tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post3979505955581915148..comments2024-03-20T07:25:58.202+00:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: Early 1943: Rosenberg Promises Total ExterminationNicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-48669945929366591072016-08-13T22:53:21.157+01:002016-08-13T22:53:21.157+01:00"Jews could come back only because they were ..."Jews could come back only because they were allowed to do it, what would have been impossible with a final solution as the one I've formulated above."<br /><br />It's precisely the fact that expulsions didn't work in previous centuries that leads Rosenberg to speak of biology - i.e. a biological solution. Mere expulsion isn't enough, is what this dogwhistle was saying. Other Nazis were more overt about this: a senior Nazi in the Netherlands predicted, correctly, in late 1941, that expulsion from one part of Europe to the east was absolutely no solution, therefore the Jews had to be destroyed. <br /><br />Rosenberg goes on to reject ghettos and reservations. There's no reason to think that this rejection is confined to Europe; the Jews are so dangerous to a Nazi antisemite like Rosenberg, and their track record in returning to countries that expelled them so proven, that this is why the 'no Jews left in Europe' conclusion carries its menace. <br /><br />"You should concede that a policy of full extermination through mass murders isn't in this speech either."<br /><br />Actually, it's not a policy speech. That's source criticism 101. <br /><br />Rosenberg is expatiating at length about the Jewish question without mentioning any specifics whatsoever - yet the rhetoric points in a pretty clear direction. <br /><br />"And as far as the alleged historical context of 1943 is concerned, I think I don't need to mention that I don't regard it as proven and satisfactorily substantiated. See my explanation about erroneous conclusions within false paradigms above..."<br /><br />The only false paradigm I can see is revisionism and the erroneous conclusions it leads people like you to make. <br /><br />If you want to continue this discussion, the first lines better state clearly that you have found some evidence from the planning level (RSHA or Foreign Office) after February 1942 talking about the Final Solution being implemented in stages, or involving expulsion outside Europe. If I don't see that then the post might well not be approved and will be flushed. So don't bother fisking.Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-16371729003422284012016-08-13T22:45:21.169+01:002016-08-13T22:45:21.169+01:00Unknown: "Note that the second quote doesn...Unknown: "Note that the second quote doesn't refer to Jews being killed either."<br /><br />I said that already. <br /><br />"You cannot deny that there would of course have been no longer any Jews in Europe when the last Jew had left Europe."<br /><br />But Rosenberg's 1943 speech does't refer to Jews leaving Europe. It said that the JQ would be solved when there were no more Jews left in Europe. <br /><br />"You're free to interpret both quotes as meaning the Nazi anti-Jewish policy had changed meanwhile and moved to a genocidal policy, but it's far from being the only possible interpretation."<br /><br />Historical source criticism dictates that both quotes *must* be interpreted in the light of the fact that Nazi Jewish policy *had* changed. This narrows the range of probable interpretations down considerably - mere possibilities and coulds, woulds, and shoulds don't cut it. <br /><br />Rosenberg was an utter gasbag, and this speech is laden down with long-winded verbiage, but in making these remarks he was rather clever in how he phrased things, especially compared to Goebbels' faux pas at the Sportpalast around this same time, blurting out "extirpation" by accident, or Streicher writing that a Swiss Jewish newspaper reporting about millions of Jewish deaths was "not a Jewish lie", or Himmler being utterly blunt at Sonthofen in 1944. <br /><br />To listeners who knew what was actually happening, Rosenberg signalled pretty clearly that the Jews were being killed, without ever needing to say so. To listeners who remembered earlier Rosenberg speeches and his fetish for Madagascar, then those people could delude themselves into thinking 'no more Jews in Europe' meant 'Jews leaving Europe'. Except as I keep having to point out, Rosenberg didn't say that at all. <br /><br />Therefore your interpretation is not unlike the desperate attempts of Trump apologists to claim that the orange buffoon didn't really say xyz outrageous statement, or if he did he didn't mean it, except if he did, or maybe it was sarcasm, no wait he did mean it, but not really.<br /><br />Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-77030412186636237892016-08-13T22:17:47.067+01:002016-08-13T22:17:47.067+01:00"I fail to see why a full territorial evictio..."I fail to see why a full territorial eviction after the end of a victorious war had become impossible in 1943."<br /><br />Well, that would be because the Nazis had abandoned a territorial solution in early 1942 and started implementing extermination. The knowledge of what the Final Solution *actually was*, and all the sources - I repeat, all the sources - that document extermination must be considered when interpreting a source like the Rosenberg speech from early 1943. <br /><br />One could potentially claim that Rosenberg had his head in the clouds and still clung to earlier schemes, but that would mean he was out of the loop regarding what the Final Solution had become; it's also not very probable given the sources available regarding the involvement of the Eastern Ministry in exterminating Jews in the USSR, and the utter silence from Eastern Ministry sources regarding any reservation being set up in the occupied eastern territories.<br /><br />"Do you have anything proving that the Final Solution was to be fully completed during the war, not partly during the war and partly after its end?"<br /><br />The entire paper trail from 1942 onwards proves that, because it doesn't mention partial completion after the war - only with the Mischlinge question is there an explicit postponement. <br /><br />There's also the fact that much of the Final Solution had been completed: the bulk of Polish Jews had been killed, there was an order to deport Jews not falling under exception clauses from the Reich by mid-1943, and things were well under way in other parts of Europe. <br /><br />At the time of Rosenberg's speech, and for several months afterwards, Hitler, Himmler, Ribbentrop, ambassadors and others were all working very hard to persuade Italy, Hungary and Romania, the main holdouts, to hand over their Jews. The Nazis weren't able to persuade all of them, but the war was more and more obviously lost, and they resigned themselves to having done as much as they could, of having deprived the Jews of their "biological reservoirs" in Eastern Europe.Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-50141572237873888862016-08-13T22:17:35.824+01:002016-08-13T22:17:35.824+01:00"I've seen nothing in your comment that s..."I've seen nothing in your comment that shows the Madagascar Plan was dead, i.e. permanently dropped, and not just in a coma, i.e. temporarily off." <br /><br />My comment referred to a letter from Rademacher in the Foreign Office in February 1942 in which it was stated that Madagascar was „nicht mehr für die Endlösung vorgesehen zu werden" (Brechtken, 'Madagskar fuer die Juden', p.268), Rademacher also wrote in the same month that „daß der Madagaskar-Plan des Referats D III auf Grund der neuen Entwicklung, wie sie Obergruppenführer Heydrich Unterstaatssekretär Luther dargelegt hat, hinfällig geworden ist" (Brechtken, p.280)<br /><br />There isn't a single further document in either the Foreign Office files or any surviving files of the RSHA that refers to Madagascar. <br /><br />There *are* references to Madagascar in 1942 by Hitler and Goebbels, the latter reacting to the Wannsee protocol by musing out loud about Madagascar on 7 March 1942, but neither he nor the Propaganda Ministry had been invited to Wannsee, so his musing is evidence he was out of the loop at that moment - he was clued in twenty days later regarding Globocnik's liquidation actions in the Lublin region. <br /><br />Hitler sounded off about Madagascar in some 'table talk' monologues up to the summer of 1942, but these were verbal farts on a par with his actual flatulence; no orders cascaded down the chain of command to turn his daydreaming into reality, because in reality the SS and Foreign Office were busy implementing the Final Solution in its new form, involving extermination. <br /><br />Which Hitler then boasted about in his speech of 30 September 1942 in sufficiently explicit terms that countless contemporary observers regarded this as confirmation of the news emerging from other sources that the Nazis were indeed exterminating Jews en masse<br /><br />"And anyway, as I said in my previous comment, the world is vast and the formulation and implementation of other mass-resettlement plans were by no means impossible or unrealistic."<br /><br />But the Nazis were implementing the Final Solution already in 1942, not planning for the future. <br /><br />Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-41575281509670291702016-08-13T22:17:02.788+01:002016-08-13T22:17:02.788+01:00Unknown: "Doesn't that 'historical co...Unknown: "Doesn't that 'historical context,' aka victors' narrative, precisely come from an accumulation of similar circular reasonings supposed to support each others in an alleged 'convergence of evidence'? Looks like Astronomy of the past and the erroneous conclusions drawn from the interpretation of astronomical data in a geocentric perspective, within a geocentric model. Most of time, false paradigms lead to false conclusions that seem logical and coherent but are erroneous nevertheless."<br /><br />That's a remarkable amount of flatulent rhetoric, and ignores what I wrote. Jon used<br /><br />1) Historical context <br />2) other sources<br /><br />to interpret this Rosenberg speech. This is standard historical criticism, not the application of a "paradigm".<br /><br />The historical context, explicit and implicit, includes not only the defeat at Stalingrad but the earlier defeat before Moscow, which led to the abandonment of extremely vague plans to deport Jews to northern Russia and/or Siberia, definitively so by the spring of 1942. Context also includes the Wannsee conference and the subsequent course of Nazi deportations of Jews in 1942. Strategic planning for the 1942 campaign, which concentrated on the southern sector and had more limited ambitions in the northern and central sectors, is also relevant context.<br /><br />Jon referred to an earlier Rosenberg speech in November 1941 which was made at a time when the Nazis still hoped to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941, and when the territories under Rosenberg's administrations might have extended further east than became the case. He noted a contrast between the two speeches. I added a further speech to note another contrast.<br /><br />"...Nothing says that a final solution was to be fully achieved during the war. There is nothing unlikely or absurd in a final solution partly achieved during the war and fully completed (actually finalized) after the war. My own view and understanding of the Nazi Final solution was a 2-stage operation with Europe's Jews first gathered & imprisoned in concentration camps, ghettos and reservations (during the war) and then forcibly expelled and permanently held in a specific controlled area (after a war, in the event of a German victory)."<br /><br />Literally no sources speak of the main part of the Final Solution being solved in wartime and postwar stages. Your understanding is based on a fantasy. <br /><br />"Mass murder is not the only option to extirpate a mortal enemy. A solution as that I've just depicted can also achieve the efficient extirpation of a mortal enemy."<br /><br />Indeed, the Nazis also used starvation and maltreatment to bring about the accelerated demise of Jews, and discussed sterilisation as a biological solution. Your depiction is still a fantasy, though.<br /><br />Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-61785518265434547622016-08-13T17:05:25.410+01:002016-08-13T17:05:25.410+01:00"In March 1941, Rosenberg said 'wenn der ..."In March 1941, Rosenberg said 'wenn der letzte Jude den europaeischen Kontinent verlassen hat'. This is more active; the solution comes from the Jews *leaving*. In 1943, Rosenberg instead says,'wenn es keinen Juden mehr auf dem europaeischen Kontinent gibt'. This retains the key wording, but simply doesn't refer to Jews leaving at all."<br /><br />Note that the second quote doesn't refer to Jews being killed either. You cannot deny that there would of course have been no longer any Jews in Europe when the last Jew had left Europe. You're free to interpret both quotes as meaning the Nazi anti-Jewish policy had changed meanwhile and moved to a genocidal policy, but it's far from being the only possible interpretation.<br /><br />"What he does say earlier in the speech is that simply pushing Jews from country to country results in them coming back, therefore the Jewish question cannot be solved in one country alone"<br /><br />Jews could come back only because they were allowed to do it, what would have been impossible with a final solution as the one I've formulated above.<br /><br />"You're the one reading too much into the speech. What you want to read - eviction to Madagascar or some other extra-European destination - simply isn't in the text, nor is it in the historical context of 1943."<br /><br />You should concede that a policy of full extermination through mass murders isn't in this speech either. And as far as the alleged historical context of 1943 is concerned, I think I don't need to mention that I don't regard it as proven and satisfactorily substantiated. See my explanation about erroneous conclusions within false paradigms above...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03185749542012158102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-88251821687237969082016-08-13T17:04:55.325+01:002016-08-13T17:04:55.325+01:00"No, it's not. Jon Harrison interpreted R..."No, it's not. Jon Harrison interpreted Rosenberg's early 1943 speech by comparing the words to the historical context. Doing so is not "fallacious", nor does it result in "circular reasoning"" <br /><br />Doesn't that 'historical context,' aka victors' narrative, precisely come from an accumulation of similar circular reasonings supposed to support each others in an alleged 'convergence of evidence'? Looks like Astronomy of the past and the erroneous conclusions drawn from the interpretation of astronomical data in a geocentric perspective, within a geocentric model. Most of time, false paradigms lead to false conclusions that seem logical and coherent but are erroneous nevertheless.<br /><br />"Rosenberg was not talking about a policy that would be enacted after a final victory. Earlier in the speech, Rosenberg says 'Und nun gehen wir daran, diesen Schmutz einmal auszurotten, und was heute mit der Ausschaltung der Juden aus aller Staaten des europaeischen Kontinents geschieht, ist auch eine Humanitaet'. This remark received applause, as did the one Jon quoted in the blog post. That quote is followed by Rosenberg calling the Jews 'our mortal enemies'."<br /><br />Nothing says that a final solution was to be fully achieved during the war. There is nothing unlikely or absurd in a final solution partly achieved during the war and fully completed (actually finalized) after the war. My own view and understanding of the Nazi Final solution was a 2-stage operation with Europe's Jews first gathered & imprisoned in concentration camps, ghettos and reservations (during the war) and then forcibly expelled and permanently held in a specific controlled area (after a war, in the event of a German victory).<br /><br />"These are all typical Rosenberg themes: the references to biology and to extirpation (ausrotten) and the identification of the Jews as a mortal enemy."<br /><br />Mass murder is not the only option to extirpate a mortal enemy. A solution as that I've just depicted can also achieve the efficient extirpation of a mortal enemy.<br /> <br />"Sorry, but no, the Madagascar plan was formally dead in the eyes of the RSHA and Foreign Office as of February 1942, after the Wannsee conference. So Rosenberg knew full well that Madagascar, an idea he had advocated in 1938 and 1940, was off the table."<br /><br />I've seen nothing in your comment that shows the Madagascar Plan was dead, i.e. permanently dropped, and not just in a coma, i.e. temporarily off. And anyway, as I said in my previous comment, the world is vast and the formulation and implementation of other mass-resettlement plans were by no means impossible or unrealistic.<br /><br />"The cover up consists only of not saying outright that the Jews are being killed. Rosenberg used similar language in a speech given in March 1941. That was in a different context; the time-frame for the Jews to be made to leave Europe was lengthy, the task seen as something that would be fulfilled after the end of a victorious war."<br /><br />I fail to see why a full territorial eviction after the end of a victorious war had become impossible in 1943.<br /><br />"The Nazis stopped talking about solving the Jewish question 'after the war' at the end of 1941; from then on the main part of the solution of the Jewish question was meant to happen during the war (leaving only thorny problems like Mischlinge to 'after the war')."<br /><br />Do you have anything proving that the Final Solution was to be fully completed during the war, not partly during the war and partly after its end?<br /> Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03185749542012158102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-17697304557216907742016-08-12T02:45:51.812+01:002016-08-12T02:45:51.812+01:00"Doesn't change the fact that the content..."Doesn't change the fact that the contention that "the method could only be direct killing" is fallacious. Circular reasoning."<br /><br />No, it's not. Jon Harrison interpreted Rosenberg's early 1943 speech by comparing the words to the historical context. Doing so is not "fallacious", nor does it result in "circular reasoning", because the inference being drawn from the words depends on something external, namely context, and knowledge of other sources. <br /><br />"...Most Germans believed in a German final victory until quite late in the war."<br /><br />Rosenberg was not talking about a policy that would be enacted after a final victory. He was making a speech in which he discussed and justified Nazi Jewish policy. Earlier in the speech, Rosenberg says 'Und nun gehen wir daran, diesen Schmutz einmal auszurotten, und was heute mit der Ausschaltung der Juden aus aller Staaten des europaeischen Kontinents geschieht, ist auch eine Humanitaet, und zwar eine harte, biologische Humanitaet'. This remark received applause, as did the one Jon quoted in the blog post. That quote is followed by Rosenberg calling the Jews 'our mortal enemies' (unsere Todfeinde).<br /><br />These are all typical Rosenberg themes: the references to biology and to extirpation (ausrotten) and the identification of the Jews as a mortal enemy. <br /><br />"...The Madagascar Plan wasn't dead. It was in a coma at best. Nothing says it wouldn't have been revived if the Germans had won WW2..."<br /><br />Sorry, but no, the Madagascar plan was formally dead in the eyes of the RSHA and Foreign Office as of February 1942, after the Wannsee conference. The Nazis saw new "possibilities in the east", as it says in the Wannsee protocol. Rosenberg's deputy minister Gauleiter Meyer, as well as Georg Leibbrandt, attended Wannsee. So Rosenberg knew full well that Madagascar, an idea he had advocated in 1938 and 1940, was off the table.<br /><br />"I don't find the cover-up theory very convincing. Sounds more like a prejudiced reading of general & inocuous terms."<br /><br />The cover up consists only of not saying outright that the Jews are being killed. Rosenberg used similar language in a speech given in March 1941, but with a significant difference in emphasis. That was in a different context; the time-frame for the Jews to be made to leave Europe was lengthy, the task seen as something that would be fulfilled after the end of a victorious war.<br /><br />The Nazis stopped talking about solving the Jewish question 'after the war' at the end of 1941; from then on the main part of the solution of the Jewish question was meant to happen during the war (leaving only thorny problems like Mischlinge to 'after the war'). By the time of the 1943 speech the Final Solution had been underway for quite some time, and Rosenberg knew this. <br /><br />In March 1941, Rosenberg said 'Fuer Europa ist die Judenfrage erst dann geloest, wenn der letzte Jude den europaeischen Kontinent verlassen hat'. This is more active; the solution comes from the Jews *leaving*.<br /><br />In 1943, Rosenberg instead says, 'Die Judenfrage in Europa und in Deutschland ist nur dann geloest, wenn es keinen Juden mehr auf dem europaeischen Kontinent gibt'. This retains the key wording, but simply doesn't refer to Jews leaving at all.<br /><br />What he does say earlier in the speech is that simply pushing Jews from country to country results in them coming back, therefore the Jewish question cannot be solved in one country alone; he repeats this and rejects ghettos. <br /><br />You're the one reading too much into the speech. What you want to read - eviction to Madagascar or some other extra-European destination - simply isn't in the text, nor is it in the historical context of 1943.Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-72027850592614697672016-08-12T00:04:48.870+01:002016-08-12T00:04:48.870+01:00"But the Final Solution was already being ena...<br />"But the Final Solution was already being enacted *during the war* and had been for well over a year by the time of Rosenberg's speech"<br /><br />Doesn't change the fact that the contention that "the method could only be direct killing" is fallacious. Circular reasoning.<br /><br />"made after the defeat at Stalingrad."<br /><br />Certainly a hard blow for the German war effort. But the German defeat at Stalingrad as the turning point of WW2 and the beginning of the end for the Germans, is a post-war interpretation. Most Germans believed in a German final victory until quite late in the war.<br /><br />"The Madagascar Plan had been dead for a full year by the time Rosenberg made this speech."<br /><br />The world is vast and belongs to the victor(s). Don't tell me that the Germans COULDN'T have found a large remote area for the confinement of Europe's Jewry somewhere on this planet - in Madagascar or elsewhere - in the event of a German victory. The Madagascar Plan wasn't dead. It was in a coma at best. Nothing says it wouldn't have been revived if the Germans had won WW2. All this in a revisionist outlook - with very numerous Jews alive to deport and resettle after the war - of course.<br /><br />"Rosenberg knew that policy and plans had changed, the most that can be said about this 1943 speech is that he fell back on previous rhetoric to try and cover up what he knew what was actually happening, i.e. mass murder."<br /><br />I don't find the cover-up theory very convincing. Sounds more like a prejudiced reading of general & inocuous terms.<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03185749542012158102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-58667329950420523532016-08-11T18:50:19.826+01:002016-08-11T18:50:19.826+01:00@Reactionary,
Yes, radicalisation. Literally ever...@Reactionary,<br /><br />Yes, radicalisation. Literally every historian and social scientist who is alive today points to clear signs of a radicalisation of Nazi policy from 1933 to 1942, with the greatest radicalisation taking place from 1939 to 1941. <br /><br />The view that the Nazis, or Hitler, had a plan "all along" to exterminate the Jews is severely out-dated. Lucy Dawidowicz argued along those lines, but she died in 1990 and wasn't taken terribly seriously during the debates on Nazi policy from the 1970s onwards.<br /><br />What we can say: the Nazis consistently wanted to remake the world they controlled into a judenfrei living-space, first in Germany, then in annexed countries like Austria, and finally in Europe. That meant: forced emigration, followed by a series of expulsion/reservation plans - Lublin, Madagascar, Siberia - which could not be fulfilled because the course of the war prevented them from being realised. <br /><br />All the earlier plans were unrealistic fantasies one way or another, and would all have decimated the Jews expelled to these destinations, some quite severely, we can find quotes from Nazis welcoming this decimation, so the transition from expulsion to extermination was less abrupt than might be thought. <br /><br />The Armenian genocide, after all, was an expulsion plan deporting Armenians to the Syrian desert, the loss of life was immense from a variety of causes, including random shootings, death marches, privation, thirst, starvation and so on. <br />Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-19336788569166179982016-08-11T18:26:46.873+01:002016-08-11T18:26:46.873+01:00Nicholas Terry, but then some one might say "...Nicholas Terry, but then some one might say "Why did they plan on a"Madagascar Plan"; to send the jews to Madagascar, if if the plan all along was to exterminate the Jews?"?<br /><br />How would you answer that then? That the nationalsocialists was radicalized and became more hateful to the Jews during the war, which caused them to change the setting to the extreme, go from wanting to deport them out of Europe into a new Jewish homeland,to wanting to exterminate them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-23553373373746289322016-08-11T17:19:58.873+01:002016-08-11T17:19:58.873+01:00"There was another possibility: a German vict..."There was another possibility: a German victory and a post-war territorial eviction on a continental scale"<br /><br />But the Final Solution was already being enacted *during the war* and had been for well over a year by the time of Rosenberg's speech, made after the defeat at Stalingrad. The Madagascar Plan had been dead for a full year by the time Rosenberg made this speech. <br /><br />Rosenberg knew that policy and plans had changed, the most that can be said about this 1943 speech is that he fell back on previous rhetoric to try and cover up what he knew what was actually happening, i.e. mass murder. Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-32346381978745163722016-08-11T16:57:28.585+01:002016-08-11T16:57:28.585+01:00"Rosenberg was thus repeating his declaration..."Rosenberg was thus repeating his declaration of November 18, 1941, but this time, with no possibility of the Jews being pushed militarily over the Urals, the method could only be direct killing."<br /><br />There was another possibility: a German victory and a post-war territorial eviction on a continental scale. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03185749542012158102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-79379310910748122982016-02-01T20:01:08.786+00:002016-02-01T20:01:08.786+00:00To be honest, Reactionary, please don't take o...To be honest, Reactionary, please don't take offense, but I simply can't read anything else that they write.J Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04893548775462142380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-55229582983822882016-01-31T22:52:53.075+00:002016-01-31T22:52:53.075+00:00In the book, "Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Th...In the book, "Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues: The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”—An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers<br />2nd, slightly corrected edition": http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=28<br /><br /><br />I have seen that they have a chapter on the topic on page 168 called "The Alleged NS Policy of “Mass Starvation” of Eastern Populations".<br /><br />What is your view on that arguments there?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-54754264765463849772016-01-27T03:24:45.829+00:002016-01-27T03:24:45.829+00:00They're being sent into hostile climate, witho...They're being sent into hostile climate, without any posessions or resources. The intent was basically to have them die off somewhere out of sight.<br />It's honestly no different from the Germans sending the Herreros to die off in the desert back in the early 1900s. Still murder.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02660486969581542489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-61983054320824652452016-01-26T21:34:10.984+00:002016-01-26T21:34:10.984+00:00""Slavs who were not to be starved would...""Slavs who were not to be starved would be made into helots"<br />Or sent to Siberia. I think this what Holocaust deniers seize on so much, the Nazi plan to send many Slavs East over the Urals."<br /><br /><br />I think you're not wrong J Kelly. But can of provide some great direct sources and evidence, documents and other items directly from the Nazi leaders?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-18053959681407022152016-01-26T20:41:15.653+00:002016-01-26T20:41:15.653+00:00"Slavs who were not to be starved would be ma..."Slavs who were not to be starved would be made into helots"<br />Or sent to Siberia. I think this what Holocaust deniers seize on so much, the Nazi plan to send many Slavs East over the Urals.J Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04893548775462142380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-26655358770665418782016-01-22T23:09:13.693+00:002016-01-22T23:09:13.693+00:00"to liberate Slavs from Communism"
It i..."to liberate Slavs from Communism"<br /><br />It is simply a historical fact that this was not what Hitler et all intended. Slacs who were not to be starved would be made into helots.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03218089864137630577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-70245470515590384222016-01-11T20:31:06.860+00:002016-01-11T20:31:06.860+00:00Something else you said that warrants attention.
Y...Something else you said that warrants attention.<br />You said "to liberate Slavs from Communism."<br />Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc.) were primarily anti-Communist before the War. The Communist Party in Poland was illegal, with many Polish Communsts fleeing to the USSR in the 1930's (unfortunately for them right into the worst of Stalin's ethnic purges). So the idea that the Germans were trying to liberate anyone is ludicrous, those countries did not need Hitler's help. Germany treated Poland as a colony in any case so I doubt anyone felt liberated from anything (unless you talk about liberating them from their possessions and possibly their lives).<br />As for the Soviet Union, many inhabitants welcomed the Germans as liberators, especially the Ukraine, until the Germans started murdering Jews in large numbers and stealing everything in sight.<br />One of the biggest mistakes the Germans made was to not court the Soviet citizens as liberators, at least until the war was over.J Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04893548775462142380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-57175723682492864752016-01-11T17:29:19.352+00:002016-01-11T17:29:19.352+00:00They the remainder of slavs whould be considered a...They the remainder of slavs whould be considered as slaves? I thought they should be adopted and assimilate into the german people, because the slavs who would be allowed to stay, whole be those who where seem as "pure aryans"?<br /><br />Ok, thanks for the book tips. But I would like to have original sources, documents, and so on.<br /><br />I will take a look at those sites. Thanks for the tips.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-47110934876061042502016-01-11T16:00:18.375+00:002016-01-11T16:00:18.375+00:00Those numbers come a variety of sources but I beli...Those numbers come a variety of sources but I believe the numbers come from either William Shirer's the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or Laurence Rees Auschwitz a New History.<br />The remainder of the Slavs allowed to live in German areas would considered slaves.<br />Oh, another source to consider is Mark Mazowar's Hitler's Empire.<br />There also a lot of sources to consider on the Internet. I recommend this blog, of course. Also, HEART is a good website, USHM is a good website, there are others. The authors of this blog have links on the web version.J Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04893548775462142380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-27317760771057180132016-01-11T03:06:19.301+00:002016-01-11T03:06:19.301+00:00J Kelly, I think you are right, but you have some ...J Kelly, I think you are right, but you have some good sources of all this, one can use when debating those who claim that the Nazis were only there to liberate the Slavs from communism and did not want to expel, enslave, or exterminate them? 75 % of poles and 50 % and Czechs, where do you got those number from example? I guess those poles and Czechs who did not belong to those 75 % and 50 %, where considered pure "aryans"? Or why where some allowed to stay?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-79161922959687397112016-01-10T20:35:31.253+00:002016-01-10T20:35:31.253+00:00Eichman did allow I think 1600 Hungarian Jews to b...Eichman did allow I think 1600 Hungarian Jews to buy their way to freedom, they wound up in Switzerland.J Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04893548775462142380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-23945377808926342882016-01-10T20:34:15.090+00:002016-01-10T20:34:15.090+00:00I don't think the plan was to kill all the Sla...I don't think the plan was to kill all the Slavs.<br />I think that the Slavs would have suffered horribly had Germany won the war,<br />Poland is the great example. Under six years of Nazi occupation 6 million Poles died, this number includes 3 million Jews.<br />The Nazis attempted to eradicate the Polish elite during "Operation Tannenberg," shooting thousands of academics, business leaders, politicians and anyone else they considered a threat. They imprisoned thousands more. The Nazis treated Poland as a colony, exploiting it for its resources.<br />The plan was to either eradicate or deport 75% of Poles, 50% of Czechs and to decimate the population of the Soviet Union to the point that Germans would be the majority. The remainder of the Slavs would be sent to Siberia or treated as slaves.<br />I'm not sure what else I can really say about the subject. <br />J Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04893548775462142380noreply@blogger.com