BA's case for orthodoxy

[bombsaway]

Speculation is necessary here since you refuse to provide a case for the pits.

I don't know where you're getting this impression. I'm just trying to answer your questions at this point, and I'm sorry for not responding to everything or even most of what you have to say. I simply don't have time (your posts can be very long, and if I wanted to answer sufficiently, my responses would be much longer). 

I will now provide my case in very broad strokes and hopefully you understand where I'm coming from. I believe in the orthodox hypothesis in a probabilistic sense, based on a few things: 

1, the collective strength of the witness and documentary evidence that supports this hypothesis. Testimonies and documents don't carry much weight alone, but when combined with others the probative value increases incrementally. If there are hundreds of documents or testimonies, the evidentiary case becomes very strong. 

2, I don't believe there are any documents that strongly contradict the orthodox, and very few that do in a modest way (one example would be Himmler's "transit camp Sobibor" )

3, that no viable counter hypothesis has been presented really dampens the overall revisionist critique. As I said before I have a strong assumption that in modern times, the fate of millions will be traceable in terms of witness and documentary evidence. So any hypothesis that doesn't fulfill this condition is untenable for me. It's not that it has been proven false, just that I can't accept it as true, especially if it's competing against a theory that does explain in detail what happened to these people.

As for the pits themselves, they are part of the orthodox narrative. I think if one accepts the historicity of a genocidal program at extermination centers, the existence of pits at these camps automatically becomes likely. That witness testimony and documents exist evincing mass burial and body disposal makes this likelihood an all but certainty for me.

[PrudentRegret]

It is very surprising that you find the documentary body of evidence to support the orthodox narrative. Surely the murder of millions of people in gas chambers would leave an enormous amount of documentary evidence, but the orthodox camp is left layering on the assumption that "resettlement" was a codeword for "gassed" in hundreds and hundreds of documents. If you took away that assumption, which is based on (unreliable) witness testimony, it would be completely impossible to piece together the orthodox narrative from the documents.

If you relied soley on the documents prima facie you would arrive at the Revisionist conclusion and could not possibly piece together the orthodox narrative. That means the documentary case is stronger for Revisionists. The orthodox narrative requires an assumption of codewords in hundreds of documents that radically changes the interpretation of those documents.

Chelmno is a good example. There are many documents that describe evacuations as "zur Arbeit ausserhalb des Ghettos
ausgereist” – moved out for work outside the ghetto.

As we have seen above, according to orthodox historiography, the SS used the term Evakuierung (evacuation) in order to camouflage the transfer of Jews to Chełmno for homicidal purposes.

In the “Chronicle of the Łódź Ghetto” the participle wysiedlono = “displaced, evacuated” is used,125 which translates into German as Ausgesiedelte. 126 But here those allegedly gassed in 1944 are no longer referred to as evakuiert or ausgesiedelt but instead as “zur Arbeit aus Litzmannstadt-Getto ausgereist” – moved out of the Łódź ghetto for work. Do we find ourselves faced with an “encrypted” term for murder within an encrypted expression, a kind of double encryption? Who can seriously believe such a thing?

The orthodox narrative would say that "zur Arbeit aus Litzmannstadt-Getto ausgereist" was code for gassed in gas chambers, and count all the Jews on those transports in the death toll for Chelmno, whereas the orthodox narrative would say this documents the evacuation of Jews for work. This applies to hundreds of documents, where the document states what Revisionists say happened and the orthodox "looks beyond" the document. The documentary case for the Revisionists is clearly better since the documents plainly state what Revisionists claim happened.

[Archie]

2, I don't believe there are any documents that strongly contradict the orthodox, and very few that do in a modest way (one example would be Himmler's "transit camp Sobibor" )

How about this Goebbel's diary entry (March 7, 1942)?

I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution of the Jewish Question. This involves a tremendous number of new viewpoints. The Jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are more than 11 million Jews in Europe. They will have to be concentrated first in the East; perhaps later after the war, an island can be assigned to them, such as Madagascar. In any case, there can be no peace in Europe until the last Jews are totally excluded from the European territory.

The usual excuse made is that these kinds of document are euphemistic. But that doesn't work here unless you want to argue that "Madagascar" is a codeword.

Other similar examples here:
viewtopic.php?t=12296

[Lamprecht]

The exterminationist theory is that the "Final Solution" was a policy to kill all of the Jews, only leaving some alive temporarily for labor purposes.
Browning defines "Final Solution" as:
"the systematic attempt to murder every last Jew within the German grasp."

This claim this is supported by the documents nor is it supported by the physical evidence. Additionally, there is no consensus here regarding testimony (the weakest form of evidence). What I'm saying is the testimony goes both ways.

Browning claims that it was "Autumn 1941" when "Final solution" changed from "forced emigration" to "murder every last Jew." Consider that that there is no actual date, because it did not happen. Typically it is stated that the Wannsee conference (January 1942) is when this "murder every last Jew" decision was codified.

This hypothesis is outright contradicted by the documents. Further, there is no physical evidence which can actually be shown to substantiate this hypothesis -- although, if it was true, there would be millions of pounds of physical evidence in exactly known locations. Indeed, you have essentially admitted that a case can not be made for the alleged huge mass graves.

The documents show that "Final Solution" was a very real policy and that the proposed "solution to the Jewish question" went through multiple stages:
0. Pre-NSDAP - Jews such as Herzl (the father of Zionism) stated that a Jewish state was a "solution to the Jewish question."

1. Pre-WW2 - Encouraging emigration from Germany. Most of the Jews in Germany left the country before the outbreak of was (Sept 1939). The war, for obvious reasons, made this problematic. Further, the outbreak of war created a need for labor. Labor camps were set up for this and Jews were arrested and placed in them, along with common criminals and other groups that could not be trusted. Other countries, such as hte USA, also had internment camps during WW2.

2. Beginning of WW2 - Because voluntary emigration ("voluntary" in the sense that they weren't forced, although Jews lost citizenship and other rights to encourage them to leave) was no longer viable, talks were made of resettling/deporting Jews. The measures taken were always considered to be "temporary." Sending able-bodied Jews somewhere and leaving them alone would not have been a sound policy, because they could just take up arms and join the Allied war effort. Madagascar (owned by swiftly-defeated France) was considered for a short period.

3. Middle of WW2 - Although these anti-Jewish measures were still considered temporary, the invasion of the USSR led to more territory opening up that could be used to hold Jews. An obvious issue was stated previously: Able-bodied Jews could take up arms. There was a serious issue with partisans/terrorists in the Eastern territories. Even children/women/elderly could be a threat, providing resources (food, intel, etc) to the partisans.

4. End of WW2 - The "Final Solution" was officially "postponed until after the war" - which, ultimately, was the end of it. Territories were being lost in the East to the Soviets because of the failure of Operation Barbarossa.

Documents:
24 June 1940, Reinhard Heydrich ("One of the main architects of the Holocaust") wrote a letter to Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop:
"Field Marshall General [Goering] commissioned myself in January 1939 with implementing Jewish emigration from the whole Reich territory. Despite difficulties, in the following period it proved possible to successfully continue with Jewish emigration, even during the war... The overall problem... can no longer be solved through emigration however. A territorial final solution is therefore necessary. May I request that I be allowed to participate in any forthcoming discussions concerned with the final solution of the Jewish question should any be planned."

On 12 July 1940, after meeting with Hitler, Hans Frank, Hitler's personal lawyer and governor of occupied Poland, made a speech in which he declared:
"From the viewpoint of general policy, I would like to add that it was decided to deport all the Jewish communities of Germany, of the General Government [Poland], and of the Protectorate [Bohemia-Moravia] to an African or an American colony as soon as possible after having made peace: Madagascar, which France would have to abandon to that end, has been suggested."

On 20 June 1941, the intention to defer the "Solution to the Jewish problem" until after the war was revealed in the "Brown Portfolio," which was devised by Alfred Rosenberg on 20 June 1941. This was later integrated into the "Green Portfolio" of September 1942:
"All measures for the Jewish problem in the occupied eastern territories must be executed with the perspective that the Jewish problem will be solved for all of Europe in general after the war... Measures, which are of a purely harassing nature, are to be refrained from under any circumstances as being unworthy of a German."

On 31 July 1941, Goering sent a letter to Heydrich reaffirming his task
"to solve the Jewish question by emigration and evacuation... for a total solution of the Jewish question in those territories in Europe under German influence."

On 22 August 1941 SS-Sturmbannführer Carltheo Zeitschel, an advisor at the German embassy in Paris, wrote a note to ambassador Otto Abetz, explaining how
"The progressive conquest and occupation of the far eastern territories can presently bring the Jewish problem in all of Europe to a final satisfactory solution..."
via deportations of Jews to these regions.

On 25 October 1941 Franz Rademacher, Legation Counselor at the Foreign Office, composed a note, which announced the shooting of 8,000 male Serbian Jews after "numerous acts of sabotage and revolt" and reported that:
"As soon as the technical possibility exists within the scope of the total solution of the Jewish question, the Jews will be deported by sea to the reception camps in the east."

All of these documents preceding Browning's claim of a "murder every last Jew" policy being implemented detail a German policy of resettlement, deportation, and emigration of Jews. So we should then expect that the documents reflect the change he describes, correct? As you claimed, you
"don't believe there are any documents that strongly contradict the orthodox"
The orthodox position is that "Final Solution" turned into "murder every last Jew" - that is literally the general definition of "The Holocaust"
Except, the documents tell a diffrent story.

On 20 January 1942, the infamous "Wannsee Conference" took place, which is where the "murder every last Jew" policy was allegedly decided upon / officially declared. However, the actual text ("Wannsee Protocols") tells a completely different story:

"The Reichsführer-SS and the Chief of the German Police was entrusted with the official central handling of the final solution of the Jewish question without regard to geographic borders. The Chief of the Security Police and the SD then gave a short report of the struggle which has been carried on thus far against this enemy, the essential points being the following:
a) the expulsion of the Jews from every sphere of life of the German people,
b) the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the German people.
In carrying out these efforts, an increased and planned acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory was started, as the only possible present solution... In the meantime the Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the German Police had prohibited emigration of Jews due to the dangers of an emigration in wartime and due to the possibilities of the East.
Another possible solution of the problem has now taken the place of emigration, i.e. the evacuation of the Jews to the East, provided that the Führer gives the appropriate approval in advance."

Representatives of several branches of the Third Reich Government attended this conference; To put it in perspective, Adolf Eichmann was next to lowest-ranked in attendance.

On 10 February 1942, Franz Rademacher sent to another Third Reich official a memo, stating:
"The war against the Soviet Union has in the meantime created the opportunity to use other territories for the Final Solution. Accordingly, the Führer has decided that the Jews will not be shoved to Madagascar but rather to the east. Madagascar no longer needs to be earmarked for the Final Solution."

Goebbels in his diary entry of 7 March 1942, probably referencing the Wannsee protocols:
"I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution of the Jewish Question. Any final solution involves a tremendous number of new viewpoints. The Jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are 11 million Jews still in Europe. They will have to be concentrated later, to begin with, in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar, can be assigned to them after the war. In any case there can be no peace in Europe until the last Jews are shut off from (ausgeschaltet) the continent."

There are in fact many references to Jews being deported in Goebbels' diaries. He also gives his personal opinion that Jews should just be killed. These quotes are often provided as evidence for this "murder every last Jew" hypothesis, but they're quite the opposite. It's clear from his diaries that mass deportation was the policy in place, and killing Jews (or putting them to work) was his personal opinion on the correct course of action.

27 March 1942, Goebbels' infamous entry, he states:
"Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated (abgeschoben) eastward... The ghettos that will be emptied in the cities of the General Government will now be refilled with Jews thrown out of the Reich. This process is to be repeated from time to time."
In this entry he also gives his opinion that the Jews not working should be "liquidated" (killed, in this case)

Goebbels again, on 20 March 1942:
"...Finally we talk about the Jewish question. Here the Führer is as uncompromising as ever. The Jews must be gotten out of (aus...heraus) Europe, if necessary by applying most brutal methods."

Goebbels again, 29 March 1942:
"In large part the Jews are once again being evacuated (evakuiert) from Berlin. About one thousand per week are shipped (verfrachtet) to the East. The suicide rate under this Jewish evacuation is extraordinarily high. This does not bother me, however."

10 April 1942, Goebbels, after cheering that German suicides are down and Jewish suicides are up, writes:
"At the moment I cannot conduct rigorous evacuations (Evakuierungen), because the strong remaining Jews are needed for the armaments process. But here too a remedy will surely be found in the coming weeks."

Goebbels on 20 April 1942:
"The most recent act of sabotage [in France] against a German military train which resulted in several deaths will be punished with severe reprisals. The number of people to be shot will be doubled, and over a thousand Communists and Jews will be put into freight cars and shipped (verfrachtet) to the East."
If being "shipped to the east" meant just to be gassed in a "murder every last Jew" policy, they could have just been shot right there instead.

27 April 1942, Goebbels:
"I talked to the Führer once more in detail about the Jewish Question. His attitude is unrelenting. He wants, under all circumstances, to push the Jews out (herausdrängen) of Europe... Himmler is presently implementing a large resettlement (Umseidlung) of Jews from German cities to the eastern ghettos."

29 April 1942, Goebbels, an often cited entry:
"The danger of the Partisans continues to exist in unmitigated intensity in the occupied areas. The Partisans have, after all, caused us very great difficulties... Short shrift (kurzen Prozess) is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands must bite the dust, and the Fuhrer's prophecy is fulfilled for them, that Jewry has to pay for inciting a new World War with the complete extirpation (Ausrottung) of their race."

Goebbels seems to be aware that "tens of thousands" would die in the eastern territories. If this was some "murder every last Jew" policy (and not merely a question of fighting a partisan/guerilla war) why would he continually refer to the "Final Solution" as something else?
Consider this next entry, 17 May 1942:
"We are trying now to evacuate (evakuieren) the remaining Jews in Berlin to the East, on a larger scale. One third of all Jews living in Germany are located in the capital... due to the fact that, in Berlin, relatively many Jews are working in the military-industrial establishment, and, per regulation, neither they nor their families can be evacuated (evakuiert). I am seeking a repeal of this regulation, and will try to remove (aus…herauszubringen) all Jews from Berlin who are not directly engaged in war industries."

This makes it rather obvious that the previous entry's description of Jews being killed in Eastern territories was part of a response to terrorist activity, and not part of any sort of "murder every last Jew" policy that would have been months underway.
Keep in mind also that these were private diary entries.

A couple more Goebbels diary entries, 29 May 1942:
"The Jews who remain in the Reich naturally represent an extremely dangerous contingent. They really belong in prison... I am constantly trying to transport (verfrachten) as many Jews as possible to the East; once they are out of reach (aus der Reichweite heraus), they can then do us no harm, at least for the time being."

30 May 1942:
"The Führer does not at all wish that the Jews should be evacuated (evakuiert) to Siberia... He would much prefer to resettle (aussiedeln) them in central Africa... In any case, it is the Führer's goal to make Western Europe completely Jew-free. Here they may no longer have their homeland."

On 21 August 1942, a confidential memorandum was sent by Martin Luther, a participant of the Wannsee Conference, explaining that the Madagascar plan was outdated:
"The fact that the Führer intends to evacuate all Jews from Europe was communicated to me as early as August 1940... Hence, the basic instruction of the Reich Foreign Minister, to promote the evacuation of the Jews in closest cooperation with the agencies of the Reichsführer-SS, is still in force... the whole problem of the approximately three and a quarter million Jews in the areas under German control can no longer be solved by emigration - a territorial final solution would be necessary... the Führer instead of the emigration had now authorized the evacuation of the Jews to the East as the solution... The intended deportations are a further step forward on the way of the total solution and are in respect to other countries (Hungary) very important. The deportation to the Government General is a temporary measure. The Jews will be moved on further to the occupied Eastern Territories as soon as the technical conditions for it are given."

Note: Goebbels has an entry from the same day,
"The Jews are now in large part evacuated (evakuiert) and established in the East. This is quite generous to them. Here the Jewish Question is tackled in the right place, without sentimentality and without much consideration. Only in this way can the Jewish problem be solved."

This policy of postponing the Final Solution (the "Brown Portfolio" policy) is further supported by the "Schlegelberger document" which, although undated, is presumably from March 1942. It states:
"Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over."

A 9 October 1942 notice captioned, "Preparatory Measures for the Solution of the Jewish Problem in Europe – Rumors About the Position of the Jews in the East" also explains clearly the meaning of "Final Solution":
"A complete removal or withdrawal of the millions of Jews residing in the European economic space is therefore an urgent need in the fight for the security of existence of the German people. Starting with the territory of the Reich and proceeding to the remaining European countries included in the final solution, the Jews are currently being deported to large camps which have already been established or which are to be established in the East, where they will either be used for work or else transported still farther to the East."

In a note of 14 November 1942 titled "Financing the measures related to the solution of the Jewish problem" Ministerial Counselor Maedel confirmed that the
"measures appropriate to assuring the final solution of the Jewish problem in Europe"
were initially
"the legal emigration of the Jews to overseas countries."
However,
"When the war made overseas emigration impossible"
preparations were made
"for the progressive clearance of the Reich territory of its Jews by their evacuation to the east."

The last time Goebbels mentions evacuating Jews "to the East" is 2 March 1943, although he continually demands their removal or even killing afterwards:
"We are now definitely pushing the Jews out (aus…hinaus) of Berlin. They were suddenly rounded up last Saturday, and are to be carted off (abgeschoben) to the East as quickly as possible."

This makes sense given that the Battle of Stalingrad was lost in Feb 1943, and it was only downhill from there.

A 11 July 1943 memo by Martin Bormann claims that Hitler prohibited publicly discussing any "future overall solution" to Jewish Question: viewtopic.php?t=12928

Why would there be a "future overall solution" if they were currently "murder[ing] every last Jew" in Europe?

Another document often cited by OP and other orthodox historians is the Korherr Report. In April 1943, Richard Korherr, Inspector for Statistics at the office of the Reichsführer SS, wrote a 16-page report bearing the title:
"The Final Solution to the European Jewish Question"
The report makes no mention of any mass exterminations of Jews, only referencing evacuations and emigrations. Korherr used the term "Special treatment" (Sonderbehandlung) which has been argued by orthodox historians to be a euphemism – or a "code word" – that always has a homicidal meaning.
In 1977, Korherr wrote a letter to Der Spiegel magazine protesting this claim and said that "Special treatment" in the document referred to "Jews who were to be settled in the district of Lublin."
There are also books on the HolocaustHandbooks.com website showing that "Special treatment" did not necessarily mean killing.

OP stated:

2, I don't believe there are any documents that strongly contradict the orthodox, and very few that do in a modest way (one example would be Himmler's "transit camp Sobibor" )

Sorry, but this is not in any "modest" way. The camp is alleged to have been an extermination camp. Even the "secrecy oath" taken by AR staff described the camps as for resettlement. To be signed by those:
"with special duties in the execution of tasks in the evacuation of Jews within the framework of 'Einsatz Reinhardt'" viewtopic.php?t=12924

The documents are extremely clear that there was no "murder every last Jew" policy. It has previously been pointed out that documents you have provided detailing executions of Jews contradicts your position. Indeed, providing a justification for executing Jews (in this case: safety, as they were assisting partisan terrorists) contradicts the "murder every last Jew" hypothesis.

[bombsaway]

It is very surprising that you find the documentary body of evidence to support the orthodox narrative. Surely the murder of millions of people in gas chambers would leave an enormous amount of documentary evidence, but the orthodox camp is left layering on the assumption that "resettlement" was a codeword for "gassed" in hundreds and hundreds of documents.

Considering documents alone, I've found there are a few that concretely indicate a top-secret program of mass killing + body destruction at camps, but none that concretely indicate a top-secret resettlement program past 1942. This is based on descriptive content -- so neither Goebbels diary 'liquidated' or Himmler's 'transit camp sobibor' would count as evidence here.

An example would be the Just Memo, which indicates the use of homicidal gas vans at Chelmno. The meaning of this document, if authentic, is unmistakable

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... tml#_doc10

How about this Goebbel's diary entry (March 7, 1942)?

In my view this would be an example of a document that mildly contradicts the orthodox narrative. But Goebbels is clearly speculating -- he uses the word 'perhaps'. He was clearly aware of killings happening in occupied USSR but may not have been kept abreast of all developments concerning 'the final solution', which according to orthodoxy, was planned mainly within the SS.

[bombsaway]

Lamprecht, of the documents you quoted, which would you say contradicts the mainstream narrative most strongly?

[Lamprecht]

1, the collective strength of the witness and documentary evidence that supports this hypothesis. Testimonies and documents don't carry much weight alone, but when combined with others the probative value increases incrementally. If there are hundreds of documents or testimonies, the evidentiary case becomes very strong. 

Witnesses - especially victims - are the lowest form of evidence imaginable. Not to mention only a tiny minority claim anything contradicting the revisionist position. Additionally, many contradict it
Further, the documentary evidence goes overwhelmingly against your position. See above.

2, I don't believe there are any documents that strongly contradict the orthodox, and very few that do in a modest way (one example would be Himmler's "transit camp Sobibor" )

No, they overwhelmingly go against it. Revisionists literally have the position that "Final Solution" was exactly what the documents said it is.
I think Irving said (before his arrest and failed lawsuit) something like that he never found evidence for a "Holocaust" in the documents. It just wasn't there, you wouldn't come to that conclusion just by reading the documents, you'd have to be told ahead of time that this is what happened.
There is of course no order to "murder every last Jew" -- the alleged "Holocaust" as claimed.
And it's not "modest" - this is alleged to have been a pure extermination camp with Jews being gassed and dumped into pits. Calling it a "transit camp" directly contradicts your conspiracy theory in the most essential way. Further, you cannot show the alleged massive pits at this site that would actually prove it to be an extermination camp.

3, that no viable counter hypothesis has been presented really dampens the overall revisionist critique.

The counter hypothesis is "the documents describing the Final Solution are accurate"

As I said before I have a strong assumption that in modern times, the fate of millions will be traceable in terms of witness and documentary evidence. So any hypothesis that doesn't fulfill this condition is untenable for me. It's not that it has been proven false, just that I can't accept it as true, especially if it's competing against a theory that does explain in detail what happened to these people.

Except you haven't been able to make a case for this. I asked you a few questions and you kept saying it was too much work to answer.
You have not been able to make any sort of valid argument that there is documentary/testimonial evidence that should exist that does not
You act like it's a given. No, the pits are a given. For your conspiracy theory to be true, there must be massive pits full of the human remains of hundreds of thousands each at these so-called "extermination camps."
For the people to have not been dumped into pits, but to have gone elsewhere, the only necessary condition is that the pits aren't there. There is no reason to believe that they are there, except faith.

As for the pits themselves, they are part of the orthodox narrative. I think if one accepts the historicity of a genocidal program at extermination centers, the existence of pits at these camps automatically becomes likely.

Of course. If you believe that these camps were "extermination camps" where hundreds of thousands were gassed and dumped into pits, the existence of the pits is not just likely it is a certainty. Millions of pounds of physical evidence can't magically disappear.
That's why it's so important for your conspiracy theory to be true for the pits to exist.
Except they don't. You can't even make a case for them existing.
Meanwhile, it's not important to have complete travel itineraries for millions of Jews from 80 years ago for the revisionist position to be true.
In fact, we have records of Jews from these AR camps arriving at other camps. No record of them being sent from that camp. Clearly, the records are missing/lost/destroyed.

That witness testimony and documents exist evincing mass burial and body disposal makes this likelihood an all but certainty for me.

This is completely laughable. It doesn't matter how many people claim a massive pit exists somewhere. They can even type up a document saying it's there. But if it's not there, it's not there. It's that simple.
And they're simply not there.
You were asked about alleged mass graves from 3 different sites: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14850
You couldn't make the case for even one of the alleged pits!
NOT ONE!

[Lamprecht]

Lamprecht, of the documents you quoted, which would you say contradicts the mainstream narrative most strongly?

None of them "most strongly" contradict it, as most contradict it equally. They outright say that the solution is moving Jews elsewhere.

If you want to go 1-by-1 we can start with this 10 February 1942 memo sent by Franz Rademacher, Head of AA Referat D III (Jewish Affairs), to Harold Bielfeld, Head of AA Pol. X (Africa and Colonial Affairs)
From document NG-5770 (ADAP, Serie E, Bd. I, Nr.227, p. 405); also document NG-3933 of the Wilhelmstrasse trial:

"Im August 1940 übergab ich Ihnen für Ihre Akten den von meinem Referat entworfenen Plan zur Endlösung der Judenfrage, wozu die Insel Madagaskar von Frankreich im Friedensvertrag gefordert, die praktische Durchführung der Aufgabe aber dem Reichssicherheitshauptamt übertragen werden sollte. [...]
Der Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion hat inzwischen die Möglichkeit gegeben, andere Territorien für die Endlösung zur Verfügung zu stellen. Demgemäß hat der Führer entschieden, daß die Juden nicht nach Madagaskar, sondern nach dem Osten abgeschoben werden sollen. Madagaskar braucht mithin nicht mehr für die Endlösung vorgesehen zu werden."

Translated:

"In August 1940, I presented to you for your files the plan drawn up by my unit for the Final Solution of the Jewish question, for which the island of Madagascar was demanded by France in a peace treaty, but the practical implementation of the task should be transferred to the Reich Security Main Office. [...]
The war against the Soviet Union has in the meantime created the opportunity to use other territories for the Final Solution. Accordingly, the Führer has decided that the Jews will not be shoved to Madagascar but rather to the east. Madagascar no longer needs to be earmarked for the Final Solution"

Also found in: “Memo to Minister Ernst Bielfeld” (10 February 1942), in The Holocaust: Selected Documents in Eighteen Volumes vol. 12, ed. John Mendelsohn (New York & London: Garland, 1982), p. 2.
And: https://codoh.com/library/document/887/

[Lamprecht]

OP mentioned:

hundreds of documents

Can you provide ONE (01) legitimate war-time Third Reich document where "Final Solution" was defined as "murder every last Jew" (Browning's words) or something just like that?

[Hektor]

....
I will now provide my case in very broad strokes and hopefully you understand where I'm coming from. I believe in the orthodox hypothesis in a probabilistic sense, based on a few things: 

1, the collective strength of the witness and documentary evidence that supports this hypothesis. Testimonies and documents don't carry much weight alone, but when combined with others the probative value increases incrementally. If there are hundreds of documents or testimonies, the evidentiary case becomes very strong. 

2, I don't believe there are any documents that strongly contradict the orthodox, and very few that do in a modest way (one example would be Himmler's "transit camp Sobibor" )

3, that no viable counter hypothesis has been presented really dampens the overall revisionist critique. As I said before I have a strong assumption that in modern times, the fate of millions will be traceable in terms of witness and documentary evidence. So any hypothesis that doesn't fulfill this condition is untenable for me. It's not that it has been proven false, just that I can't accept it as true, especially if it's competing against a theory that does explain in detail what happened to these people.
....

That's the usual argument by court historians: 'convergence of evidence' Backed up by their 'consensus', which is agreeing opinions. Who disagrees will essentially end his career. The problem is that with the total available evidence, the picture changes immediately. But it is easier to pick some snippets and present them than looking at the overall evidence and analyze this.
Also. How were the documents verified? The modus operandi is that there is a piece of paper, it suits us, that's why it is authentic. No critical examination or verification is ever done. And when the document is indeed fishy, admitting that there are forgeries is avoided.

1. Show us the documents and testimonies that make up the case. They commonly are circumstantial in type. Or just as well in line with the Revisionist Thesis. And what do you make of the absence of physical evidence that actually supports the hypothesis?
2. There is millions of documents and records relating to Jewish policy during WW2. What are they supposed to say? Of course those documents are circumstantial. But since they also demonstrate that it was policy to keep Jews alive they contradict the thesis.
3. The viable counter hypothesis is that it was NS policy to remove all Jews from the German sphere of influence. Additionally it has been demonstrated over and over again that the Allies and Jewish organizations engaged in atrocity propaganda, psychological warfare and deception operations.

The rational thing to do is to dismiss the Holocaust Thesis on rational and empirical grounds.

[fireofice]

An example would be the Just Memo, which indicates the use of homicidal gas vans at Chelmno. The meaning of this document, if authentic, is unmistakable

Except it's not authentic and describes an impossible gassing procedure.

The demand to have two slits of 10 cm × 1 cm added to the rear wall of the cargo box so that excess gas can escape means that at the time the memo was written no such slits existed and that the gas had no other way of escaping – or else the slits would have been superfluous. Hence the cargo boxes would have been sealed hermetically and the gas pressure would have built up inside until the doors were opened; many “witness testimonies” as well as the Becker document analyzed before confirm this explicitly. Nonetheless these boxes are said to have gassed almost 100,000 human beings. In my mind this is a radical impossibility.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/26-tgv.pdf page 70

[Lamprecht]

Considering documents alone, I've found there are a few that concretely indicate a top-secret program of mass killing + body destruction at camps, but none that concretely indicate a top-secret resettlement program past 1942.

Can you show a document describing "Final Solution" as "murder every last Jew"?
Keep in mind that cremation was a sanitary measure.
Further, the resettlement program was "postponed" in early 1943, which is why it was not discussed past 1942.

This is based on descriptive content -- so neither Goebbels diary 'liquidated' or Himmler's 'transit camp sobibor' would count as evidence here.

Except these are inconsistent with your conspiracy theory.

An example would be the Just Memo, which indicates the use of homicidal gas vans at Chelmno. The meaning of this document, if authentic, is unmistakable

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... tml#_doc10

Of course anyone can type whatever they want on a piece of paper. A "top secret" paper, no copies, somehow not destroyed. And how was it "discovered" exactly?
97 thousand allegedly gassed in laughable "gas vans" that can not be shown to exist, using a ridiculous method of murder. And the alleged huge mass graves these 97 thousand were dumped into? Magically disappeared, apparently.

[hermod]

[bombsaway]

3. The viable counter hypothesis is that it was NS policy to remove all Jews from the German sphere of influence.

It's not viable (not proven false, but simply there's no reason to believe in it) because of lack of evidence. eg there are no policy documents concerning related to the actual maintenance of Jews wherever they went and there probably should be. In the Transnistria thread I quoted multiple detailed censuses that were taken of resettled Jews in that area, but apparently this is just the tip of the iceberg. http://hauster.de/data/Ancel/17020501Ancel.pdf This folder contains ~80 documents related the fate of Romanian Jews deported into Transnistria, including their arrival and eventual transport back into Romania. In between we see detailed policy documents related to complications with the deportations and resettlement, security and logistics, health concerns, etc . Revisionists on this forum seem to be split on whether Korherr's 1.45 million Jews "transported into the Russian East" actually made into Occupied USSR at all, and I think this speaks to the lack of knowledge about what happened to them.

Lamprecht wrote:

bombsaway wrote:
Lamprecht, of the documents you quoted, which would you say contradicts the mainstream narrative most strongly?

None of them "most strongly" contradict it, as most contradict it equally. They outright say that the solution is moving Jews elsewhere.

. . .

Translated:
"In August 1940, I presented to you for your files the plan drawn up by my unit for the Final Solution of the Jewish question, for which the island of Madagascar was demanded by France in a peace treaty, but the practical implementation of the task should be transferred to the Reich Security Main Office. [...]
The war against the Soviet Union has in the meantime created the opportunity to use other territories for the Final Solution. Accordingly, the Führer has decided that the Jews will not be shoved to Madagascar but rather to the east. Madagascar no longer needs to be earmarked for the Final Solution"

Also found in: “Memo to Minister Ernst Bielfeld” (10 February 1942), in The Holocaust: Selected Documents in Eighteen Volumes vol. 12, ed. John Mendelsohn (New York & London: Garland, 1982), p. 2.
And: https://codoh.com/library/document/887/

Thanks for going 1 by 1. Just as you argued that there would have been a need for internal secrecy concerning a mass resettlement program, historians also argue there was a need for internal secrecy for a mass killing program. So I think the expectation would be that people who had no role to play in such a program were not going to be alerted to it, especially in writing. Bielfeld, who worked outside of the continent, is a perfect example of a person it would have been completely unnecessary to inform about any plan of mass killing.

This letter also illustrates something very important, namely that even assuming the revisionist version of events is true, the various departments and people involved were not at all in lockstep.

Rademacher is definitive in calling the movement of Jews east 'The Final Solution' whereas in the Goebbels diary entry 1 month later (just posted by PrudentRegret), Goebbels calls it a beginning : "They will have to be concentrated later, to begin with, in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar, can be assigned to them after the war."

Such inconsistencies are to be expected.

Lamprecht wrote:
Can you provide ONE (01) legitimate war-time Third Reich document where "Final Solution" was defined as "murder every last Jew" (Browning's words) or something just like that?


Lamprecht wrote:
Can you show a document describing "Final Solution" as "murder every last Jew"?

Browning certainly doesn't believe this and I don't think any historian worth their salt does. The narrative is that employable Jews were seen as valuable, so no thought was given to killing them.

The Wannsee protocols seem to indicate that after the war the surviving Jews were going to be prevented from reproducing (this probably meant killing or sterilization, genocidal either way)

Under appropriate direction the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in an expedient manner in the course of the final solution. In large (labor) columns, with the sexes separated, Jews capable of work will be moved into these areas as they build roads, during which a large proportion will no doubt drop out through natural reduction. The remnant that eventually remains will require suitable treatment; because it will without doubt represent the most [physically] resistant part, it consists of a natural selection that could, on its release, become the germ-cell of a new Jewish revival. (Witness the experience of history.)

[PrudentRegret]

bombsaway, you underestimate the difficulty of tracking demographic statistics and population movements, especially during the largest war in history in the most violent areas- where the front was pushed back and forth, refugees fled and were variously deported, borders were changed, there was a propaganda war intent on accusing Germany of having factory-exterminated millions of Jews. People move around.

Consider this 2013 article from the NYT:

THIRTEEN years ago, researchers at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum began the grim task of documenting all the ghettos, slave labor sites, concentration camps and killing factories that the Nazis set up throughout Europe.

What they have found so far has shocked even scholars steeped in the history of the Holocaust.

The researchers have cataloged some 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe, spanning German-controlled areas from France to Russia and Germany itself, during Hitler’s reign of brutality from 1933 to 1945.

The figure is so staggering that even fellow Holocaust scholars had to make sure they had heard it correctly when the lead researchers previewed their findings at an academic forum in late January at the German Historical Institute in Washington.

“The numbers are so much higher than what we originally thought,” Hartmut Berghoff, director of the institute, said in an interview after learning of the new data...

When the research began in 2000, Dr. Megargee said he expected to find perhaps 7,000 Nazi camps and ghettos, based on postwar estimates. But the numbers kept climbing — first to 11,500, then 20,000, then 30,000, and now 42,500.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/sund ... cking.html

So Dr. Megargee's estimate of the number of camps in the year 2000 was off by a factor of 6, and that is only the camps which have been discovered so far. You say it should be easy to track population movements of people, but why were tens of thousands of camps overlooked? Camps require logistics, budgeting, planning, and documentation but they escaped the historical record until very recently.

What does not move around are dead bodies or cremated remains. The fact remains you are claiming, i.e. 700,000 - 900,000 Jews were murdered and buried on the site of the present Treblinka memorial museum. Any reasonable person should expect a large amount of physical evidence for that claim. If that evidence has not been provided, you should be skeptical the claim is true. The fact is, it is not even documented that this number of Jews ever even arrived at that site.