Do governments function this way?

[Scotsman]

One aspect of the Holocaust story that I have never been able to get my head around is the idea that a plan for mass extermination could be planned and done completely 'verbally'. I really cannot understand the logic of it at all...so Hitler is supposed to have told Goering who then tells Heinrich who then calls everyone on the phone and in the space of a phone call explains that 'we need to kill Jews'. So something occurred to me; since many governments have declassified alot of their older archives, is there any evidence of 'top secret' or 'above top secret' government plans/directives - and it can be any country - that didn't need at least some paper trail? I.E. something else that was all 'verbal'. At the very least, a Rosetta stone to know who was talking about what?

[Dresden]

Scotsman said:

"is there any evidence of 'top secret' or 'above top secret' government plans/directives - and it can be any country - that didn't need at least some paper trail? I.E. something else that was all 'verbal'"

Of course not, Scotsman!

No one in their right mind would murder thousands of people without a written order, signed by Hitler.

Some guards and at least one Camp Commandant were tried, convicted, and executed for killing a single, or a few inmates.

Of course, they could have been psychic:

"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"

-Raul Hilberg

[Scotsman]

Oh I am not a believer. I just wondered if there is something similar in ANY other government.

Hilberg was interesting. Some of his statements, if said by anyone else, would get him called a denier. "What do you mean the Holocaust wasn't centrally planned?!". I've seen people called deniers for disbelieve the idea that Hitler was planning The Holocaust in the 1920s. But even that is silly, because if it was just a meeting of minds, then what is all of this about the Wansee Conference, Himmler's 'directives', et all.

[Dresden]

I know you're not a believer, Scotsman; I was just echoing your sentiments, in questioning such a ridiculous idea.

Scotsman said:

"I've seen people called deniers for disbelieve the idea that Hitler was planning The Holocaust in the 1920s. But even that is silly, because if it was just a meeting of minds, then what is all of this about the Wansee Conference, Himmler's 'directives', et all"

Yeah, and what's up with Hitler and Goebbels addressing huge crowds and announcing their intentions to exterminate all the Jews?

It's like Hannover says:

"They can't keep their lies straight"

[Kingfisher]

Meeting of minds might make sense if we were talking about machine gunning a few hundred at a time: normal brutalities of war, etc. But Steve is right in saying that no one would be mad enough to to design and build structures to start murdering en masse without solid proof that he had been ordered to do it. And on a purely practical level, how could it be possible without budget and authority, both of which must leave a paper trail?

To return to the original poster's point, I don't think we will find a single example, quite simply because it isn't possible. The atom bomb was designed and built in extraordinary secrecy, but the records and orders (in both senses) must be there. They were top secret but any enemy occupying force could not fail to find at least some of the documentation, not to mention the actual physical, material evidence.

Irving's thesis that Himmler and not Hitler was behind it could make sense, but runs up against the same arguments.

[hermod]

I don't know about any top secret government plan(s) not needing some paper trail. But I know about governments destroying embarrassing documents in order to prevent inconvenient secrets from leaking out. I know that's what the Holocaust industry claims about the alleged Nazi Holocaust documents, but I don't believe in that theory for different reasons.

The two main new files that we found and used in the book and that haven’t been seen before were, firstly, the archives of the Duke of Hamilton who was involved in the Hess affair and that are kept at the Scottish Office. And although some had been available to other researchers, we were able to get almost unrestricted access that most previous researchers hadn’t really had before. The other thing that hadn’t really seen the light of day before - and this relates more to the death of Hess or whoever the prisoner in Spandau was in 1987 - were the administration records from prison. Now, the British authorities said that all the records for the prison should be destroyed - and they were. But before that the Russians insisted that they make a microfilm record of everything and the Russians then gave microfilm copies to the other three powers. And we managed to get hold of one of the copies that contains a lot of interesting material relating to Hess’s death and what was going on.

[...]

Sir Maurice Oldfield, a former head of MI6, is known to have essentially stolen one of the files on Hess to stop it being destroyed and gave it to certain historians and it’s now in safe-keeping in Holland. So it shows that he was unhappy with the fact that a lot of these files were being destroyed to stop them being released.

http://www.eyespymag.com/intv.html

[Hannover]

Indeed, Scotsman. The entire matter is preposterous, and that is why Jewish supremacists do not want anyone looking under the rock. The 'holocaust' storyline is so full of absurdities, impossibilities, and outright lies that scrutiny must be prevented. Why else would there be laws against questioning a mandated version of pre-WWII & WWII?

It doesn't matter, Revisionism cannot be stopped. The tide is turning,

- Hannover