Soviet files. You know what's not documented? Thousands of Jews being dumped over the front lines, as if such a thing were even possible or desirable from the German standpoint, given that they'd be handing over potential soldiers.

Do you know what also isn't documented? One single "huge mass grave" at Treblinka 2, Sobibor, or Belzec with just 0.1% of the alleged 1.5 million or so.
Rather telling.

Again, I suggest you respond to these 10 questions:

Simple challenge to bombsaway on alleged physical "evidence of a genocidal program"
viewtopic.php?t=14850

I don’t suppose you ever looked at the forensic reports from the Reinhard camps by Tregenza, Kola, etc.

Of course there are mass graves at the Reinhard camps. Who the hell told you there aren’t?

[Some Dude]

Also, consider that less than three weeks after Goebbels writes the entry you quote, he writes this: "Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt , und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man wohl feststellen, daß 60 % davon liquidiert werden müssen , während nur noch 40 % in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."

Pretty clear people are being killed, no?

No. Goebbels said "will have to be liquidated," not "are being liquidated." Goebbels was notoriously a radical anti-Semite. He was expressing a personal wish, not a German policy in force at that time, when he wrote those words. That's just the kind of things radical anti-Semites say. No big deal. Goebbels deplored on several other occasions that the German treatment of Jews was too soft in his opinion (see the 2 quotes below as an instance).

Goebbels' diaries:

May 15, 1942 (II.4.293) **
A report from Paris informs me that a number of those who staged the last acts of terror have been found. About 90 percent [sic: 99%] of them are eastern Jews [Ostjuden]. A more rigorous regime is now to be applied to these Jews. As far as I am concerned, it would be best if we either evacuated (abschöben) or liquidated (liquidierten) all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris. By nature and race they will always be our natural enemies anyway.

Mar 6, 1942 (II.3.423, 425-426) **
An SD [Sicherheitsdienst] report informed me about the situation in occupied Russia. It is, after all, more unstable than was generally assumed. The partisan danger is increasing week by week. The partisans are in command of large area in occupied Russian and are conducting a regime of terror there. [...] Everywhere the Jews are busy inciting and stirring up trouble. It is therefore desirable that many of them must pay with their lives for this (mit ihrem Leben bezahlen müssen). Anyway, I am of the opinion that the greater the number of Jews liquidated (liquidiert), the more consolidated will be the situation in Europe after this war. One must have no mistaken sentimentality about it.

In other words, Goebbels was merely giving his opinion that the "useless" Jews (i.e. those not needed for the German war industries) should be killed without too much delay when he wrote those words in his diaries on March 27, 1942. No surprise from a radical anti-Semite like him. But Goebbels was not a policy-maker of the Third Reich regarding the Jewish problem. He was the Minister of Propaganda & Public Enlightenment and the Gauleiter of Berlin. So his own opinion on the best way to solve the Jewish problem is irrelevant and his private/non-public statements on the Jews are almost as off topic for Holocaust research as the opinion and statements of an American minister of agriculture on NASA missions.

The people who mistakenly believe that Goebbels' diaries proved the Holocaust should read Thomas Dalton's paper Goebbels on the Jews.

Goebbels on the Jews
by Thomas Dalton
https://codoh.com/library/series/goebbe ... e-jews/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-1/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-2/en/

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

“Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt” is present tense, not future tense. He also says the former Gauleiter of Vienna was in charge of the process. Know who that was?

[Some Dude]

Also, consider that less than three weeks after Goebbels writes the entry you quote, he writes this: "Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt , und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man wohl feststellen, daß 60 % davon liquidiert werden müssen , während nur noch 40 % in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."

Pretty clear people are being killed, no?

No. Goebbels said "will have to be liquidated," not "are being liquidated." Goebbels was notoriously a radical anti-Semite. He was expressing a personal wish, not a German policy in force at that time, when he wrote those words. That's just the kind of things radical anti-Semites say. No big deal. Goebbels deplored on several other occasions that the German treatment of Jews was too soft in his opinion (see the 2 quotes below as an instance).

Goebbels' diaries:

May 15, 1942 (II.4.293) **
A report from Paris informs me that a number of those who staged the last acts of terror have been found. About 90 percent [sic: 99%] of them are eastern Jews [Ostjuden]. A more rigorous regime is now to be applied to these Jews. As far as I am concerned, it would be best if we either evacuated (abschöben) or liquidated (liquidierten) all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris. By nature and race they will always be our natural enemies anyway.

Mar 6, 1942 (II.3.423, 425-426) **
An SD [Sicherheitsdienst] report informed me about the situation in occupied Russia. It is, after all, more unstable than was generally assumed. The partisan danger is increasing week by week. The partisans are in command of large area in occupied Russian and are conducting a regime of terror there. [...] Everywhere the Jews are busy inciting and stirring up trouble. It is therefore desirable that many of them must pay with their lives for this (mit ihrem Leben bezahlen müssen). Anyway, I am of the opinion that the greater the number of Jews liquidated (liquidiert), the more consolidated will be the situation in Europe after this war. One must have no mistaken sentimentality about it.

In other words, Goebbels was merely giving his opinion that the "useless" Jews (i.e. those not needed for the German war industries) should be killed without too much delay when he wrote those words in his diaries on March 27, 1942. No surprise from a radical anti-Semite like him. But Goebbels was not a policy-maker of the Third Reich regarding the Jewish problem. He was the Minister of Propaganda & Public Enlightenment and the Gauleiter of Berlin. So his own opinion on the best way to solve the Jewish problem is irrelevant and his private/non-public statements on the Jews are almost as off topic for Holocaust research as the opinion and statements of an American minister of agriculture on NASA missions.

The people who mistakenly believe that Goebbels' diaries proved the Holocaust should read Thomas Dalton's paper Goebbels on the Jews.

Goebbels on the Jews
by Thomas Dalton
https://codoh.com/library/series/goebbe ... e-jews/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-1/en/
https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-2/en/

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

“Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt” is present tense, not future tense. He also says the former Gauleiter of Vienna was in charge of the process. Know who that was?

[hermod]

Surely the murder of millions of people in gas chambers would leave an enormous amount of documentary evidence

Really. Why?

Because that's just how all government administrations work. If you know a civil servant or government worker, ask him/her about that and he/she will tell you that he/she can't order a staple box without leaving a paper trail.

Top antirevisionist historian Raul Hilberg:

[fireofice]

Here's the thing most of you guys don't know about Stalin. He was a big "let's move this population around" guy. Moved populations a lot. Like there are still Koreans in Uzbekistan because of these programs, as well as a Russian-speaking majority in Crimea that wasn't there in 1919. And here's the thing -- all those movements around are documented in Soviet files.

All explained in The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt" by MGK
7.11. The Ultimate Fate of the Surviving Deportees
https://archive.org/details/extermination-camp-1-500/

However, I want to make it clear that the issue of whether Jews were actually deported en masse is secondary. The 2 most plausible theories on what happened are:

1. Jews were deported en masse to the east and not stuffed into gas chambers and dumped into pits.

2. Jews were not deported en masse to the east and not stuffed into gas chambers and dumped into pits.

If you think the theory that Jews were deported en masse to the east is completely implausible for whatever reason, then the next best explanation is that they were not deported en masse as well as not being stuffed into gas chambers and dumped in pits. Disproving Jews were deported en masse does not prove that they were killed. You have to make a separate argument for that. As it happens, I think there is a good case to be made that Jewish deportations were exaggerated, just like deaths on the incident reports were exaggerated.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14517

Documents are secondary to physical evidence. If physical evidence contradicts the documents (and in the case of the holocaust, the physical evidence contradicts it) then the physical evidence wins. In fact, since you are making an argument as to why deportation wouldn't have worked, you yourself are arguing that the documents aren't reliable since you are claiming that we can't take the documents at face value. So if the documents can't be taken at face value, they can't be used to argue for an extermination program to kill all Jews either.

Argument from incredulity is not an argument.

Argument from incredulity is perfectly fine. I don't care if it's an official "fallacy" or not. If someone says something ridiculous happened, I am perfectly right to not believe them. The whole point of history is to find out what probably happened. Ridiculous things are very unlikely to have happened. Also, weren't you just arguing that it's unlikely Jews were deported? That's just as much an "argument from incredulity".

Surely the murder of millions of people in gas chambers would leave an enormous amount of documentary evidence

Really. Why?

Because written orders would have been necessary to commit to something like this, especially something like mass genocide which would otherwise be a serious crime.

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

So there would need to be written orders for everyone to know this was all above board. No such written orders exist, therefore the holocaust didn't happen.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the-plum-cake/en/

[Some Dude]

Surely the murder of millions of people in gas chambers would leave an enormous amount of documentary evidence

Really. Why?

Because that's just how all government administrations work. If you know a civil servant or government worker, ask him/her about that and he/she will tell you that he/she can't order a staple box without leaving a paper trail.

Top antirevisionist historian Raul Hilberg:

And you think people in overly criminal activity do the same?

[Some Dude]

Documents are secondary to physical evidence. If physical evidence contradicts the documents (and in the case of the holocaust, the physical evidence contradicts it) then the physical evidence wins.

But the physical evidence supports mass murder.

Because written orders would have been necessary to commit to something like this, especially something like mass genocide which would otherwise be a serious crime.

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

So there would need to be written orders for everyone to know this was all above board. No such written orders exist, therefore the holocaust didn't happen.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the-plum-cake/en/

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.

[Hektor]

Surely the murder of millions of people in gas chambers would leave an enormous amount of documentary evidence

Really. Why?

Because the allegation is that it was done by a huge bureaucratic organization. And that it was a government project.
That would clearly leave lots of evidence including orders, documents, reports, etc.

There is documentary evidence, but it indicates deportation, internment, epidemic problems, cremation facilities... not industrial style homicidal gassings.

[bombsaway]

Also, consider that less than three weeks after Goebbels writes the entry you quote, he writes this: "Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt , und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man wohl feststellen, daß 60 % davon liquidiert werden müssen , während nur noch 40 % in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."

Pretty clear people are being killed, no?

No. Goebbels said "will have to be liquidated," not "are being liquidated." Goebbels was notoriously a radical anti-Semite. He was expressing a personal wish, not a German policy in force at that time, when he wrote those words. That's just the kind of things radical anti-Semites say. No big deal.

Here's more context -- from Dalton's translation: https://dagobertobellucci.wordpress.com ... as-dalton/

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.

The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them

Is the part in bold the only segment you'd say is a hypothetical desire? I think you're drawing arbitrary lines here. In every other section of the quote he's talking about something that is happening or will happen in the future. I think you could still say it's his opinion -- this is what he thought was going to happen based on the information he was receiving -- but your interpretation of wishful thinking only works if we assume Goebbels is a bad writer.

It doesn't really make sense for the Nazis to send the Polish Jews en masse to the Russian front. The primary motivation (as explained by Himmler in the Sonthofen speeches, for example) for the liquidation of the Polish ghettoes was that they posed an immediate threat to the security of the rear (e.g, Himmler says he doesn't believe they could have held the Lemberg front if the Warsaw ghetto had remained). The nazis Nazis would not have solved this problem by sending the Jews to the front.

According to Franz Rademacher:

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.

https://codoh.com/library/document/depo ... e-east/en/

There's your answer. Their reasoning was that there was more space in the east than anywhere else. You can not like their reasoning all you want or think they were stupid, but that's not an argument for saying that's not what they were doing. Clearly, they thought this was a viable temporary solution, regardless of your opinions.

He doesn't provide any such reasoning. 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.

Browning, page 6 http://web.archive.org/web/201208160456 ... /paper.pdf

But for those charged with actual planning, what did Hitler’s notion that the Jews
would be worked over in the harsh climate in the east actually mean? A state of frustration and
uncertainty can be seen in a memorandum of Rolf-Heinz Höppner, the chief ethnic-cleanser in
the Warthegau, following a discussion with Adolf Eichmann. On September 2, 1941, Höppner
complained that plans for deportation to “reception territories” had to remain “patchwork”
“because I do not know the intentions of the Führer,” Himmler, and Heydrich. “I could well
imagine that large areas of the present Soviet Russia are being prepared to receive the undesired
elements of the greater German settlement area….To go into further details about the
organization of this reception area would be fantasy, because first of all the basic decisions
must be made. It is essential in this regard, by the way, that total clarity prevails about what
finally shall happen to those undesirable ethnic elements deported….Is it the goal to ensure
them a certain level of life in the long run, or shall they be totally eradicated.”

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."

Wetzel, in his letter on gassing devices, provides another reason. Killing this way would be more discrete

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... index.html

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.

It's also true, that policy documents describing occupied USSR are not only mum about resettled Jews, but explicitly say the Jews are not going to be there.

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

Thus for the territories to be taken into consideration here there results a total population of 51 million. The number of those to be in principle evacuated according to the plan should thus be actually higher than foreseen in the plan. Only if one assumes that the about 5 to 6 million Jews who live in this area are already removed prior to the evacuation one reaches the number of 45 million alien peoples mentioned in the plan. The plan’s considerations, however, show that the Jews are still included in the mentioned 45 million.

From the 27 April, 1942 memorandum (keep in mind around this time mass deportations have been ongoing for months through Belzec and Chelmno)

[Otium]

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 they have no intention of objectivly 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're 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.

[Otium]

I don’t suppose you ever looked at the forensic reports from the Reinhard camps by Tregenza, Kola, etc.

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!

How convenient that the "experts" like Kola admit they found nothing because they didn't intend to find anything in the first place. This was how they covered up their archeological failure to prove massive amounts of remains at Belzec. So, really, you should've known this because this is the establishment line on Kola.

Curious how you don't know this because you've been subject to so many blatant lies about Kola's alleged findings which conveniently weren't "intended" to be a "serious investigation" but just so happened to be presented as one to unwitting people such as yourself. Sure is strange. Almost like Kola et. al. are a bunch of lying hackjobs.

Tregenza has also been shredded. You ought to have done your reseach better before trying to argue on something you clearly know nothing about.

[Some Dude]

Because the allegation is that it was done by a huge bureaucratic organization. And that it was a government project.

Not really. The bureaucracy is necessary to get people to places where they will be killed. The killing itself is done by a relatively small number of people in a small number of places (speaking here of death camps), often using improvised methods.

[Some Dude]

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?

[jarno]

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 objectivly 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.

That is an excellent post. Given our postwar stakes in vilifying Hitler and the National Socialists, what could be more true than that? The truth is that there is no objectivity given to the history of the second world war. What we're taught is just a propaganda campaign, that's broadcast 24/7, and all of the political powers have interests in it.

Some Dude, think about all of the political interests that have a stake in this -- literally, all of the postwar powers do. And what would happen if the objective truth was revealed? I know for sure that those in power would begin to lose it, including the state of Israel and the American Empire. And that would be good for us, as ordinary people, because we could then reclaim our own destiny.

[hermod]

Here's more context -- from Dalton's translation: https://dagobertobellucci.wordpress.com ... as-dalton/

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.

The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them

Is the part in bold the only segment you'd say is a hypothetical desire? I think you're drawing arbitrary lines here. In every other section of the quote he's talking about something that is happening or will happen in the future. I think you could still say it's his opinion -- this is what he thought was going to happen based on the information he was receiving -- but your interpretation of wishful thinking only works if we assume Goebbels is a bad writer.

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.

https://postimg.cc/Js6GKSTH