Hitler's alleged Role in the "Holocaust"

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3779
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Hitler's alleged Role in the "Holocaust"

Postby Hektor » 1 year 8 months ago (Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:24 pm)

Lamprecht wrote:
HMSendeavour wrote:
It was also claimed at Nuremberg that the extermination of Jews was top secret and fewer than 100 people knew about it. But then we supposedly have all of these public speeches proving it?
"The jews will be eradicated from Europe" or "Jewry will be annihilated from Europe" or "jews will be uprooted from Europe" isn't indicative of genocide.


I totally agree it's nonsense, I pointed it out to Wyatt here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12722&p=93760&hilit#p93760 do you have the source from Nuremberg on that? It would be very useful I think.

Check out
Responding to the "Conspiracy theory" slander // Holocaust believers as the true "Conspiracy theorists"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12276#p91274
Image

For context it's in this text as well:
https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/1fb42f/pdf/

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Hitler's alleged Role in the "Holocaust"

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 year 8 months ago (Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:23 am)

Another quote i've heard before which uses the word 'extermination' in regards to a Hitler quote about the Jews on the 25th of January 1942 goes like this:

The Jew must get out of Europe. Otherwise we will get no European understanding. The world over he is the chief agitator against us . . . . All I say is that he must go away. If, in the process, he is bruised, I can't help it. If he does not leave voluntarily, I see no solution other than extermination.

Source: Arno Meyer, Why did the Heavens not Darken? (1998), pp. 307


Apparently Meyer has some revisionist tendencies according to Faurisson

In the United States a Jewish Professor Takes the Revisionist Path [...] Elsewhere, Mayer interprets, then eliminates one by one all the documents or arguments which up until now have been used to make people believe that the Germans practiced a policy of exterminating the Jews (the Göring-to-Heydrich letter of 31 July 1941, the Wannsee Conference transcript, the conduct of the Einsatzgruppen in Russia, Himmler's speeches at Posen in October 1943, etc.).

Source: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p375_Faurisson.html


But this quote struck me as odd, another mistranslation of Ausrottung/Ausrotten which seems obvious because Meyer quotes Hitler again:

Two days later, on January 27 , in another monologue at his Wolf's Lair headquarters in East Prussia, Hitler reiterated that "the Jew has to disappear from Europe, " including from Switzerland and Sweden. On this occasion he said nothing about extermination, limiting himself to declaring that "it would be best if [the Jews] went to Russia." At any rate, he had "no pity" for them.

Source: Arno Meyer, Why did the Heavens not Darken? (1998), pp. 307


He contradicts himself, based on this discrepancy alone it should be obvious that the first quote isn't talking about 'extermination' of Jews in the physical sense, even if we assume the word was translated correctly.

This alone should be enough, but if we go to the actual source we read that the first quote is incomplete and in fact contradicted by Hitler himself in the same monologue for the 25th of January (although in the actual Table Talks it's noted as the 23rd of January, whether the TT or Meyer is right I don't know).

The Jew must clear out of Europe. Otherwise no understanding will be possible between Europeans. It's the Jew who prevents everything. When I think about it, I realise that I'm extraordinarily humane. At the time of the rule of the Popes, the Jews were mistreated in Rome. Until 1830, eight Jews mounted on donkeys were led once a year through the streets of Rome. For my part, I restrict myself to telling them they must go away. If they break their pipes on the journey, I can't do anything about it. But if they refuse to go voluntarily, I see no other solution but extermination. Why should I look at a Jew through other eyes than if he were a Russian prisoner-of-war? In the p.o.w. camps, many are dying. It's not my fault. I didn't want either the war or the p.o.w. camps. Why did the Jew provoke this war?

A good three hundred or four hundred years will go by before the Jews set foot again in Europe. They'll return first of all as commercial travellers, then gradually they'll become emboldened to settle here—the better to exploit us. In the next stage, they become philanthropists, they endow foundations. When a Jew does that, the thing is particularly noticed—for it's known that they're dirty dogs. As a rule, it's the most rascally of them who do that sort of thing. And then you'll hear these poor Aryan boobies telling you : "You see, there are good Jews !" Let's suppose that one day National Socialism will undergo a change, and become used by a caste of privileged persons who exploit the people and cultivate money. One must hope that in that case a new reformer will arise and clean up the stables.

Source: Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, (Phoenix Press, 2000), Weidenfeld & Nicolson Translation, pp. 235-236


And there you have it.

There aren't notes in Meyers book, so it would just be that much harder to find the quote, luckily anyone interested in doing that would most likely have prior knowledge about where to find it anyway. This kind of stuff is just one example of how 'historians' mislead with quotes, even the Table Talks falsely translates the word to 'extermination' even though Hitler is clearly talking about the deportation of Jews as underlined as i've underlined.

It's worth noting too, that Ian Kershaw or at least Haaretz has also admitted Ausrottung/Ausrotten can be translated into 'uprooting':

The term "wiping out Marxism -- "auszurotten" in Hitler's parlance -- was subsequently adopted by Himmler in his Posen speech. It was used with respect to the Jews in both a botanical sense (uprooting weeds) and a moral sense (uprooting evil).

Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Kershaw/Ha'aretz.html https://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/1.4708640
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2397
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Hitler's alleged Role in the "Holocaust"

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 8 months ago (Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:40 pm)

Yes, as I will show in the next week or so in my next infographic(s) Lipstadt claims there are two types of exterminationists:
1 - those who believe an extermination of jews was public policy (ie, Hitler openly bragged about his intentions it in various speeches)
2 - the extermination was top secret and only a small number of people knew about it
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Hitler's alleged Role in the "Holocaust"

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 year 1 month ago (Sun May 03, 2020 2:12 am)

Hitler's Political Testament is a piece of evidence which has been used to try and "prove" the Holocaust, this has been refuted by revisionists of course:

Hitler’s Testament

One final note. Rees writes about Hitler’s political testament:

“He also hinted that he was responsible for – indeed proud of – the extermination of the Jews. He said that he had ’never left any doubt’ that the ’actual guilty party’ for starting the war would be ’held responsible’. This was, according to him, ’the Jews’. ‘Further,’ he said, ’I have not left anybody in the dark about the fact that this time, millions of adult men would not die, and hundreds of thousands of women and children would not be burnt or bombed to death in the cities, without the actual culprit, albeit by more humane means, having to pay for his guilt.’ […] Hitler was not sorry for the destruction he had brought into the world. Far from it. […] He was pleased, even as Germany came crashing down about him, that he had brought about the death of 6 million Jews.” (p. 421)


Needless to say, Rees misquotes again. Here is the actual passage (3569-PS):

“I also made it quite plain that, if the nations of Europe are again to be regarded as mere shares to be bought and sold by these international conspirators in money and finance, then that race, Jewry, which is the real criminal of this murderous struggle, will be saddled with the responsibility. I further left no one in doubt that this time not only would millions of children of Europe’s Aryan peoples die of hunger, not only would millions of grown men suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children be burnt and bombed to death in the towns, without the real criminal having to atone for this guilt, even if by more humane means.”

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 18.1532983


Spot the difference.

Source: https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/4/4989


I have come across a paper which purports to put into serious doubt the validity of the testament as a document.

Mikael Nilsson (2019) Constructing a Pseudo-Hitler? The question of the authenticity of Hitlers politisches Testament, European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire, 26:5, 871-891,

Quoting from the conclusion:

This article has investigated the authenticity of the text published under the title Hitlers politisches Testament in 1981. Many historians have cited this document largely uncritically since it was published, despite the fact that there is no original document available. The many uncertainties connected to this source ought of course to have been pointed out first by Hugh Trevor-Roper in 1961, when the English edition, The Testament of Adolf Hitler, was published, and then by the publisher Knaus in 1981. That neither of them did so was certainly to shy away from their scientific responsibilities towards their readers. If they had done so there might have been no need for this article

[...]

Considering the many uncertainties regarding the history and origin of this document, the burden of proof should reasonably be on the person arguing for authenticity. Considering that we lack independent evidence with which to authenticate these notes, this burden of proof is effectively impossible to meet. Reference to the ‘internal evidence’ is not a reliable or valid method for historians to use when trying to establish a text’s authenticity since this method has failed spectacularly in the past. A prime example of this is the forged Hitler diaries in the early 1980s that fooled all the experts who analysed them, including the handwriting analysts, as well as the 76 forgeries included by Eberhard Jäckel in his source volume Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen. In the case of Hitlers politisches Testament, we simply have too many indicators that should cause any careful and critical historian to doubt its veracity, and no independent evidence that clearly supports the claim of authenticity. Historians should therefore refrain from using this source, and should treat it as if it was a forgery.

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 18.1532983
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Failure to connect Hitler to the Holocaust

Postby HMSendeavour » 3 months 1 week ago (Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:11 am)

An article came out on April 4th 2019 which discussed a British documentary series called Private Lives that aired an episode on Adolf Hitler. In the documentary, according to this article, they discuss the evident lack of evidence linking Hitler to the alleged 'extermination' of the Jews:

“When it came to the extermination of Jews, Hitler was very hands off,” presenter Dr. Tracy Borman stated in the documentary, entitled “Private Lives,” which aired on Britain’s Yesterday channel. . .

. . .The Yesterday channel documentary highlighted the lack of documents linking Hitler to the decision to order the Final Solution.

“When it comes to the instigation of the Holocaust, there is no paper trail leading directly to Hitler himself,” Borman said. “Quite typically, these horrifying plans seems to have grown out of one of the Fuhrer’s private chats at the dinner table.”

Robert Philpot, UK documentary claims Hitler was ‘very hands off’ in implementing Final Solution, The Times of Israel, 4 April 2019. | Archive


According to this documentary there is only one remark that links Hitler to the Holocaust:

Hitler is said to have told SS head Heinrich Himmler and Hans Lammer, Chief of the Reich Chancellery, over a dinner that he had been “extraordinarily merciful to the Jews,” but he was coming to see that “the only solution was extermination.”

A transcript of the conversation, historian Nigel Jones told the program, was “the only actual written link that we have that Hitler ordered the policy of the Holocaust.”

Ibid.


What a damning quote! No? The quote being referred to is from Hitler's Table Talks, and isn't new to revisionists at all:

German: "Man muß radikal handeln. Wenn man einen Zahn zieht, tut man es mit einem Zug, und der Schmerz ist schnell vorbei. Die Juden müssen aus Europa heraus. Sonst gibt es keine Verständigung zwischen den Europäern." [...] "Ich für meinen Teil beschränke mich darauf, ihnen zu sagen, sie müssen weggehen. Wenn sie auf der Reise die Rippen brechen, kann ich nichts machen. Aber wenn sie sich weigern, freiwillig zu gehen, sehe ich keinen anderen Weg als die Ausrottung.

English: One must act radically. When one pulls out a tooth, one does it with a single tug, and the pain quickly goes away. The Jew must clear out of Europe. Otherwise no understanding will be possible between Europeans. It's the Jew who prevents everything. When I think about it, I realise that I'm extraordinarily humane. At the time of the rule of the Popes, the Jews were mistreated in Rome. Until 1830, eight Jews mounted on donkeys were led once a year through the streets of Rome. For my part, I restrict myself to telling them they must go away. If they break their pipes on the journey, I can't do anything about it. But if they refuse to go voluntarily, I see no other solution but extermination.

Adolf Hitler, 23 January, 1942., Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), Pp. 235. I found the German quotation here.


Not to sound cliché, but is this all they have? It's really quite pathetic. I don't really know how to express the magnitude of such an admission on their part. To any person who has passing knowledge of the Holocaust, Hitler and the "Nazis", every single person would be under the assumption that Hitler was the prime shaker and mover of these alleged atrocities. That it was him who was the 'architect' of the Holocaust, a title often given to Heinrich Himmler, who I'm sure most people have no clue about.

It's assumed that Hitler didn't just 'inspire' the Holocaust like historians claim these days, but that he was in the centre of it, all knowing and deeply involved. Yet this just simply cannot be proven, and these historians are forced to admit it or grasp at straws. Yet the ignorant idea that Hitler knew, and 'initiated' the Holocaust still persists. Even if you were to tell any regular layman what it is the mainstream historians actually say regarding Hitler's non-existent role in the 'Holocaust', you would no doubt be called a 'denier'! This to me is fascinating, just because of the level of deception inflicted on the minds of the general public about this event they're taught to know about, to become emotionally defensive over, yet lack any knowledge as to the details.

The quote above isn't particularly damning though. I've scoured the internet for a German source to verify the wording, to no avail. I've even checked German academic papers which quoted the wording you see here, but they still cite the English version of the Table Talks. So it appears to me that there is no original German edition, unless we somehow had Bormann's original notes for this day. But I won't hold my breath over that. The English source is all we have for this quote. Not encouraging.

It should be observed that even if we take the word 'Ausrottung' to mean 'extermination' and not 'up-rooted' (by force) this quote still doesn't support the assertion that Hitler "ordered the policy of the Holocaust". Hitler is very clearly saying that the Jews need to be deported "they must go away" and on a "journey" no less. "Exterminating" them, if we accept this translation, is used here hypothetically to refer to an event which was not occurring, because Hitler was not talking about any current events or plans but merely what would need to be done if they didn't leave voluntarily. This is not the same as saying "we're exterminating the Jews because they won't leave voluntarily". Hitler didn't say anything like that. On this rhetorical basis alone we can dispute the interpretation given by Nigel Jones, who's clearly inept at interpreting such statements.

Even to say, as this article does that Hitler "was coming to see that “the only solution was extermination.”" is ridiculous, because it implies Hitler was discussing current events and solutions to the Jewish question at that moment, which he wasn't. Therefore this statement from the article is a blatant lie.

However the interpretation of this quote is challenged by multiple other documents already known to revisionists, and many on this forum. But for the sake of responding to the accusation regarding this document I will quote them here again.

Sometime in March 1942, Dr. Franz Schlegelberger (Reich Justice Minister) wrote a note regarding Hitler's attitude towards the Jewish problem as relayed to him by Dr. Hans Lammers (Chief of the Reich Chancellery):

Mr 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. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party.

Source: German Federal Archives (BA) file R.22/52. See: Schlegelberger Note | Archive | Document fascimile:
Schlegelberger Note.jpg


This document was subsequently backed up by Dr. Lammers again on August 21, 1942 in a document known as the Luther memorandum, point 8 of which states (in brief):

. . .at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much.

Document NG-2586-J. Read the full Luther Memorandum in: Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (Castle Hill Publishers, 2015), Pp. 269-279.


And finally, a month prior to the Luther memo on 24 July 1942, Henry Picker records Hitler as having said the same thing:

German:

Beim Abendessen bemerkte der Chef unter anderem:

. . . Nach Beendigung des Krieges werde er [Hitler] sich rigoros auf den Standpunkt stellen, dass er Stadt für Stadt zusammenschlage, wenn nicht die Drecksjuden rauskämen und nach Madagaskar oder einem sonstigen jüdischen Nationalstaat abwanderten.


English:

At dinner the boss remarked among other things:

. . . After the ending of the war, he [Hitler] would rigorously adopt the standpoint that he would demolish town after town, if the Jewish dregs did not decamp and emigrate to Madagascar or to some other national Jewish homeland.


Henry Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier (Stuttgart: Seewald Verlag, 1963), Pp. 471. Or see: Dr. Henry Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941-42 (Bonn: Athenäum-Verlag, 1951) Pp. 118. |PDF | Archive |
Hitlers Tischgespräche 1951 page 118.PNG


The Table Talks therefore shows that Hitler is either contradicting himself, or never wanted, nor spoke of 'exterminating the Jews' in the entry of January 23 1942. In fact, the same entry shows us this itself if you read the entire thing:

A good three hundred or four hundred years will go by before the Jews set foot again in Europe. They'll return first of all as commercial travellers, then gradually they'll become emboldened to settle here—the better to exploit us. In the next stage, they become philanthropists, they endow foundations. When a Jew does that, the thing is particularly noticed—for it's known that they're dirty dogs. As a rule, it's the most rascally of them who do that sort of thing. And then you'll hear these poor Aryan boobies telling you : "You see, there are good Jews!"

Let's suppose that one day National Socialism will undergo a change, and become used by a caste of privileged persons who exploit the people and cultivate money. One must hope that in that case a new reformer will arise and clean up the stables.

Adolf Hitler, 23 January, 1942., Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), Pp. 236.


Suddenly the whole quotation becomes intelligible. If the Jews were going to be exterminated, surely they wouldn't exist in Europe in the future. Unless, and it could be argued, Hitler is talking about Jews that are to be found outside of Europe, while the Jews currently inhabiting Europe would've been exterminated, therefore, when the Jews "set foot again in Europe" National Socialism will need to "exterminate" them again. On the other hand you could argue that Hitler is indeed referring to the deportation of Jews and future National Socialists having to clear them out again (deport them) if they "step foot" back in Europe. This seems like the proper interpretation, because only 4 days later on January 27th Hitler said:

The Jews must pack up, disappear from Europe. Let them go to Russia. Where the Jews are concerned, I'm devoid of all sense of pity. They'll always be the ferment that moves peoples one against the other. They sow discord everywhere, as much between individuals as between peoples.

They'll also have to clear out of Switzerland and Sweden. It's where they're to be found in small numbers that they're most dangerous. Put five thousand Jews in Sweden—soon they'll be holding all the posts there. Obviously, that makes them all the easier to spot.

It's entirely natural that we should concern ourselves with the question on the European level. It's clearly not enough to expel them from Germany. We cannot allow them to retain bases of withdrawal at our doors. We want to be out of danger of all kinds of infiltration.

Adolf Hitler, 27 January, 1942., Ibid., p. 260.


It should now be absolutely clear that Hitler was not referring to 'exterminating' the Jews on January 23rd, but deporting them. If he was talking about exterminating them, then it was very clearly hypothetical and had no basis in reality.


So the documentary makers were wrong to interpret this quote from Hitler's Table Talks as a reference to the alleged Holocaust. But even so they admit that there's not any evidence to link Hitler to the 'program' anyway, which is better than nothing. However the article goes on to quote the lying partisan historian Richard J. Evans. Who believes that the documentarians were wrong, that in fact:

“There are many documents attesting to Hitler’s knowledge of the extermination of the Jews, including the diaries of his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels.”

Goebbels confided in his diaries that Hitler was “pitiless” when it came to the “Jewish Question.” Hitler believed that “The Jews must get out of Europe, if need be through [the] use of the most brutal means,” the minister wrote on one occasion. On another, he argued that “the Fuhrer is the unswerving champion and spokesman of a radical solution.”

Richard Evans, quoted in: UK documentary claims Hitler was ‘very hands off’ in implementing Final Solution, The Times of Israel, 4 April 2019. | Archive


So, what comes to mind to Evans as his 'proof' that Hitler knew about the mythical Holocaust? The Goebbels diaries! I'm not convinced, and seeing as this is his example, it goes to show how strapped for evidence Evans is too, he's grasping at straws as we'll see.

First of all none of the attitudes Evans attributes to Hitler via the Goebbels diaries says anything about exterminating Jews. In fact he contradicts himself by quoting Hitler as saying that “The Jews must get out of Europe, if need be through [the] use of the most brutal means”, which very clearly implies forced deportation like that which actually occurred during the war. Nobody would deny it was brutal, but it was not a plan of extermination. That the Jews in Hitler's conception would still be made to "get out of Europe" is totally cogent with Revisionism. If the Jews were killed they would not be forced "out" of Europe, but killed. Which isn't the same thing. Clearly. But Evans is a lying hack, so who can be surprised?

Second, Hitler may have favoured a "radical solution" to the Jewish Question, but this is vague and doesn't mean he wanted to exterminate the Jews. Evidently Evans cannot quote anything from the Goebbels diary that has Hitler explicitly saying anything about the mass murder of Jews, because he said no such things.

The first Goebbels diary entry Evans mentions is the one from 20 March 1942:

German:

Wir sprechen zum Schluss noch über die Judenfrage. Hier bliebt der Führer nach wie vor unerbittlich. Die Juden müssen aus Europa heraus, wenn nötig, unter Anwendung der brutalsten Mittel.


English:

Finally, we talked about the Jewish Question. Here the Führer is as uncompromising as ever. The Jews must leave Europe, if necessary by applying the most brutal methods.


Thomas Dalton, PhD., Goebbels on the Jews: The Complete Diary Entries - 1923 to 1945 (Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, July 2019), Pp. 149.


The second entry Evans refers to is the infamous 27 March 1942 entry:

German:

Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher 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.

Der ehemalige Gauleiter von Wien, der diese Aktion durchführt, tut das mit ziemlicher Umsicht und auch mit einem Verfahren, das nicht allzu auffällig wirkt. An den Juden wird ein Strafgericht vollzogen, das zwar barbarisch ist, das sie aber vollauf verdient haben. Die Prophezeiung, die der Führer ihnen für die Herbeiführung eines neuen Weltkriegs mit auf den Weg gegeben hat, beginnt sich in der furchtbarsten Weise zu verwirklichen. Man darf in diesen Dingen keine Sentimentalität obwalten lassen. Die Juden würden, wenn wir uns ihrer nicht erwehren würden, uns vernichten. Es ist ein Kampf auf Leben und Tod zwischen der arischen Rasse und dem jüdischen Bazillus. Keine andere Regierung und kein anderes Regime könnte die Kraft aufbringen, diese Frage generell zu lösen. Auch hier ist der Führer der unentwegte Vorkämpfer und Wortführer einer radikalen Lösung, die nach Lage der Dinge geboten ist und deshalb unausweichlich erscheint. Gott sei Dank haben wir jetzt während des Krieges eine ganze Reihe von Möglichkeiten, die uns im Frieden verwehrt wären. Die müssen wir ausnutzen.

Die in den Städten des Generalgouvernements freiwerdenden Ghettos werden jetzt mit den aus dem Reich abgeschobenen Juden gefüllt, und hier soll sich dann nach einer gewissen Zeit der Prozess erneuern. Das Judentum hat nichts zu lachen, und dass seine Vertreter heute in England und in Amerika den Krieg gegen Deutschland organisieren und propagieren, das müssen seine Vertreter in Europa sehr teuer bezahlen, was wohl auch als berechtigt angesehen werden muss.


English:

Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being deported to the East. A rather barbaric method is used, one not to be described here, and there’s not much left of the Jews themselves. On the whole, one can say that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be used for labor.

The former district leader of Vienna, who is carrying out this action, is doing it with great care and in a way that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophesy that the Führer made about them for having brought on a new World War is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental about these things. If we didn’t fight the Jews, they would destroy us. It’s a life-and death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength to solve this question in general. Here, too, the Führer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution, which, judging by the situation, is necessary and therefore seems inexorable. Thank God we now have a whole series of opportunities in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We have to profit from this.

The emptied ghettos in the cities of the General Government will now be refilled with Jews deported from the Reich—a process to be repeated from time to time. Jewry has nothing to laugh about; their representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany, and their representatives in Europe must pay dearly—and that’s only right


Ibid., p. 149-150.


This quote of course sounds rather damning at first, but in truth is explainable. If interpreted the way Evans and other exterminationists would have us interpret it, latter entries in the Goebbels diary make no sense as I will show in a moment. Dalton says of this quote:

Dramatic wording, to be sure. But a few points need to be elaborated. First, if 40 percent are being saved for labor, clearly this is no plan for comprehensive mass murder (at least for the time being). Second, we now understand the likely meanings of ‘liquidation’ and ‘radical solution’; to ‘liquidate’ is to make fluid, in order to cause an entrenched population to flow outward; and the ‘radical solution’ is, by all accounts, a harsh and brutal process of ethnic cleansing rather than systematic mass murder. Third, we have yet more evidence that vernichten means something other than genocidal mass murder, given that the Jews could do no such thing to the German people. But a Jewish-infested and dominated Germany would indeed ‘destroy’ the character and integrity of traditional German society as Goebbels envisioned it. Fourth, the final paragraph is rarely cited by traditionalists; it too clearly indicates a systematic deportation process, including potentially long-term confinement. This is utterly inconsistent with a high-speed, industrialized scheme of gassing and mass murder.

When Goebbels says “Jews will be deported to the East,” it’s grammatically unclear if he means many, most, or all. Based on his subsequent remark, what he likely meant is that 60 percent of the Lublin Jews would be uprooted and shipped out (‘liquidated’) to ghettos in the East, and the other 40 percent would remain as forced laborers. This is his “radical solution,” comprising his “wartime opportunities” that would not have been otherwise possible. Of the remaining labor Jews, many would soon be located at the Majdanek labor camp near Lublin.

On the revisionist view, it’s natural to say that the liquidated Jews would be sent east: first to Belzec, then later in the year to Treblinka and Sobibor. These were the eastern transit camps designed to collect Jews from around the region, to disinfest them, and to ship them on further east to labor camps or ghettos in the newly-captured Russian, Ukrainian, or Baltic territories. This is entirely consistent with Goebbels’s actual words.

Lastly, we should recall that Goebbels had no compunction about speaking frankly. In the entry of March 16 he writes directly that it was “necessary to shoot more Jews.” So why here doesn’t he write, “we found it necessary to gas the Jews,” or some such thing, if that was in fact what was happening? But the text is not even close to this. His words make no sense, on the conventional view. Clearly something else was going on—something like ethnic cleansing and forced labor.

Ibid., p. 151.


On April 19th 1942, Goebbels wrote an entry regarding what to do with mixed-race Jews:

German:

Sehr starke Diskussionen werden in den einschlägigen Kreisen veranstaltet über die Frage, was mit den jüdischen Mischlingen zu geschehen habe. Zweifellos bilden sie ein ernstes Hindernis für die radikale Lösung der Judenfrage. Einerseits wird der Standpunkt vertreten, man solle sie sterilisieren, andererseits der Standpunkt, sie sollten ausgewiesen werden. Die Standpunkte sind noch nicht so weit geklärt, dass man sich selbst dazu entscheiden könnte.


English:

Very strong discussions are held in the relevant circles regarding what to do with the mixed-race Jews. Undoubtedly they constitute a serious obstacle for the radical solution of the Jewish Question. On the one hand, it is argued that they should be sterilized, and on the other, that they should be expelled. The positions are not yet clarified enough for one to decide what to do.


Ibid., p. 154.


Of this, Dalton says:

An interesting remark on how to handle the mixed-race Jews: the “radical solution” seems to involve either sterilization or expulsion. Once again, outright murder is not even contemplated.

Ibid.


If the goal was to exterminate the Jews, I'd think that'd go for those who were mixed race also. Yet clearly this isn't so, at least according to Goebbels, this entry doesn't fit with the the exterminationists narrative whatsoever.

On 27 April 1942 we get a quote similar to that of April 19, except in reference to the Jewish Question as a whole:

German:

Ich spreche mit dem Führer noch einmal ausführlich die Judenfrage durch. Sein Standpunkt diesem Problem gegenüber ist unerbittlich. Er will die Juden absolut aus Europa herausdrãngen. Das ist auch richtig so. Die Juden haben unserem Erdteil so viel Leid zugefügt, dass die härteste Strafe, die man über sie verhängen kann, immer noch zu milde ist. Himmler betreibt augenblicklich die grosse Umsiedlung der Juden aus den deutschen Städten nach den östlichen Ghettos. Ich habe veranlasst, dass hier in grossem Umfange Filmaufnahmen gemacht werden. Das Material werden wir für die spätere Erziehung unseres Volkes dringend gebrauchen


English:

I spoke again to the Führer in detail about the Jewish Question. His attitude toward this problem is unrelenting. He absolutely wants to push the Jews out of Europe. That’s how it should be. The Jews have brought so much misery to our continent that the harshest punishment imposed on them is still too mild. Himmler is presently implementing a large resettlement of Jews from German cities to the eastern ghettos. I have arranged to film this extensively. We urgently need this material for the later education of our people.


Ibid., p. 156.


Evans has not nearly convinced me of his belief that Hitler knew, let alone orchestrated the alleged Holocaust. If this were true, you would need evidence, and if this is the evidence, it doesn't suffice.

It must also be kept in mind that these diary entries do not substantiate the claims made about the Holocaust. Evans and his ilk use these quotations to support a pre-conceived narrative that is starved for evidence to begin with. In other words, these quotes are no substitute for physical evidence, which leaves much to be desired if their view is to be taken seriously. This means that we cannot draw any conclusions in favour of their interpretation when it rests heavily on the idea that there is physical evidence to substantiate it. Evans cannot just cite quotations from the Goebbels diary to support the Holocaust simply because he wants to believe in it, he has to actually prove the facts surrounding the Holocaust narrative first, before he can claim these quotations support it. I have made this argument in two previous posts here and here.

But what do these quotes prove? Not very much. Only that Goebbels talked harshly about the Jews and was indifferent to their plight, just as the Jews were indifferent to the plight of the Germans when they were corrupting their nation in the 1920s, just as they are indifferent to the plight of Whites today.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Hitler's alleged Role in the "Holocaust"

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 month 1 week ago (Sat May 08, 2021 8:42 am)

91ERIRscO9L.jpg
In December last year Frank McDonough's second volume of his history the Third Reich was published. In the introduction he briefly summarizes how the Holocaust was to have culminated, and what Hitler's part in it was:

The Holocaust was in fact a gradual process of ‘cumulative radicalism’, often the result of middle-ranking bureaucrats acting on their own initiative and seeking ever more radical solutions to the so-called ‘Jewish question’. These vile acts were approved by Hitler, but were not directed or micromanaged by him in the same way as he controlled military decisions. The mass murder was devolved primarily to Heinrich Himmler and his SS empire. By the time of the Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942, a meeting of SS leaders and Nazi officials, Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich had streamlined the killing process and sought to extend it to the rest of Europe.

Frank McDonough, The Hitler Years Volume 2: Disaster 1940-1945 (Apollo: Head of Zeus, London, 2020), Pp. 14.

Hitler recedes into the background yet again. His guilt, is that of association, not direct invocation of the alleged atrocities committed. I'm sure the evidence that Hitler "approved" of these "vile acts" is also unconvincing, and probably nothing more than Hitler consenting to the Jewish question being dealt with, which to the historian of course is a euphemism for Hitler acknowledging that mass murder was occurring and him approving of it. So, this makes him guilty of course, even though he wasn't involved.

It's interesting to observe the trend in mainstream historiography tread toward territory they seemingly never would've thought about going 20-30 years ago. To think Hitler would be considered to have occupied such a minor role in the atrocity which is so closely associated with him is astounding. It really does speak to the effect of the propaganda machine of our world, because if you were to tell any layman with no particular knowledge about topics concerning the Third Reich, that Hitler wasn't involved in the Holocaust at all really, I'm sure you'd receive some rather funny looks. But this is in-fact what the most mainstream of historians are now admitting.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.

zapper
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:11 pm

Re: Hitler's alleged Role in the "Holocaust"

Postby zapper » 1 month 1 week ago (Sat May 08, 2021 9:50 pm)

HMSendeavour wrote:
It's interesting to observe the trend in mainstream historiography tread toward territory they seemingly never would've thought about going 20-30 years ago.


I think this has been a theme going back to Hilberg's 1960 work, which is considered foundational. From the wikipedia:

Unlike many later scholars, The Destruction does not emphasize and focus on the role of Hitler, though on this, Hilberg has shifted more towards the centre, with the third edition pointing at a less direct and systemic, more erratic and sporadic, but nonetheless pivotal, involvement by Hitler in his support for the destruction process.

Hitler was a crucial impetus for the genocide, Hilberg claimed, but the role played by the organs of the State and the Nazi Party should not be understated. Hitler, therefore, intended to eradicate the Jews, an intent he sometimes phrased in concrete terms, but often this intent on the part of Hitler was interpreted by rather than dictated to those at the helm of the bureaucratic machinery of destruction which administered and carried out the genocide of the Jews.


So Hilberg actually went the other way, emphasizing Hitler a bit more, though not still not prominently, as time went on. I believe other mainstream historians, like Browning or Kershaw have also talked about Hitler's supposedly 'hands off' approach, though they disagree with Irving in saying he definitely knew and approved of the mass murder.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Hitler's alleged Role in the "Holocaust"

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 month 1 week ago (Sun May 09, 2021 9:16 am)

zapper wrote:I think this has been a theme going back to Hilberg's 1960 work, which is considered foundational.


We've already had a somewhat extensive discussion about Hilberg this year. See this thread.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3779
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Hitler's alleged Role in the "Holocaust"

Postby Hektor » 1 month 1 week ago (Sun May 09, 2021 6:38 pm)

zapper wrote:.....
So Hilberg actually went the other way, emphasizing Hitler a bit more, though not still not prominently, as time went on. I believe other mainstream historians, like Browning or Kershaw have also talked about Hitler's supposedly 'hands off' approach, though they disagree with Irving in saying he definitely knew and approved of the mass murder.


Raul Hilberg tries to craft a "Gestalt" from "minutiae or details" that he puzzles together as a Holocaust Narrative.


Hitler's role is merely seen as inflaming Anti-Semitism and to make this believable some quote mining is been done (which is a form of misrepresentation). Although Hitler didn't put that much emphasis on the Jews as one can see, when surveying his speeches more broadly.
Favourite evidence seems to be one Speech were he prophesises the "destruction of the Jewish Race in Europe" (in case international financial Jewry pushes Europe into a New War). Clearly this is rhetorical hyperbole. So they add to this remarks on Jews in his testament. All in all that is rather flimsy evidence for the claim that he ordered or even knew "about the Holocaust". And well, his inner circle during the war doesn't seem to have known about it neither:
Image
https://archive.org/details/the-last-wi ... tzte-zeuge

Killing six million Jews with gas chambers. Imagine how many people had to be in on this!
The Holocaust is a really hilarious conspiracy theory.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests