nickterry wrote:To start from the back end, you would be wrong that most historians think Wannsee does not discuss extermination; what is left out is any discussion of specific methods, and any discussion of the fate of the unfit. Those who are deemed fit for work were to be sent 'roadbuilding to the east' and as the survivors would be the potential seedgerm of a Jewish biological revival, would be 'correspondingly treated'.
It probably belongs in another thread and it has been discussed here but I would like to see where Wansee mentions extermination of the Jews. Jewish biological revival? I thought the goal was extermination, not improving the Jewish genes by means of selection. Also, you are contradicting yourself from only one post ago when you said "It is correct that the Nazis intended to eliminate all Jews after the war"
No, because I stated that the policy was not 100% instantaneous extermination, as so many revisionists and many non-revisionists imply.
As for Wannsee:
Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)
Der allfällig endlich verbleibende Restbestand wird, da es sich bei diesem zweifellos um den widerstandsfähigsten Teil handelt, entsprechend behandelt werden müssen, da dieser, eine natürliche Auslese darstellend, bei Freilassung als Keimzelle eines neuen jüdischen Aufbaues anzusprechen ist. (Siehe die Erfahrung der Geschichte.)
The above excerpt is as I paraphrased it; there is no discussion of the fate of the non-able bodied, and the expectation is that a large portion of the able bodied will be eliminated by natural causes; the remnant then has to be 'treated accordingly' to prevent a Jewish revival.
Note: utter silence on the fate of the unfit; who given that children are not deemed arbeitsfaehig would be just as much a potential seed of a Jewish revival, so....
Yes, you answered most of my questions using that special school of thought known as Holocaust logic using the same convoluted explanations that most Holocaust "historians" espouse.
In the prisoner hospitals, sick inmates judged unlikely to recover quickly were killed with lethal injections until the spring of 1943, when that practice was stopped by the camp chief medical officer, Eduard Wirths. The SS also regularly cleaned out entire barrack blocks of all inmates during epidemics and sent them to the gas chambers; and conducted roll-call selections to reduce the numbers.
Nobody denies that such was the practice with mortally ill inmates. The question is why was that practice stopped? It makes perfect sense according to you.
Before you bombard me with questions easily answered from standard works, can you tell me precisely what mainstream works you have read on the KZs and Auschwitz. The suspension of lethal injections was stopped by a combination of an order from Berlin which no longer required the murder of KZ inmates under Aktion 14 f 13, which was usually carried out in T4 institutes (and long after 'civilian' euthanasia had stopped sending patients to T4 institues), and the local decision not to persist with the specific practice peculiar to Auschwitz of killing sick inmates with phenol injections. Wirths, to put it bluntly, had a bit of a conscience.
Secondly, prisoners spent a considerable time in quarantine after arrival, sometimes several months. There were also quarantines for specific blocks inside the camp, which in 1943 did not automatically mean the entire block being sent to the gas chamber, as had happened in 1942.
Once again, a life saving measure in an extermination camp. Go figure.
Yet Auschwitz was both a concentration/labour camp and an extermination site. So no contradiction; measures to try and preserve life (which failed considerably given that even the revisionist author Mattogno accepts a death toll of 130,000 at Auschwitz, more than any other ordinary KZ) applied to the labour camp function not the extermination site function.
At the same time, in 1945 there were pressures building to suspend all killings, prompted by negotiations with the Red Cross, and thus a very schizophrenic policy emerged, but this should be no surprise as the entire Third Reich was collapsing.
Suspend killings? I thought the first thing a mass murderer would do in order to hide all traces of his genocide, such as is claimed he has done meticulously, would be to exterminate the remaining witnesses, especially if he sees his defeat coming. Why instead evacuate them? Any explanation or is it Holocaust logic again?
Yet we are told constantly by revisionists that all ordinary Auschwitz inmates, who never saw anything directly, don't count as witnesses. Is that revisionist logic at work? Seriously, drop the sneering and let's discuss this openly.
You assume that the exclusive purpose of Auschwitz was extermination. It was not; the camp was a dual purpose site. Already by October 1944, at least 100,000 prisoners had been transferred from Auschwitz to work in other concentration camps, taking with them what they knew from hearsay or from glimpses of the inner workings of the crematoria. So there is nothing distinctive about the final evacuation of Auschwitz. Those witnesses who had special insight into the killing process, the Sonderkommandos, were to be killed - as happened to a small number who were executed in Mauthausen - but in the confusion of the evacuation, the majority blended in with the ordinary inmates, who were not slated for elimination as 'bearers of secrets', since they were needed as labourers, according to the priorities of the regime at the time.
The Nazis could not possibly hope to achieve total secrecy, and indeed did not; the Polish resistance and the local population knew all about the camp (but because they did not have direct eyeball access, their knowledge was not crystal clear). So did police escorts for the transports, railwaymen and of course the SS guards. If the Nazis were to kill everyone who knew, then in the absence of any witnesses, this would be just as probative of genocide as if they had not killed all the witnesses, since there would be literally no one surviving from a particular camp. Think it through.
Some camps, particularly Mauthausen and Ravensbrueck, did carry out local selections for gas chambers that already existed or were improvised for the purpose, but this was not a general policy.
I guess we have to add two more camps to the list of "camps with gas chambers that nobody has ever seen and no evidence remains".
Or you can read about them and realise that the gas chamber in Mauthausen survives, with only limited dismantling done at the end of the war. Ravensbrueck's improvised chamber was entirely destroyed, but the 5000 or so victims are just as missing and just as dead as if the building had survived. As for Stutthoff...
uschwitz-Birkenau was a concentration camp in which there was an extermination site
Some genius must have thought of this concept for a "super secret extermination" - a camp that both holds inmates and has gas chambers in plain view of the inmates yet expected it to remain a top secret. Now, if you say it was not such a big secret, then how come not a single document, photo or communication is left mentioning gassings?
I will say it again: Auschwitz as an extermination site is an absurd. Only a moron would pick Auschwitz as a site for a "super secret extermination program".
The Nazis were not morons, and they recognised that their aims required compromises. You cannot keep anything a 'super secret', especially not an extermination program. Despite the best efforts of the SS, people escaped from even the pure
extermination camps, and the smoke from the burning could be smelt 10-15km away near Belzec and Treblinka.
I'm sorry to say, by the way, that your demand for a 'single document, photo or communication mentioning gassings' can easily be met. Not only are there the hard to explain documents relating to the crematoria, but there is one contemporary German document explicitly and unequivocally mentioning the gassing of Jews at Auschwitz, and others which refer to their 'destruction' in contrast to the 'slow death' desired for certain categories of Poles. It was discovered by a sometime revisionist, Charles Provan, and has since been used by a recent biographer of Hoess, Ian Baxter.
Your assumption that the Nazis aspired to 100% secrecy is really as flawed as the assumption that they were carrying out 100% instantaneous extermination. Neither was practicable, and the chief source of the contradiction was the need for prisoner labourers. It was logistically
efficient to place the extermination site in a camp complex which would employ those deportees not selected for extermination. Clearly, this benefit overrode the consideration for secrecy.
But next time a nation state decides to plan a genocide in the middle of a total war, I am sure they can ask you for advice on how to plan it. Of course, in the intervening time, we also found several states committing genocides, sometimes with instruments as primitive as machetes, and the perpetrators all got caught. Indeed, most criminals try to cover up their crimes, and fail. Just ask Amanda Knox.
I would welcome it if you responded to my point about the logic of preserving unfit Jews by the millions for long periods - not merely 10s of 1000s for a few weeks or months, but 2.5 million Jews who started vanishing in December 1941 and had to be kept alive until 1944 or so, in order to survive Nazi occupation.
The same question could be applied to Japanese interned at American camps. By your logic, the Americans should have exterminated those Japs. Why keep them alive for years? They only cost money.
The USA in WWII was a rich, prosperous country that did not suffer from food shortages. Sorry, apples and oranges.
But the simple answer to your question is that there was no extermination program.
I'm sorry, this is no answer to my query.
When the Jews were sent to those concentration camps the Germans did not know how long the war would last and unless there was a clear order from Hitler to exterminate Jews, no camp commander or official would have taken such an enormous decision by his own initiative. No document, communication or order were ever found discussing gassings or extermination - that is a consensus among historians. The physical and circumstantial evidence does not support those claims. Regarding the 2.5 million "vanishing Jews", I would like to see your sources. Do not forget that what took place during the war was what we call today "ethnic cleansing". The Germans did it to the Jews and Poles and the Poles and Soviets did it to the Germans later. A large number of Jews fled as refugees or were evacuated eastward when the Germans were advancing, so the number of Jews under German rule is likely overestimated by traditional historians. Not all Jews under German rule were sent to concentration camps but that is a subject for another thread
This also is no answer to my query. Of course, you want to postpone the issue of considering the logic of why the Nazis would keep 2.5 million Jewish 'resettlers' alive by asking for sources on the deportations. Unless you are completely unreasonable, you will accept that there is copious evidence which is detailed in numerous studies and which can be found summarised on the internet on many sites. It is a fact that 75,000 Jews were deported from France, all the name lists survive, the dates of departure are known, their departure was witnessed and so on. The evidence is similar for all other countries from which Jews were deported. In some cases, no name lists, but other statistical material, and corroborated by yet more sources such as the Korherr report, or for the Hungarian deportations, a series of telegrams from the German representative in Hungary, Veesenmeyer, as well as Hungarian Gendarmerie reports counting the trains passing over the border. 437,000 Hungarian Jews were deported, and since 25% of them were selected for labour, a great many survive. At least 5000 testimonies were given in 1945 describing the deportations. The deportations are fact, like it or not.
The question I asked, which you should answer as a hypothetical if you wish, is about the more than 2 million Jews who vanished after being last traced arriving at supposed death camps, which revisionists have been calling transit camps for more than 30 years now, ever since Butz published 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century'. If they were resettled into a territory suffering from a food shortage bad enough to kill off large numbers of the native population from starvation, do you honestly think that the Nazis would have succeeded in keeping them alive in large numbers? Or even tried?
Next: if the Nazis had resettled these deportees into the 'east', as claimed by many revisionists such as Mattogno, Butz and Faurisson, do you not think that the resulting series of 20-40 equivalents of Belsen would have made for even better atrocity propaganda for the advancing Soviets than a story about gas chambers?