Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby gl0spana » 6 months 4 weeks ago (Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:04 pm)

In mid 1942 the war is far from over. In particular, Wehrmacht has made no progress in northern and central Russia. All along the plan has been to deport the Jews to Madagascar or past the Urals. But the Nazis are not in a position to resettle them to either location. Instead, while the war rages, American and British forces land in North Africa, Air war of Germany intensifies, Nazi leadership decides to resettle the Jews east.

Clearly this does not mean all the Jews. Able bodied men in particular will go to work camps. The ones who cannot work, the elderly, the sick, children, some women perhaps are really the ones being "resettled". But where?

Belorussia, Ukraine? These are areas the Germans plan on setting up in, these areas are to be annexed and will become part of greater Germany. The Nazis are always talking about this, and also always talking about how they're deport many millions of Slavs away from these areas. So why move Jews here. Where will they live? Clearly you could build camps for them to live in, or settle them in towns, but this is hardly a permanent solution.

Plus it is indisputable that many Jews who lived in these areas prior to the war have been killed by Germans as part of "partisan reprisals". The conservative number, argued by the defense during the Einsatzgruppen trials is around 400,000 Jews killed. Why would you want to put more Jews here where they could again ferment partisan activity?

Furthermore moving millions of people while the war hangs in the balance seems awful hasty. Why not instead wait? Keep the Jews in the ghettos which will be far less populated now that able bodied men and women have been taken to labor camps. They can easily be controlled there, and you can consilidate many of the ghettos. Wait a year or two until the war in the east is over, and then move them to the Urals, a far more permanent solution.

The exterminationist argument is much simpler. Use the able bodied as productive labor, dispose of the rest, since they are a resource drain on the German war effort as it moves into its most critical and dangerous stage yet, and yet cannot be counted on for much production.

chiefly it is an economic problem for the Germans. They cut the Jews off from the rest of society, but thereby the Jews became dependant on them for everything. I suppose they could have let them go, released them into the Russian hinterland, but that seems kind of silly.

BTW I should say I am not an exterminationist. In my historiography - which I know I cannot prove right now - the Jews were never even put in the ghettos . . . .

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby Lamprecht » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:44 pm)

gl0spana wrote:Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

It was a temporary measure in order to remove them from the German people's living space, they intended to win the war in the East and then remove them completely from Europe, while also acquiring land in the process.
What happened instead was that they lost, the USSR took over this territory and even made it to East Germany.

gl0spana wrote:In mid 1942 the war is far from over.

Sure, but February 1943 was a huge turning point with the loss of the Battle of Stalingrad. The Germans were expelled from the Caucasus and everything gained in the 1942 Summer Campaign was slowly being lost. In August 1943, after the Battle of Kursk ended in failure, the war in the East was pretty much completely unwinnable for the Germans.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:
Image

Also useful map:
Image

As the Soviets were regaining these territories, evacuations "to the East" became completely infeasible. Using Jews for labor would have now been considered more practical than dumping them into ghettos, and focus was shifted to Auschwitz (which had a synthetic-rubber and petroleum plant since May 1942) rather than Operation Reinhardt, which ended later this year.

This appears to be why the 2 March 1943 entry is the last time (of many) that the Goebbels diaries mention evacuating Jews "to the East" - although he continually demands their physical removal 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"

gl0spana wrote:All along the plan has been to deport the Jews to Madagascar or past the Urals. But the Nazis are not in a position to resettle them to either location. Instead, while the war rages, American and British forces land in North Africa, Air war of Germany intensifies, Nazi leadership decides to resettle the Jews east.

You are simply confused.
Yes, it is true that in the Third Reich a "Madagascar plan" was proposed. This was back in mid-1940 and it was subsequently postponed in September of that year, and then permanently dropped by early 1942. Although I guess if they had won, they hypothetically could have dumped millions of Jews into Madagascar. (For the record, the Polish government had already discussed plans to deport their Jews to Madagascar in 1937; there was also a discussion of sending Jews to Madagascar in places like Britain, France, and South Africa).

Regardless, "All along" is simply incorrect. Even parts of the Americas (if memory serves me, some area in Brazil) were considered at certain times. The plan known as the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question/Problem" was to deport Jews "out of Europe" and the time frame in which they wanted to do it was "after the war" since the war-time conditions made emigration difficult, and there was a need for labor to help the war effort. The exact location of where the Jews were to be placed was more of a "well where could we even put them?" sort of thing, and as the war-situation changed different ideas were thrown around.

As Goebbels said:
"What will be the solution of the Jewish question? Whether a Jewish state will one day be created in some territory remains to be seen. But it is curious to note that the countries where public opinion is rising in favor of the Jews refuse to accept them from us. They call them pioneers of a new civilization, geniuses of philosophy and artistic creation, but when anybody wants them to accept these geniuses, they close their borders: 'No, no. We don't want them!' It seems to me to be the only case in world history where people have refused to accept geniuses." (Léon Poliakov, "Harvest of Hate: The Nazi Program for the Destruction of the Jews of Europe", p. 262. https://i.imgur.com/gfeUPzk.jpg)

But let's step back for a moment to when Hitler actually did have the French colony of Madagascar on his mind as a place to send the Jews.

On 12 July 1940 - not long after the French defeat & subsequent occupation - Hans Frank (Hitler's personal lawyer and governor of occupied Poland) made a speech after meeting with Hitler, declaring:
"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." (Document PS-2233, IMT, Vol XXIX. pp. 356-581 https://web.archive.org/web/20190418181 ... l-XXIX.pdf)

On 4 December 1940, Eichmann wrote a memo in which he evaluated the volume of Jewish immigration in the Reich territories in regards to the "Initial solution of the Jewish question through emigration" and under the headline "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" wrote:
"Through resettling Jews from the European economic area of the German people to a territory yet to be determined. Within the framework of this project, around 5.8 million Jews come into consideration." (BArch, NS 19/3979. https://archive.is/2facM)

On 20 June 1941 (two days before Operation Barbarossa) the intention to defer the "Solution to the Jewish problem" until after the war was revealed in the so-called "Brown Portfolio," devised by Alfred Rosenberg. This document was later integrated into the "Green Portfolio" of September 1942, which I will discuss below.

On 20 January 1942, the infamous "Wannsee Conference" took place; according to Israeli PM Netenyahu (and various exterminationist historians), this is when it was decided to exterminate the Jews. The "Wannsee Protocols" are alleged to be the text from this meeting - yet they state nothing of the sort and completely support the "denier" position. For example, the text states:
"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."
(Full text: https://archive.is/ttMEP)

On 10 February 1942, Franz Rademacher (who proposed the Madagascar Plan) sent a memo to another Third Reich official, which states:
"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" (Document NG-3933 of the Wilhelmstrasse trial; quoted by Reitlinger, "The Final Solution" p. 79)

On 7 March 1942 Goebbels wrote in his diary, probably referencing the Wannsee Protocols (as he did not attend the conference himself):
"I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding the Final Solution to the Jewish question. A vast number of new significant points emerge from it. The Jewish question must now be solved within a pan-European framework. There are more than 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 them after the war"

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." (https://archive.is/KGgLp)

On June 26, 1942, the Chief of the Security Police and the SD wrote the following in a report from the occupied Eastern territories:
"The measures taken by the Security Police and SD have caused basic changes also in White Ruthenia in regard to the Jewish question. In order to bring the Jews under an effective control, independent of the measures to be taken later, Jewish Councils of Elders were formed, who were responsible to the Security Police and the SD for the behavior of their racial comrades. Besides, the registration of the Jews was initiated and they were concentrated in ghettos. Finally the Jews had to wear yellow insignia in front and on their back to be recognized, in the manner of the Jewish star introduced in the territory of the Reich. In order to utilize Jewish labor fully the Jews were generally used for uniform employment and for clearing up operations. With these measures the foundation was laid for the later intended final solution of the European Jewish problem, for the White Ruthenian territory as well." (Reports from the occupied Eastern territories No. 9, June 26, 1942; Document 3943-PS. http://vho.org/GB/c/SC/incondocPS3943.html)

In the September 1942 "Green Portfolio" (mentioned previously) the section "Richtlinien für die Behandlung der Judenfrage" (Guidelines for the handling of the Jewish question) begins with:
"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." (Document EC-347, IMT, Vol XXXVI, p. 348 https://archive.is/FyaSP)

An 11 July 1943 memo by Martin Bormann explains that Hitler had prohibited publicly discussing "a future overall solution" to "the Jewish Question": viewtopic.php?t=12928
Bormann was Hitler's private secretary and head of the NSDAP's Chancellery, Bormann was accepted into Hitler's inner circle, accompanied him almost everywhere and provided him briefings and summaries of events. He was present with Hitler in the Fuehrerbunker when Hitler committed suicide. Bormann himself did not attend the Wannsee conference, but his assistant (SS-Oberführer Dr. Gerhard Klopfer) did.
Another document (PS-3244) written by Martin Bormann, dated 9 October 1942 (9 months after Wannsee) regarding the "Final Solution" can be read here: viewtopic.php?t=9280
It reveals quite obviously that the "Final Solution" was not an extermination policy

gl0spana wrote:Clearly this does not mean all the Jews.

Well, since the goal of the "Final Solution" was to find a place to dump them all after the war (which they lost, so it didn't happen) it did mean all the Jews (in Europe anyway). Heck, maybe they would have even dumped them in Palestine if they won.

gl0spana wrote:Able bodied men in particular will go to work camps. The ones who cannot work, the elderly, the sick, children, some women perhaps are really the ones being "resettled". But where?

Children can work, why couldn't they? They certainly do work all the time today: there are literally millions of children working in sweat shops all over Southeast Asia - and this is during peace time. Unicef estimates over 150 million child laborers exist today. Some children were even soldiers in WWII, so they certainly could have worked.
And the idea that women can't work sounds pretty sexist dude, try to cool it with the prejudice please.

As for the sick: the solution to people being sick is either curing them, quarantining them, or euthanizing them. This would apply to both sick Jews and Gentiles.

When a person is dying of an incurable disease (even with modern technology) it is not even necessarily seen as a bad thing to euthanize them. It happens all over the world even today; and if we're talking about during a war where food and medicine are scarce and they could potentially spread disease to others, it can't really be considered a war crime.

As for the elderly, if they are just too old to work, they must be too old to fight or reproduce more Jews and likely are going to die sooner or later anyway. You can just shove them in a ghetto, have a few armed guards and you don't have to worry about them.

This isn't just speculation either, there is documentary evidence and testimony about this.
For example, on 25 October 1941, Franz Rademacher, Legation Counselor at the Foreign Office, composed a note, in which he added the following after the announcement of the shooting of 8,000 male Jews in Serbia:
"The rest of the approximately 20,000 Jews (women, children, and old people) and about 1,500 Gypsies, whose men were likewise also shot, were supposed to be collected into the so-called Gypsy Quarter of the city of Belgrade as a ghetto. Food for the winter could be secured in scanty amounts... 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." (Robert Kempner, "Eichmann und Komplizen", 1961, pp. 293, 288-292; Also found in: "Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politk", Serie D, XIII, pp. 570–572)

According to the source above, the executed Serbian male Jews were supposed to have been deported after "numerous acts of sabotage and revolt." At first, it was intended to deport them "to the General Gouvernement [occupied Poland] or Russia" but "difficulties with transportation" caused the Germans to classify these Jews as a direct security threat, and so they were shot. We call these types of people "war casualties" not "victims of a genocide."

After the war ended, on 8 February 1946 the Soviet's Chief prosecutor of the IMT, General Rudenko, declared in his opening speech:
"Upon investigations by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union, it was found that at the front, behind their main line of defense, the Hitlerites had systematically constructed special concentration camps where they kept tens of thousands of children, women who were unfit for work, and old men ... I must name the concentration camps of Smolensk [Russia], Stavropol [Russia], Kharkov [Ukraine], Kiev [Ukraine], Lvov [Ukraine], Poltava [Ukraine], Novgorod [Russia], Orel [Russia], Rovno [Ukraine), Dniepropetrovsk [Ukraine], Odessa [Ukraine], Kamenetz-Podolsk [Russia], Gomel [White Russia], Kerch [Ukraine], of the Stalingrad region [Russia], of Kaunas [Lithuania], Riga [Latvia], Mariampol (Lithuania) of Kloga (Estonia) and many others..." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-08-46.asp)

Three of these camps were described in detail in document USSR-4:
"On 19 March 1944 advancing Red Army units discovered, near the settlement of Osaritchi in the region of Polesskoy in the Bielorussian S.S.R., within the limits of German defense lines, three concentration camps in which there were over 33,000 children, women, and old men incapable of work." (IMT, vol. VII, p. 578. https://loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Vol-VII.pdf)

Adam Czerniaków, a Warsaw Judenälteste wrote in his diary that on 1 April 1942 a convoy of "About 1000 deportees from Hanover, Gelsenkirchen etc" arrived from Westphalia and Lower Saxony and "Those aged over 68 had been allowed to stay in Germany." The convoy consisted of "Old people, many women, small children." (see: http://web.archive.org/web/202006240128 ... Ghetto.pdf as well as: "The Diary of Adam Czerniakow", 1979, pp. 339-340)

Theresienstadt had a ghetto for the elderly, as Joseph Buehler described at Nuremberg:
"Because of the special problems of the Government General [occupied Poland] I had asked Heydrich for a personal interview and he received me. On that occasion, among many other things, I described in particular the catastrophic conditions which had resulted from the arbitrary bringing of Jews into the Government General. He replied that for this very reason he had invited the Governor General to the conference. The Reichsfuehrer SS, so he said, had received an order from the Fuehrer to round up all the Jews of Europe and to settle them in the Northeast of Europe, in Russia. I asked him whether this meant that the further arrival of Jews in the Government General would cease, and whether the hundreds of thousands of Jews who had been brought into the Government General without the permission of the Governor General would be moved out again. Heydrich promised me both these things. Heydrich said furthermore that the Fuehrer had given an order that Theresienstadt, a town in the Protectorate, would become a reservation in which old and sick Jews, and weak Jews who could not stand the strains of resettlement, were to be accommodated in the future. This information left me definitely convinced that the resettlement of the Jews, if not for the sake of the Jews, then for the sake of the reputation and prestige of the German people, would be carried out in a humane fashion. The removal of the Jews from the Government General was subsequently carried out exclusively by the Police."

gl0spana wrote:Belorussia, Ukraine? These are areas the Germans plan on setting up in, these areas are to be annexed and will become part of greater Germany. The Nazis are always talking about this, and also always talking about how they're deport many millions of Slavs away from these areas. So why move Jews here. Where will they live? Clearly you could build camps for them to live in, or settle them in towns, but this is hardly a permanent solution.

It wasn't meant to be a permanent solution. They wanted to round up the Jews and put them in specific locations so, after the war [assuming they won] they could have easily gathered them up and put them somewhere else. If all the Jews are located in specific ghettos and internment camps, it's a lot easier to find them than if they are scattered around everywhere.

And they didn't even have to go about rounding up Jews so often in these territories, as they just straight up left once news came that the Germans were coming. The Germans were quite satisfied about this in fact, from a 12 September 1941 Einsatzgruppen report:
"While a considerable number of Jews could be apprehended during the first weeks, it can be assumed that in the central and eastern districts of the Ukraine, in many cases, perhaps 70-90 % (possibly even 100%) of the Jewish population have fled the area. The gratuitous evacuation of many thousands of Jews may be considered to be an indirect success of the work of the SD. We hear mostly from the other side of the Urals, this is a great contribution to the solution of the Jewish question in Europe." (Operational Situation Report USSR No. 81, https://archive.is/4JYUi0)

With successes like that happening, why on earth would the Germans even deny claims of atrocities against Jews, even if they were false? More:

Jewish Evacuations by the USSR during WWII (from Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together)
viewtopic.php?t=12777

gl0spana wrote:Plus it is indisputable that many Jews who lived in these areas prior to the war have been killed by Germans as part of "partisan reprisals".

Sure, and this was completely legal even by the Geneva convention ratified at the time which was signed by the Germans (but not the USSR). Tactically questionable? Morally reprehensible? Perhaps, but it was legal warfare. What was illegal was the gruesome tactics of the Jewish and communist partisans that were terrorizing not only the German army in the eastern regions but also the ordinary civilians who were just trying to go about their lives. The "Holocaust" story claims a policy of "find every Jew you can and kill them" existed, but not of the local gentiles of the regions occupied by the Germans. In fact, these civilains often found themselves more at risk of partisan/terrorist attacks, pillaging, rape, etc than German brutality. I guess the idea was that terrorizing them would help motivate them to fight back against the German occupiers.

What's also true is that many Jews who perished in WWII were killed not by Germans, but by people who were formerly under USSR occupation (and later German occupation). For example, consider this account by Aleksandras Shtromas, Jewish professor of political science & former Kaunas (Lithuania) ghetto internee during WWII:
"It is a fact that more than half of the membership of the tiny pre-Soviet Lithuanian Communist Party, about eight hundred people, were Jews. It is also a fact that these Jewish Communists in 1940 and 1941 played prominent roles in the Soviet occupation administration of Lithuania. The most notorious interrogators of the Lithuanian branch of the Soviet security police, the NKVD, were Lithuanian Jewish Communists, and many such Jewish Communists manned the NKVD detachments, which randomly arrested and deported to Siberia the alleged class enemies and other so-called "anti-Soviet elements" of Lithuania. ... No wonder then that as soon as the Lithuanians got rid of the Soviets (this they did in a national uprising on the first day of the Soviet-German war [June 22, 1941], taking control of the country long before the German troops were able to occupy it), a series of wild Jewish pogroms broke out in the country ... As a Jew, I must reject the assumption that we Jews forever were just the faultless and powerless victims of other peoples' abuse and injustices (https://books.google.com/books?id=fTt6l ... #v=onepage or https://pic8.co/sh/ZAPpiO.png)

gl0spana wrote:The conservative number, argued by the defense during the Einsatzgruppen trials is around 400,000 Jews killed.

And let me guess, they magically obliterated all evidence of this alleged 400,000 by digging up the rotting corpses, burning them, and grinding the millions of pounds of burnt remains into a fine powder and distributed it across many acres of farmland?
These trials were, of course, nothing but show trials. They have been widely criticized by legal scholars around the world.
Benjamin Ferencz, a Jew, (i.e. the aggrieved party) was the Chief Prosecutor at the trial.
According to a Washington Post article on this:
"Ferencz... says it's important to recall that military legal norms at the time permitted a host of flexibilities that wouldn't fly today. "You know how I got witness statements?" he says. "I'd go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone one up against the wall. Then I'd say, 'Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.' It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid." (Matthew Brzezinski, Giving Hitler Hell. https://archive.is/i0pm)

Ferencz spoke of absurd things like furniture being made of dead Jews. He also stated:
"I once saw DPs beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?"

Ferencz, again, describing his interrogation of an SS colonel:
"What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen [shot while trying to escape]... I said “you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!” I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said “now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen, but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are under no obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it...” (Tomaz Jardim, "The Mauthausen Trial: American Military Justice in Germany", 2012, p. 82-83. https://pdfhost.io/v/2mojhLqBA_The_Mauthausen_Trial.pdf)

Maybe that SS guy did something to deserve being treated that way: who knows? But when you treat people like that, sometimes they'll "confess" to anything. It doesn't really lend much credence to the conclusions of the trial, which took "Judicial notice" of supposed "facts" that actually were not true at all.

gl0spana wrote:Why would you want to put more Jews here where they could again ferment partisan activity?

Well if they are "properly" interned in ghettos or camps then they aren't going to be much of a threat. The partisans/terrorists were mostly Red Army soldiers stuck behind enemy lines (many of them Jewish) or Jewish male civilians that took up arms in the region. It wasn't often that they were escapees from German camps since the prisoners were not armed but the guards were.
Plus, when you put all of the Jewish women, children, old people, etc in a ghetto and execute 100 or so of them (legally, I might add) in a reprisal measure any time these Jewish partisans/terrorists (illegally) commit a terrorist attack, they might think twice about doing it again. Or maybe not. Anyway, the NSDAP didn't invent this stuff, that strategy of warfare has deep roots in European history.

Bernd Bonwetsch estimates the numbers of partisans, based on USSR and German sources at half a million by 1944. Many were not uniformed soldiers at all and would hide among civilians. How exactly do you deal with this when your goal is to win the war?

gl0spana wrote:The exterminationist argument is much simpler.

Than the silly strawman you have invented? Not very surprising.

gl0spana wrote:Use the able bodied as productive labor, dispose of the rest, since they are a resource drain on the German war effort as it moves into its most critical and dangerous stage yet, and yet cannot be counted on for much production.

Yes, it makes perfect sense for the Germans to go around mass-murdering millions of Jews who were supposedly incapable of working (and thus wouldn't be a threat), dumping them into massive pits, then going back to dig up the millions of rotting corpses so they could incinerate them on giant pyres (somehow invisible to aerial photographs) and then dump all the millions of pounds of burnt remains into the pits and cover them with a layer of soil, magically obliterating all of this evidence.
And while you're at it, use a bunch of "code words" in your documents, consistently saying that the purpose of the camps is something different (they used telepathy to say the really incriminating stuff).
Oh, and don't forget to use a postage-stamp sized 4x9 ft manually operated corpse chute to pull up half a million gassed corpses (poisonous to touch and evaporating cyanide gas from their bodies, endangering anyone in the building) to be cremated in individual crematoria oven muffles, rather than large-scale corpse incineration plants which are the obvious choice, such as those used for livestock.

Of course, to kill these people you must also employ a homicidal gas chamber that has a less powerful ventilation system than the undressing room right next door (and many more times less powerful than the fumigation chamber), with the air outputs at the bottom (like in a morgue, as putrid gasses are heavier than air) instead of at the top, like in the delousing gas chambers [used to save Jewish lives] which also used Zyklon-B, as cyanide is lighter than air. And since Zyklon-B also takes hours to completely outgas its load in a normal setting, the logical thing to do is definitely avoid using the special devices designed to speed up this process when gassing Jews, but not when fumigating clothes and sheets.

And while they were at it, they also magically managed to avoid producing significant traces of cyanide residue in the walls of these rooms used to kill hundreds of thousands of people with the highly reactive cyanide gas, despite the fumigation rooms (which also used Zyklon-B) still have ridiculously high cyanide concentrations even to this day.

The simple fact of the matter is that if they truly wanted to systematically exterminate the Jews, far more effective methods would have been employed instead of these absurd Rube-Goldberg machine-like methods alleged. And 99% of the so-called "Holocaust survivors" would not have survived either.

gl0spana wrote:chiefly it is an economic problem for the Germans

To have unpaid workers in forced-labor camps? Really?

gl0spana wrote:They cut the Jews off from the rest of society, but thereby the Jews became dependant on them for everything. I suppose they could have let them go, released them into the Russian hinterland, but that seems kind of silly.

Are Jews completely incapable of taking care of themselves? I sense an anti-semitic canard. Anti-Semites often compare Jews to parasites, unable to survive on their own (Like other humans have for literally thousands of years) but completely dependent on some gentile hosts.
Cool it with the anti-semitism, bud.

gl0spana wrote:BTW I should say I am not an exterminationist.

No honest person in your situation would be a revisionist or exterminationist. You need to do a lot more research, by reading both sides of course.

gl0spana wrote:In my historiography - which I know I cannot prove right now - the Jews were never even put in the ghettos...

Jews put themselves in "Ghettos" all the time even to this day. But really, proving something physically exists in a place today (the claim of the exterminationists) is easy to prove. What's difficult to provide is 75-year-old travel itineraries for millions of people during what was probably the most bloody and chaotic period in human history: whether there was a "Holocaust" or not.

Exterminationist history professor Longerich (considered one of the leading experts on the "Holocaust") wrote in his 2010 book:
"Even the establishment of ghettos was carried out so haphazardly and slowly that it would be wrong to see it as a systematic policy ultimately aimed at the physical annihilation of the Jews. It is quite clear that there was no uniform and unified policy towards the inhabitants of the ghettos." (Peter Longerich, "Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews" p. 166. full book or google books)
Last edited by Webmaster on Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: [PM request to fix broken link - Webmaster]
"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

gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby gl0spana » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:28 am)

Lamprecht wrote:It was a temporary measure in order to remove them from the German people's living space, they intended to win the war in the East and then remove them completely from Europe, while also acquiring land in the process.
What happened instead was that they lost, the USSR took over this territory and even made it to East Germany.
)


HI Lamprecht,

I cannot respond to every point you made but the main question I'm interested in, is why evacuate the Jews from the ghettos at all?

You suggest they were in the Reich's living space - well wasn't Belarus and Ukraine as well? These resource rich areas weren't important or desirable for Nazi Germany?

Additionally they already seem pretty much out of the way, do you consider this map accurate? If not please provide accurate map.


https://www.facinghistory.org/sites/def ... 933_45.jpg

You can notice in the map that there are no ghettos near the Danzig corridor or East Prussia. I guess they are nearby, but firmly within Polish territory. How are these Jews in these ghettos, under strict lockdown and supervision a threat to German security. Wouldn't moving all these potentially dangerous Jews into the USSR which is still basically a warzone even in occupied areas helpful?


---

You make one point about Jewish children being able to work. It's true, perhaps even a child of 3 could work, but I doubt that's an efficient use of resources. Remember Jews that are in labor have to be well fed. It's all about the calories man. In my post I talk more about this. Maybe you will disagree about the many Soviet that died of hunger during the war. I suggest you read Chapter 4 of this book, titled “The Purpose of the Russian Campaign Is the Decimation of
the Slavic Population by Thirty Million”: The Radicalization
of German Food Policy in Early 1941

the book can be found here: https://ru.b-ok2.org/book/5396259/a7d8d8

It is pretty well sourced, I'd be interested to see if you have problems with it.

---
In addition sickly Jews are always a danger because the diseases were communicable. You don't want to compromise your workers. The Warsaw ghetto was said contain 400,000 Jews in an area of 1.3 square miles, diseases are going to be rampant there. Only the strongest (who have the best immune systems) will come away unscathed.

---

You say at some point, I can't find the passage, but that many Jews stayed in the ghettos. Do you have evidence of this? I thought the Ghettos were all liquidated.

---

Lastly you said that the Jews when segregated became dependent on the Germans - criticized that as anti-semitic charicature

Yes that is what happens when you forbid people from having businesses and expropriating all their wealth.

https://voxeu.org/article/confiscatory- ... zi-germany

By Reich policy property of Jews was seized.

"Largely this is due to the destruction of the economic livelihood of Germany’s Jewish minority in mid-1938, with most of Germany’s Jews reduced to receiving welfare support financed out of confiscated assets (see the contributions in Kreutzmüller and Zatlin 2019). "


The ghettos were simply full of unemployed Jews, scraping together an existence from their hidden savings, completely dependent on the Reich's charity for survival.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10247
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby Hannover » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:47 am)

Once again you dodge two critical elements of what the narrative that you believe in states.

1. That millions of Jews and 'others' were gassed in alleged 'gas chambers' that simply could not have done what your 'holocaust' storyline claims, the gas chambers claims are scientifically impossible, entirely absurd. *

2. The equally preposterous claim made by "The Industry" that millions upon millions of 'holocausted' human remains exist in specifically known locations. However, no such human remains exist, in spite of attempts to find them.

* Auschwitz for example:
For a thorough demolition of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers & alleged Auschwitz homicidal gassing process see analysis at: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11143&p=83723&hilit=model+asmarques#p83723


Simple as that.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3646
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby Hektor » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:14 am)

gl0spana wrote:In mid 1942 the war is far from over. In particular, Wehrmacht has made no progress in northern and central Russia. All along the plan has been to deport the Jews to Madagascar or past the Urals. But the Nazis are not in a position to resettle them to either location. Instead, while the war rages, American and British forces land in North Africa, Air war of Germany intensifies, Nazi leadership decides to resettle the Jews east.

Clearly this does not mean all the Jews. Able bodied men in particular will go to work camps. The ones who cannot work, the elderly, the sick, children, some women perhaps are really the ones being "resettled". But where?
....

That decision has been made prior to this. And it's National Socialists - why do you guys try to deflect from this?
There was enough other labour available - The amount of labour from Jews was marginal. But why not use them while they are around?
If you want to remove people from Europe (and you can't ship them out), the East is the way to go. Lot's of space, low population density. Enough food, that's if you're ready to work for yourself.

Why get rid of Jews in the first place?
- Because they are an alien group. Non-Germanic. Not even Indo-Germanic. According to German Law (the ancient one) only people descending from Germans can become German citizens (Ius Sanguinis). This isn't a National Socialist fiction, but something that can be found out by studying German history to its roots. The Jews got their residential permits and ultimately citizenship via the princes. The princes abdicated, hence the Jews had to go again. Their citizenship simply wasn't lawful.

- Because they are a hostile group. Organized Jewry openly declared war on Germany several times. They ran boycott campaigns several times during the 1930s. Their media was agitating against Germany. They acted hostile towards Germans and German culture during the Weimar period. They exploited German weakness at that time ruthlessly and the list of grievances could go on and on. And before you come up with the "thou shalt not generalise", "Not all Jews are hostile" and "people are individuals" crap. The social cohesion of Jews is traditionally far higher than the one among Westerners, especially with a North-Western extraction (Which creates problems of its own). They are essentially a nation without a state, which requires stronger in group cohesion and collectivism in the first place. When nations are at war the question isn't whether an individual is hostile or not, the question is what needs to be done to protect ones own nation against hostile actions. The burden of proof is on the individual to prove its innocence. And testing is simply not feasible in all cases. So the government needs to treat them all in the same way. Hence you intern and/or deport them as a matter to control your or your occupied territory.

There are also specifics of Jews like their propensity to spying and working as a network (for information and other goods), which is a strength in business, but a danger, if they are in your midst and hostile. And their culture is essentially Anti-Gentilism, which persists with secular or atheistic Jews. So no, there was quite a good case for at least their physical removal and controlling them. Those facts are however conveniently glossed over by mainstream historiography and media, since they otherwise would destroy the Myth of the innocent Jew that was 'persecuted and exterminated by the evil Nazis for no other reason than their irrational hate and racism'.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2759
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby borjastick » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:18 am)

Hektor wrote:
gl0spana wrote:In mid 1942 the war is far from over. In particular, Wehrmacht has made no progress in northern and central Russia. All along the plan has been to deport the Jews to Madagascar or past the Urals. But the Nazis are not in a position to resettle them to either location. Instead, while the war rages, American and British forces land in North Africa, Air war of Germany intensifies, Nazi leadership decides to resettle the Jews east.

Clearly this does not mean all the Jews. Able bodied men in particular will go to work camps. The ones who cannot work, the elderly, the sick, children, some women perhaps are really the ones being "resettled". But where?
....

That decision has been made prior to this. And it's National Socialists - why do you guys try to deflect from this?
There was enough other labour available - The amount of labour from Jews was marginal. But why not use them while they are around?
If you want to remove people from Europe (and you can't ship them out), the East is the way to go. Lot's of space, low population density. Enough food, that's if you're ready to work for yourself.

Why get rid of Jews in the first place?
- Because they are an alien group. Non-Germanic. Not even Indo-Germanic. According to German Law (the ancient one) only people descending from Germans can become German citizens (Ius Sanguinis). This isn't a National Socialist fiction, but something that can be found out by studying German history to its roots. The Jews got their residential permits and ultimately citizenship via the princes. The princes abdicated, hence the Jews had to go again. Their citizenship simply wasn't lawful.

- Because they are a hostile group. Organized Jewry openly declared war on Germany several times. They ran boycott campaigns several times during the 1930s. Their media was agitating against Germany. They acted hostile towards Germans and German culture during the Weimar period. They exploited German weakness at that time ruthlessly and the list of grievances could go on and on. And before you come up with the "thou shalt not generalise", "Not all Jews are hostile" and "people are individuals" crap. The social cohesion of Jews is traditionally far higher than the one among Westerners, especially with a North-Western extraction (Which creates problems of its own). They are essentially a nation without a state, which requires stronger in group cohesion and collectivism in the first place. When nations are at war the question isn't whether an individual is hostile or not, the question is what needs to be done to protect ones own nation against hostile actions. The burden of proof is on the individual to prove its innocence. And testing is simply not feasible in all cases. So the government needs to treat them all in the same way. Hence you intern and/or deport them as a matter to control your or your occupied territory.

There are also specifics of Jews like their propensity to spying and working as a network (for information and other goods), which is a strength in business, but a danger, if they are in your midst and hostile. And their culture is essentially Anti-Gentilism, which persists with secular or atheistic Jews. So no, there was quite a good case for at least their physical removal and controlling them. Those facts are however conveniently glossed over by mainstream historiography and media, since they otherwise would destroy the Myth of the innocent Jew that was 'persecuted and exterminated by the evil Nazis for no other reason than their irrational hate and racism'.


An excellent post Hektor. If ever there was a post that deserved the Up Tick app this is it. In fact having the facility to Up Tick posts one agrees with but that one doesn't necessarily wish to respond to would be a great idea and one which someone should propose. Oh wait a minute I did that already and got ignored...
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3646
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby Hektor » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:27 pm)

borjastick wrote:....An excellent post Hektor. If ever there was a post that deserved the Up Tick app this is it. In fact having the facility to Up Tick posts one agrees with but that one doesn't necessarily wish to respond to would be a great idea and one which someone should propose. Oh wait a minute I did that already and got ignored...


Was about time someone put the things in the right perspective. In short:
- To understand National Socialism you need to look at the Weimar period and familiarise you with the relevant sources.
- To understand WW2 you need to start with WW1, step through Weimar and then look how NS-Germany was treated until September 1939. Of course you need to continue this through WW2 as well on why it was continued and expanded.

Things look differently, if you do an institutional analysis using a causal-realist approach and apply that to history. Why don't more historians do it? Well, they are mostly not really trained to do that and if they did, they'll find themselves quickly isolated from or within the "scientific community". Remember: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. One good analysis done in 1933 came, of all people, from the British ambassador to Germany, Horace Rumbold:
https://archive.org/details/AllegedPers ... 3/mode/2up
Mind you that he is a British diplomat and probably must be careful not to step on the sensibilities of judeophiles, germanophobes and of course Jews (that have access to records) themselves. On the other hand he has to give a more or less realistic picture through to the foreign ministry.

Shall we go through this, point by point?

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby Breker » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:42 pm)

We find it curious that gi0spana, while believing without proof that Jews who were relocated indicated a plan to 'exterminate' them, doesn't ask:
'Why evacuate Japanese-Americans to US concentration camps at all'.

Given gi0spana's bizarre logic, there must of been a plan to exterminate Japanese-Americans.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby gl0spana » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:05 pm)

Breker wrote:We find it curious that gi0spana, while believing without proof that Jews who were relocated indicated a plan to 'exterminate' them, doesn't ask:
'Why evacuate Japanese-Americans to US concentration camps at all'.

Given gi0spana's bizarre logic, there must of been a plan to exterminate Japanese-Americans.
B.



Good question, I am arguing that the elimination of non-productive Jews makes sense only in the context of Germany's food and resource shortages at this time, and the fact that they were engaged in a war that was absolutely existential. America on the other hand, was facing countries that were not major threats, at least to the continental US.

Say what you want about the Japansese, they were brave fighters, but Japan had 10-15x less industrial capacitity than the US. During the Pacific War the US suffered just 161,000 dead in 4 years (including 111,914 in battle and 49,000 non-battle), that's less than 3 Vietnams. They defeated Japan rather easily. Western front dead on the other hand were 100,000 in less than a year following D-DAY. German dead not including (POWS) on the Eastern front were 1.5 million by the end of 1943.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ca ... casualties

In any case, the US was well equipped economically to provide for the 120k Japanse they held in captivity.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3646
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby Hektor » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:56 pm)

gl0spana wrote:
Breker wrote:We find it curious that gi0spana, while believing without proof that Jews who were relocated indicated a plan to 'exterminate' them, doesn't ask:
'Why evacuate Japanese-Americans to US concentration camps at all'.

Given gi0spana's bizarre logic, there must of been a plan to exterminate Japanese-Americans.
B.



Good question, I am arguing that the elimination of non-productive Jews makes sense only in the context of Germany's food and resource shortages at this time, and the fact that they were engaged in a war that was absolutely existential. America on the other hand, was facing countries that were not major threats, at least to the continental US.
.....

Food and resource shortages were at least manageable for a long time during the war. I'd say that only became a real pressing problem late in 1944. The change was of course also gradually from more and more rationing and decreasing the attributed rations per person, prisoner, etc. Germans were certainly getting better rations than Jews or Poles, but then it was the Germans that had to carry the main burden of the war that was forced onto Germany by the Allied Power to which Poland did Allied themselves in an aggressive treaty that singled out Germany, while Jews were internationally inciting hate towards Germany. Allowing them to work for the German war effort was of course a compromise in some way and it lead to their rationing being improved. The other reason for giving them lower rations would be to get them more compliant with resettlement policies. Listen to what ordinary Jews say when they were deported and arrived somewhere. They got food and coffee, etc.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby Lamprecht » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:07 pm)

gl0spana wrote:HI Lamprecht,

I cannot respond to every point you made but the main question I'm interested in, is why evacuate the Jews from the ghettos at all?

The ultimate, long term goal in regards to the "Jewish Question" was a Europe free of Jews. This was intended to be completed after the war, you can read this in various documents I cited (amongst others). As the Germans conquered new territories in the East, they decided it was a good idea to round up the Jews in the other conquered territories and haul them off towards Asia, sometimes keeping some around to be used in labor camps. Obviously, if the Jews violently refused their deportations there would be some punishment. And the ones that were terminally ill it wouldn't make sense to put them on trains with healthy Jews, unless the goal was to kill them all.

And as they resettled these Jews they plundered their wealth. That is what "Aktion Reinhardt" was all about, according to this document (among others):
5 January 1944 Globocnik Report to Himmler (4024-PS) on Operation Reinhard(t)
viewtopic.php?t=12359

We live in the year 2020, but we are talking about the 1930s and 40s. Even today a mass transfer of people would have to be taken step-by-step, day by day, mile by mile. It cannot all happen at once, especially when other things are happening that complicate it. And, unlike you and I, the Germans did not have the ability to know what was going to happen the next day. To us, it is "History" but to them, it was "the future."

Also, as I explained, after a certain period of time resettling Jews "to the East" became completely infeasible. At this point, discussions about resettling Jews "to the East" stopped. And a few years before that, sending Jews "to the East" was not an idea that was even entertained. I cited documents and statements in chronological order in my first post for a reason.

You suggest they were in the Reich's living space - well wasn't Belarus and Ukraine as well? These resource rich areas weren't important or desirable for Nazi Germany?

These already-inhabited regions were eventually occupied by the Third Reich, yes, but they were not considered "German territory" as they were not inhabited by German people besides the soldiers, police, anti-partisan auxiliaries, etc. Whether or not Hitler ultimately desired to incorporate these territories into the Reich after the war [if he had won] is a separate subject of purely speculative discussion.

Additionally they already seem pretty much out of the way, do you consider this map accurate? If not please provide accurate map.

Image

You can notice in the map that there are no ghettos near the Danzig corridor or East Prussia. I guess they are nearby, but firmly within Polish territory.

If you tried to read my first post, you would have seen that I provided this very map in a modified form: with markers for Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, and Auschwitz included as well as a link to the original source. I do not care to squabble over the accuracy of each individual dot on the map: there is something else that is very important for you to understand that you do not appear to realize about it. If you look at the bottom of the key (the box in the top right) it explains that the lines drawn are "Modern boundaries."
For example, look at Kaliningrad - the part labeled "Russia" in-between the labels "Baltic Sea" + "Lithuania" + "Poland"
This area was considered part of Germany during this period, it only became "Kaliningrad" in 1945 - the year of Germany's surrender. For centuries it was called "Königsberg," a historically German (or Prussian) region, albeit with Slavic and Jewish minorities.
As you can see by this map of German territorial losses after WWI, this region was still part of Germany when Hitler rose to power:
Image

And here is a map of how Europe was divided between the Third Reich and USSR between the beginning of the war and Operation Barbarossa:
Image

The specific regions you call "firmly within Polish territory" were considered German land and part of the Third Reich. The General Gouvernement was considered occupied Polish territory.

The map is only focusing on the Eastern front. You must also remember that France declared war on Germany after their territorial dispute with Poland (or "Invasion of Poland" if you prefer) and they were swiftly defeated. The Benelux countries were also occupied by the Germans so they could invade France without having to directly attack the Magnoit line. Really, the unlucky Belgians were occupied in pretty much every military conflict between Germany and France in history, it was geostrategic. Denmark was occupied when the secret British plan (known as "Plan R 4") to occupy Norwegian ports (which Germany needed to ship Sweden's iron ore in the winter) was revealed. They were geographically intermediate, they were in the way. Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939 and ignored Hitler's proposals for peace; there was a tactical reason for these occupations. These countries also had Jewish populations.

Here is a map that has only a select list of ghettos, but it better shows what regions during this period were considered "Germany" and which were not:
Image

The invasion of the USSR (Operation Barbarossa) began in June 1941, and as the German army pushed deep into the Soviet territory they decided to round up Jews from occupied regions in Europe and send them to these newly conquered Eastern territories, again, as a temporary measure. Step by step, day by day, inch by inch they wanted to achieve their goal of "Liberating" all of Europe from Jews and Communism (which Hitler called "Jewish Bolshevism"). Maybe a bit similar to how the Americans, Soviets, and other "Allies" were assured that the terror-bombing, rape, pillaging, and dismemberment of Germany was a "Liberation" of the German people.

How are these Jews in these ghettos, under strict lockdown and supervision a threat to German security. Wouldn't moving all these potentially dangerous Jews into the USSR which is still basically a warzone even in occupied areas helpful?

Either women and children and old people are useless or they're not. You can't have it both ways. You say that they can't work, but yet they're a threat? You're not even trying to be coherent at all.
How are they under "strict lockdown and supervision" by the Germans if they are in the USSR? What was "The USSR" anyway? What is a nation, and how does that compare to a country?
Like I said in another thread, you have to make an effort to think about things. Just desperately trying to find any excuse to justify your preconceived ideas is not a very academic approach. I don't think you even know the basics of the position you're trying to argue against. I wonder, does that even matter to you?

You make one point about Jewish children being able to work. It's true, perhaps even a child of 3 could work, but I doubt that's an efficient use of resources.

Then I guess they're not much of a threat.

Remember Jews that are in labor have to be well fed. It's all about the calories man. In my post I talk more about this. Maybe you will disagree about the many Soviet that died of hunger during the war. I suggest you read Chapter 4 of this book, titled “The Purpose of the Russian Campaign Is the Decimation of
the Slavic Population by Thirty Million”: The Radicalization
of German Food Policy in Early 1941

the book can be found here: https://ru.b-ok2.org/book/5396259/a7d8d8

It is pretty well sourced, I'd be interested to see if you have problems with it.

The subject of inadequate food has been brought up many times before on this forum. If you want to make an interesting and informative thread about the chapter with a summary and/or quotes, go ahead.

But I will say that there is a difference between being in charge of people and having enough food to feed everyone, but letting some of them starve; versus being in charge of people and not having enough food for everyone, and therefore some will inevitably starve but you are in charge of deciding who that is.

It should also be pointed out that starvation blockades have been employed in wars for a long time, the Germans were very much familiar with that after all the German deaths from the British blockade. You can question whether this is a legitimate form of warfare, but I wonder how you could say that it's not while arguing that fire-bombing cities filled with women and children is? Perhaps, if it's against someone you dislike then it's legitimate but if the tables are turned it can never be legitimate.

Additionally, Goering stated 3 months after the invasion of the USSR began:
"It is clear that a differentiation in the nourishment is necessary. First come the fighting troops, then the other troops on enemy territory, and then the homeland troops. The ratios are to be established accordingly. Then the German non-military population will be provided for. Only then comes the population in the occupied territories. In the occupied territories, as a principle, nourishment is to be secured only for those who work for us. Even if one desired to nourish all the remaining inhabitants, this could not be done in the newly occupied Eastern areas." (EC-003. IMT, vol. XXXVI, p. 107, "Wirtschaftsaufzeichnungen für die Berichtszeit vom 15.8. bis 16.9.1941." http://loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Vol-XXXVI.pdf)

This is a tough policy, sure, but it clearly has nothing to do with a deliberate plan to starve Eastern populations as an end in itself. He is basically saying there isn't enough food to go around.

In addition sickly Jews are always a danger because the diseases were communicable. You don't want to compromise your workers. The Warsaw ghetto was said contain 400,000 Jews in an area of 1.3 square miles, diseases are going to be rampant there. Only the strongest (who have the best immune systems) will come away unscathed.

I never claimed that all sorts of sick Jews were resettled. In a previous discussion we had, I brought up one example (described in two reports) of a few hundred sickly Jews being euthanized in a "resettlement action" of thousands of Jews via train to what some call an "extermination camp." Putting sick Jews on trains with healthy Jews would endanger the lives of the latter, perhaps they made some effort to avoid that.

And a sick Jew is no more or less of a threat of disease than a sick non-Jew. Like I said before: this was a different time period. Many diseases today that have very low mortality rates were a death sentence back then.

At the Nuremberg trials, regarding an accusation against a German Dr. Blome of instigating the murder of 25-30,000 Poles with Tuberculosis, it was said: "The extermination of the [tubercular] Poles did not take place," yet:
"even if the existence of these proposals had been known, it cannot be said that they contradicted in any way the laws of humanity. According to widespread views held by the responsible circles, such measures are necessary if tuberculosis, from which millions die yearly, is to be fought effectively, and if the healthy portion of the population is to be protected effectively against the dangers of infection through incurable tubercular patients. In this case, the protection of the healthy population against infection appears more important than consideration for the unrestricted liberty of incurable patients."

You say at some point, I can't find the passage, but that many Jews stayed in the ghettos. Do you have evidence of this? I thought the Ghettos were all liquidated.

What kind of evidence am I supposed to provide for such a thing, claiming people were in a specific place over 7 decades ago? You said 10 Olympic-sized swimming pools full of Jewish remains exists in a specific location today. You cannot show 1% of this.
I provided quotations in my first post which I do not think you even read. If I made a specific claim then quote it and respond to it.

Lastly you said that the Jews when segregated became dependent on the Germans - criticized that as anti-semitic charicature

Yes that is what happens when you forbid people from having businesses and expropriating all their wealth.

https://voxeu.org/article/confiscatory- ... zi-germany

By Reich policy property of Jews was seized.

"Largely this is due to the destruction of the economic livelihood of Germany’s Jewish minority in mid-1938, with most of Germany’s Jews reduced to receiving welfare support financed out of confiscated assets (see the contributions in Kreutzmüller and Zatlin 2019)."

In 1938 Germany was not even at war. Between 1933 (when Hitler came to power) and 1939 (when WWII broke out) two-thirds of the Jews in Germany had already emigrated.
Also there's a thing called "Farming" - I know you don't really hear much about Jewish farmers but I see no anatomical reason why it could not happen. Then again, as the Torah says, Gentiles shall "stand and feed your flocks" and "be your plowmen and your vinedressers." (Isaiah 61:5) :roll:

The ghettos were simply full of unemployed Jews, scraping together an existence from their hidden savings, completely dependent on the Reich's charity for survival.

Maybe the Germans saw this JTA article and said "We can work with this, let's pump these numbers up!" :D

"Uzbekistan Soviet Republic Becomes New Home for Hundreds of Thousands of Evacuated Jews
February 19, 1942
Development of a new Jewish center in the Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan with a possible Jewish population of 1,000,000 people was predicted here today as tens of thousands of Jews from the Ukraine, White Russia, Crimea and other parts of Soviet territory who were evacuated to this part of the Soviet Union prior to the Nazi invasion of their home towns and colonies, started to map out plans for remaining permanently in this part of the world...
The number of Soviet and Polish Jews now concentrated in Uzbekistan is estimated to be about one million. There were about 40,000 Jews living in the whole of Uzbekistan prior to the outbreak of the present war... Sparsely populated, the Uzbekistan Soviet Republic offers unlimited opportunities in the agricultural and industrial field and is able to absorb millions of new settlers."
https://archive.is/9yN5D
"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
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Why evacuate the Jews east at all?

Postby Lamprecht » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:13 pm)

I think the OP did not complete his actual question, which appears to be:
Why evacuate the Jews east at all when they could have killed them instead?

If the answer to that question is not obvious to you, maybe you need to clear the cobwebs out of your head and try to think harder 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


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests