All historians agree... What, actually?

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
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby Zulu » 4 years 5 months ago (Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:14 pm)

We are often told that they are not any historians who "denies" the holocaust because the narrative is now well documented and doesn't suffer any valid contradiction. However, while one examines in detail the supposed such "monolithic" narrative of the Holocaust, some discrepancies, and not so little, appears according with historians.
In fact, several major points don't make the unanimity among official historians.

This thread can list the differences of interpretation into the "narrative" made by those historians.

I start with the "modus operandi" of the supposed extermination of all European Jews. It exists a major discrepancy between "intentionalists" and "functionalist" historians. To resume, they don't agree on the way the Nazis perpetrated their supposed crime.
Then, we have the debate Functionalism (or structuralism) versus intentionalism:
Functionalism (or structuralism) versus intentionalism is a historiographical debate about the origins of the Holocaust as well as most aspects of the Third Reich, such as foreign policy. The debate on the origins of the Holocaust centers on essentially two questions:

* Was there a master plan on the part of Adolf Hitler to launch the Holocaust? Intentionalists argue there was such a plan, while functionalists argue there was not.

* Did the initiative for the Holocaust come from above with orders from Adolf Hitler or from below within the ranks of the German bureaucracy? Although neither side disputes the reality of the Holocaust, nor is there serious dispute over the premise that Hitler (as supreme leader) was personally responsible for encouraging the anti-Semitism that allowed the Holocaust to take place, intentionalists argue the initiative came from above, while functionalists contend it came from lower ranks within the bureaucracy.

The terms were coined in a 1981 essay by the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason.[1] Notable functionalists have included Raul Hilberg, Christopher Browning, Hans Mommsen, Martin Broszat, and Zygmunt Bauman. Notable intentionalists have included Andreas Hillgruber, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Klaus Hildebrand, Eberhard Jäckel, Richard Breitman, and Lucy Dawidowicz.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Browning 1986, p. 343 n1: "The terms 'intentionalist' and 'functionalist' were coined by Tim Mason, 'Intention and Explanation: A Current Controversy about the Interpretation of National Socialism,' Der Führerstaat: Mythos und Realität, ed. Gerhard Hirschfeld and Lothar Kettenacker (Stuttgart, 1981), 21-40. Prime examples of the two interpretive approaches can be seen in the articles by Klaus Hildebrand and Hans Mommsen in the same volume."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentiona ... tionalists

To follow, later, I will list others major dispcrepancies about the dates on which Nazis supposedly started the "Final Solution". The "unanimity" is far from being reached on that important point. A video by Vincent Reynouard stresses that lack of consensus while giving different dates advanced by differents authors for the "start" of the extermination of all European Jews.

https://archive.org/details/VincentReyn ... reEnFrance




User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby Dresden » 4 years 5 months ago (Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:01 pm)

"All historians agree....."

"It's not a debate, you know, historians all agree the Holocaust is historical fact," said Matthew Friedman of the Anti-Defamation League

step 1: Make 'holocaust denial' in Europe, Australia, and Canada punishable by imprisonment.

step 2: In the United States, drive all the historians and scholars who disagree out of their professions; slander them and persecute them.

step 3: Proclaim that all historians agree that the holocaust is fact.

It's simple.....it works every time! :D

Plagarized and modified from "cold beer":

cold beer @ Rialto Unified School under fire over Holocaust assignment
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby hermod » 4 years 5 months ago (Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:26 pm)

All orthodox historians agree...that the only convenient way to 'study' the "Holocaust" is circular research, with the first sentence and the last sentence of each paper necessarily stating something like "During WW2, Hitler murdered 6 million Jews, many of them in the gas chambers of his extermination camps." No research out of the Holocaust paradigm. Only baseless conspiracy theories from crazy antisemitic Nazi apologetics can exist out of the Holocaust paradigm.

"It as not necessary to ask how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically since it took place. That is the necessary point of departure for any historical inquiry on this subject. It is our function simply to recall that truth: There as not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers." - 34 orthodox historians to Robert Faurisson, newspaper Le Monde, February 21, 1979

To the victors of WW2, the "Holocaust" was a "fact of common knowledge" from the beginning. To orthodox historians, the "Holocaust" is and has always been an undeniable historical fact from the beginning. Same behavior.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Nessie.
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby Nessie. » 4 years 5 months ago (Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:36 am)

The other area where historians have disagreed is the numbers killed. For example here various historians answer questions about the numbers killed

D MIttleman "academic estimates from 4.8 million to 7.5 million"

RJ Green "Most sources put the number of non-Jews at between 5 and 6 million, roughly equal to the number of Jews murdered."

A Mathis "Hilberg's death-toll estimate (5.1 million) is at the lower end of the range accepted by most Holocaust historians. A precise accounting is virtually impossible, but most estimates are in the 5.8 million range."

http://www.holocaust-history.org/questi ... bers.shtml

The link details estimates, who made them and the disagreement between them and it acknowledges the erroneous 4 million figure for Auschwitz.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby Hannover » 4 years 5 months ago (Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:27 am)

Nessie. wrote:The other area where historians have disagreed is the numbers killed. For example here various historians answer questions about the numbers killed

D MIttleman "academic estimates from 4.8 million to 7.5 million"

RJ Green "Most sources put the number of non-Jews at between 5 and 6 million, roughly equal to the number of Jews murdered."

A Mathis "Hilberg's death-toll estimate (5.1 million) is at the lower end of the range accepted by most Holocaust historians. A precise accounting is virtually impossible, but most estimates are in the 5.8 million range."

http://www.holocaust-history.org/questi ... bers.shtml

The link details estimates, who made them and the disagreement between them and it acknowledges the erroneous 4 million figure for Auschwitz.
And none of then have any proof for their alleged numbers. The entire matter is fiction. One could just as easily give lists numbering the cases of sorcery & witchcraft.
It's claimed that there are enormous mass graves and they know where they are. Guess what, not a single verifiable excavation has occurred. These alleged mass graves have not / cannot be shown, period.
Then we have the alleged 'gas chambers' which defy laws of science, logic, and rational thought AND the alleged human remains which are claimed have not / cannot be shown.

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. Truth needs no protection from scrutiny. The tide is turning.

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

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2366
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby borjastick » 4 years 5 months ago (Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:42 am)

But these numbers games are just that, games to throw figures around willy nilly on the basis and hope that no one would bother to check them. Well guess what? I have always assumed that no one in the forties or fifties, when the concrete was setting around the holocaust claims, could possibly have seen how technology and information flow would have accelerated to the position it is in now. They thought these claims of mass murder and millions of deaths would never be scrutinised to any great extent.

Then along came the internet.

The numbers of dead is a constant topic and thorn in both sides' arguments. The believers start with the official figure, in the region of 5m-7m and build a case around it. They use startlingly odd methods to 'prove' their case. They in effect use a top down method.

On the other hand the revisionists use the bottom up process. We start with the theory that some jews did of course die in the process of emigration and transportation but we have no proof of mass graves, gas chambers, huge amounts of cremations and the like.

Oh by the way as soon as you quote A Mathis you lose a whole bunch of any credibility you think you have.
'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
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby Hannover » 4 years 5 months ago (Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:58 am)

borjastick said:
Oh by the way as soon as you quote A Mathis you lose a whole bunch of any credibility you think you have.
Indeed, see: The Demolition of Andy Mathis

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. Truth needs no protection from scrutiny. The tide is turning.

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

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3251
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby Hektor » 4 years 5 months ago (Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:14 am)

Zulu wrote:We are often told that they are not any historians who "denies" the holocaust because the narrative is now well documented and doesn't suffer any valid contradiction. However, while one examines in detail the supposed such "monolithic" narrative of the Holocaust, some discrepancies, and not so little, appears according with historians.
In fact, several major points don't make the unanimity among official historians.

This thread can list the differences of interpretation into the "narrative" made by those historians.
...
Sounds like the AHA 1991 declaration on "Holocaust denial", which doesn't seem to be on their website anymore for some strange reason. At least I don't find it there. One really needs to pull some strings to find that declaration now on the net.

AHA Statement on Holocaust Denial
7) Other Business: a) Holocaust Statement: At its spring, 1991 meeting, Council Discussed a Teaching Division recommendation encouraging a response to recent mailings from an Illinois couple who questioned the reality of the Nazi Holocaust. There was extensive discussion during the spring meeting and several draft statements were reviewed. Following Mr. Luechtenburg's urging that the Associatoin not set a precedent in certifying historical facts, Council approved a statement by a vote of 9 ayes and 1 nay encouraging the study of the significance of the Holocaust. Subsequent media coverage, particularly in the Chronicle of Higher Education, was not favorable, and during the course of the 1991 annual meeting literature was distributed outside the AHA's headquarters hotel by individuals form the Institute for Historical Review, a group which denies the existence of the Holocaust.
Ms. Socolow noted that the Chronicle article had identified her as taking a strong stand on the issue and that she had therefore been contacted by several individuals. She presented to Council a petition, which had been circulated during the meeting, that urged the Council to take a public position against the attempt to deny the Holocaust and called for a statement affirming that the Holocaust had occured. She stated that the membership was very sensitive to what the Council had not done at its May meeting, and several other Council members agreed that the membership was asking the Council to take a strong, unequivocal stand. Following additional discussion, Council unanimously approved the following statement:
The American Historical Association Council strongly deplores the publicly reported attempts to deny the fact of the Holocaust. No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place
https://web.archive.org/web/20110605141717/http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1991/9112/9112RES.CFM

The ADL of course still has info on this
Historians Respond:
Denial Denounced as Academic Fraud
The History Department at Duke University, responding to a Bradley Smith CODOH ad, unanimously adopted and published a statement noting "That historians are constantly engaged in historical revision is certainly correct; however, what historians do is very different from this advertisement.
[T]here can be no doubt that the Nazi state systematically put to death millions of Jews, Gypsies, political radicals and other people."
-- History Department,
Duke University

Historical revision of major events. . . is not concerned with the actuality of these events; rather, it concerns their historical interpretation — their causes and consequences generally. There is no debate among historians about the actuality of the Holocaust. . . there can be no doubt that the Nazi state systematically put to death millions of Jews, Gypsies, political radicals and other people."

David Oshinsky and Michael Curtis of Rutgers University have written, "If one group advertises that the Holocaust never happened, another can buy space to insist that American Blacks were never enslaved. The stakes are high because college newspapers may soon be flooded with ads that present discredited assertions as if they were part of normal historical debate. If the Holocaust is not a fact, then nothing is a fact. . . ."

Peter Hayes, Associate Professor of History and German at Northwestern University, responded to a Smith ad by stating, "ear in mind that not a single one of the advances in our knowledge since 1945 has been contributed by the self-styled 'Revisionists' whom Smith represents. That is so because contributing to knowledge is decidedly not their purpose. . . . This ad is an assault on the intellectual integrity. . . of academicians, whom Smith and his ilk wish to browbeat. It is also a throwback to the worst sorts of conspiracy-mongering of anti-Semitic broadside. . . Is it plausible that so great and longstanding a conspiracy of repression could really have functioned? . . . That everybody with a Ph.D. active in the field — German, American, Canadian, British, Israeli, etc. — is in on it together?. . . If one suspects it is, might it not be wise to do a bit of checking about Smith, his organization and his charges before running so implausible an ad?"
"No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place."
"[T]he Association will not provide a forum for views that are, at best, a form of academic fraud."
-- Statements by the American Historical Association

Perhaps most significantly, in December 1991, the governing council of the American Historical Association (AHA), the nation's largest and oldest professional organization for historians, unanimously approved a statement condemning the Holocaust denial movement, stating, "No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place." The council's action came in response to a petition circulated among members calling for an official statement against Holocaust-denial propaganda; the petition had been signed by more than 300 members attending the organization's annual conference. Moreover, in 1994, the AHA reaffirmed its position in a press release which stated that "the Association will not provide a forum for views that are, at best, a form of academic fraud."
http://archive.adl.org/holocaust/academic.html
With ADL sources one can underline almost everything.

Sources neither define the Holocaust nor do they reference the evidence in anyway. They are just proclamation. Indeed someone noticed the discrepancy between the attitude entertained by the AHA on the Holocaust compared to other historical narratives.
From the Letters to the Editor column of the December 2005 Perspectives
Taking a Position on Genocide
Jesse Lemisch, December 2005
To the Editor:
I was glad that President James Sheehan and the American Historical Association Council expressed disapproval of the Turkish government's role in the cancellation of a conference on "Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of the Empire" (Perspectives, September 2005, 3–4). But I found it jarring that, in the midst of this otherwise commendable expression, the AHA and its president felt the need to state that, "Needless to say, the Association does not have a position on the fate of the Armenians." As a veteran of Vietnam-era struggles within the professional associations, I know just how militantly the AHA has held to the notion that, in President Sheehan's words, it "does not take a position on particular historical issues." (And I recall the December 1968 AHA meeting in New York in which a procession of worthies proclaimed that the convention had been moved from Chicago after the police riot during the Democratic Convention in August only as a matter of convenience, with no hint of political or historical judgment.)
As President Sheehan reminds us, the Turkish government has denied that a genocide took place. But can it be that the AHA has no position on the fact of the Armenian Genocide? In response to my query on what I take to be a related question, the AHA's executive director has reminded me of the AHA Council's 1991 statement deploring Holocaust Denial ("No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place"). I'm sure some readers will see an inconsistency between the AHA's position on the Holocaust and its position on the Armenian Genocide; I'm sure others will find enough angels on the head of this pin to squirm out of it. But doesn't it come down to this: [b]the AHA opposes Holocaust denial in one case but is agnostic in another
?
—Jesse Lemisch, Professor Emeritus of History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
http://www.historians.org/publications- ... n-genocide

To which someone from the AHA replies.
James Sheehan Responds
James Sheehan, December 2005
I am grateful to Jesse Lemisch for the opportunity to clarify the point I tried to make in my letter to Prime Minister Erdogan. Let me add that I am now speaking only for myself, not for the ×Council or the AHA.
In December 1991, the Council approved the following statement: "The American Historical Association Council strongly deplores the publicly reported attempts to deny the fact of the Holocaust. No serious historian questions that the Holocaust took place." The second sentence is, of course, a simple statement of fact: there is agreement among all serious scholars about the basic facts of the Holocaust, even if there are debates about details and interpretations. This consensus did not happen because organizations like the AHA "deplored" the views of those who denied the Holocaust, but because free and open research produced an extraordinarily rich and convincing body of scholarship.
The AHA does not have a position on the Armenian genocide. Should it have one? I don’t think so—even though I am personally convinced that what happened to the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian minority in 1915 was indeed a genocide. As a scholarly organization, our efforts should not be directed at issuing proclamations about what happened in the past. Such proclamations, I suspect, rarely change anyone’s mind. We should concentrate our attention on trying to end restrictions on research and discussion in the present. This was why the AHA protested the political pressures that forced the cancellation of the scholarly conference scheduled to be held in ×Istanbul last May.
As many readers of Perspectives are aware, that conference, on "Ottoman Armenians during the ×Demise of the Empire: Issues of ×Democracy and Scientific Responsibility," took place on September 24 and 25, 2005, at ×Bilgi University in Istanbul. The success of the conference was a testimony to the courage of its organizers and a victory for academic freedom and scholarly integrity. These values, on which our common labors as historians must ultimately depend, remain the best antidotes to irresponsible scholarship and repressive politics.
—James Sheehan, Stanford University, and 2005 president of the American Historical Association
http://www.historians.org/publications- ... n-responds
I find this response quite rich for a number of reasons

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby Hannover » 4 years 5 months ago (Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:12 am)

It's telling that they ignore historians such as:

Germar Rudolf
Robert Faurisson
Carlo Mattogno
Juergen Graf
Arthur Butz
Friedrich Paul Berg
Richard Widmann
on & on

It's telling that the AHA doesn't tell you that anyone not in agreement with them would lose their job at the places in which they work. That in itself screams out that the 'holocaust' storyline is fraudulent.

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. Truth needs no protection from scrutiny. The tide is turning.

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

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby Zulu » 4 years 5 months ago (Sun Aug 31, 2014 4:28 pm)

Zulu wrote:To follow, later, I will list others major dispcrepancies about the dates on which Nazis supposedly started the "Final Solution". The "unanimity" is far from being reached on that important point. A video by Vincent Reynouard stresses that lack of consensus while giving different dates advanced by differents authors for the "start" of the extermination of all European Jews.

https://archive.org/details/VincentReyn ... reEnFrance

When did actually start the "final Solution" according with Exterminationists?

First Dates advanced


- before WWII according with "Intentionalists" who invoke the discourse of Hitler on January 30, 1939.

- on July 31, 1941 according with some "Functionalists" who base their analysis on the Göring's letter to Heydrich.

- During Summer 1941 according with the IMT Judgment at Nuremberg
[...]In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the " final solution" of the Jewish question in all of Europe. This " final solution " meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B4 of the Gestapo, was formed to carry out the policy.

The plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union. [...]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judwarcr.asp

This judgment was based essentially on the Höss' confession in which he wrote that Himmler had revealed to him during the summer 1941 that Hitler had decided to exterminate the Jews.

That thesis prevailed during several decades. Gerald Fleming in 'Hitler and the Final Solution' (1982) as well as Raul Hilberg in "The destruction of European Jews (1985) support that version

- on January 20, 1942 according with historians who invoke the Wannsee Protocol.

Other dates advanced for the "well established" Holocaust narrative

- end of September 1941 according with Christopher R. Browning in 'The Origins of the Final Solution : The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939 – March 1942' (2004). In that book, the author executes the Höss' confession by writing that the alleged mention by HImmler of an Hitler's order for the destruction of the Jews was not credible. Browning stresses the visit of Himmler to Globocnik in Lublin on July 20, 1941 where Globocnik received the order for constructing a big concentration camp (Majdanek). Browning "thinks" that it was very probably at the end of September that Heydrich informs Eichmann about the Hitler's decision in favor of the "physical destruction" of the Jews of Europe and send him to Lublin in order to report on the Globocnik's moves.
He adds:
Only at the end of October did the various strands of Jewish policy again come together. creating the initial outline of the course Nazi Germany was embarking upon. Until then the Nazi leadership envisaged solving their self-imposed Jewish question through expulsion, accompanied by no small amount of outright killing and attrition, in order to create a German empire free of Jews. Thereafter, the vision was clearer. No Jews were to escape the German grasp, and no Jews were in the end to be left alive. If before August 1941 the Jewish question was to be solved "one way or another", after October it was to be solved in one way -- through the death of all Jews. (p.318)

- Early December 1941 according with an Essay by Gord McFee (1998?). The author alleges two Recently Discovered Documents cited in the German Newspaper Die Zeit
The two recent discoveries are:

1. The first is a diary entry by Joseph Goebbels of December 12, 1941. It runs as follows:

Bezüglich der Judenfrage ist der Führer entschlossen, reinen Tisch zu machen. Er hat den Juden prophezeit, daß, wenn sie noch einmal einen Weltkrieg herbeiführen würden, sie dabei ihre Vernichtung erleben würden. Das ist keine Phrase gewesen. Der Weltkrieg ist da, die Vernichtung des Judentums muß die notwendige Folge sein.

With respect of the Jewish Question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that if they again brought about a world war, they would live to see their annihilation in it. That wasn't just a catch-word. The world war is here, and the annihilation of the Jews must be the necessary consequence. [7]

2. The second is a note in his own handwriting by Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler in his soon to be published diary of a meeting he had with Hitler at the latter's Headquarters (Wolfsschanze) on December 18, 1941. The notes are simply: [8]

Judenfrage / als Partisanen auszurotten

Jewish Question / to be exterminated like the partisans

Hitler Personally Ordered The Final Solution

Most experts have agreed that an action on the magnitude of a mass genocide, with the resultant possible ramifications, could not have proceeded without Hitler's personal approval. Until now, no written decision from Hitler has been found, although there are compelling indications that a verbal decision was certainly given. [9] The recent discoveries cannot be called a written decision (which, if it ever existed, was almost certainly destroyed by the end of the war), but they are certainly unequivocal confirmation that a clear decision was taken by Hitler. Even better, they help pinpoint the time it was taken.

The Decision Was Made At The End Of 1941

The new evidence strongly suggests that Hitler decided once and for all, in early December 1941, to exterminate all of European Jewry. That squares with the words, "aspired final solution" in Goering's order to Heydrich of July 1941, and helps to explain why the Wannsee Conference took place so long after the Goering order had been issued, that is, the final order had still not been given in July 1941.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Die Zeit, edition of January 9, 1998; AFP, dispatch of January 14, 1998.
8. Ibid.
9.By far the best treatment is Gerald Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution, University of California Press, Berkley, 1984.

Source: http://www.holocaust-history.org/hitler-final-solution/

- December 1941 according with Laurence Rees in "Auschwitz : The Nazis & The 'Final Solution'" (2005)
That same month, November 1941, Hitler, in a discussion with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who had fled to Berlin, said that he wanted all Jews, even those not under German control, 'to be destroyed' [...]
But, this does not mean that Hitler and the other leading Nazis took a firm decision in the autumn of 1941 to murder all the Jews under German control. In the first place, there simply was not yet the capacity to commit such a crime. The only killing installations under construction in November 1941 were a gas van facility at Chelmno and a small fixed gas chamber installation at Belzec. (p. 110)

Much more important than the conversations at Wannsee were the discussions Hitler held in December 1941. If proper minutes were available of the Führer's meetings with Himmler during that period we would truly see the bleak landscape of the mind that made all this suffering. (p.119)

- At the turn of summer 1941, according with French Historian Joël Guedj in "Introduction à l'Histoire de la Shoah"(2010). In this book, the author comes back to a more traditional version without any explanation:
La decision de procéder à la liquidation physique de tous les Juifs du continent européen est prise au tournant de l'été 1941. Le 31 juillet 1941. Göring adresse à Heydrich l'ordre écrit lui enjoignant d'entreprendre des préparatifs pour aboutir à la "Solution finale" (Endlössung) de la question juive.

The decision to proceed with the physical liquidation of all Jews on the European continent is taken at the turn of summer 1941. On July 31, 1941, Göring addresses to Heydrich the written order directing him to undertake preparations in order to achieve the "final solution "(Endlössung) of the Jewish question.

- End of April 1942, according with French Historian Florent Brayard in "Auschwitz, Enquête sur un complot Nazi" [Auschwitz, Survey on a Nazi conspiracy] (2010)
Confortant les résultats de mon livre sur la "solution finale", elle revient en effet à décaler d'un trimestre, de fin janvier à fin avril 1942, l'inclusion des juifs allemands dans le projet, déjà observable ailleurs à l'Est, de mise à mort des JUifs à court terme. L'autorisation de meurtre des Juifs allemads (et probablement plus généralement des juifs de l'Ouest) fut, comme on l'a dit, immédiatement mise en oeuvre sur le terrain: au début du mois de mai à Chelmno, à la mi-mai en Haute-Silésie avec les premiers convois vers Auschwitz, au début du mois de juin pour les Juifs allemands et slovaques déportés dans le Gouvernement général. (p.286)


Confirming the results of my book on the "final solution", it means, in effect delaying of a quarter, from late January to [color=#FF0000]late April 1942, the inclusion of the German Jews in the project, already noted elsewhere in the East, of killing the Jews in the short term. Permission to murder German Jews (and probably more generally Jews of the West) was, as we said, immediately implemented on the field: at the beginning of May in Chelmno, in mid-May in Upper Silesia with the first convoys to Auschwitz, in early June for German and Slovak Jews deported to the General Government. (p.286)[/color]

In his video, Vincent Reynouard concludes:
En vérité, le problème capital est le suivant: ces divergences entre historiens démontrent qu'en ce qui concerne l'holocauste, le dossier est vide, désepérement vide. Les historiens n'ont trouvé ni ordre d'Hitler d'exterminer les juifs, ni plan pour mener à bien cette extermination, (ne parlons pas de le Conférence de Wannsee où rien de précis n'a été décidé), no organisme centralisateur, ni budget, ni organe de contrôle.
Car dans le cas contraire, si ils avaient retrouvé toutes ces pièces, un chronologie précise de l'holocauste aurait pu être établie depuis bien longtemps maintenant. Or, qui peut croire qu'un massacre de 6 millions de personnes perpétré sur plusieurs millions de kilometres carrés ait pu être réalisé comme ça, sans organe de contrôle, sans plan sans budget sans rien.

In fact, the major problem is the following: these divergences among historians regarding the Holocaust show that the folder is empty, hopelessly empty. Historians have found neither order from Hitler to exterminate the Jews, nor plan to carry out this extermination, (no need to talk about the Wannsee Conference where nothing specific has been decided), nor central organization, nor budget and nor supervisory body. Because otherwise, if they had found all of these pieces, a precise chronology of the Holocaust could have been established for a long time now. But who can believe that a massacre of 6 million people perpetrated over several million square kilometers could be done like that, without controlling body, without a plan, without budget, without nothing.
https://archive.org/details/VincentReyn ... reEnFrance
[/quote]

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: All historians agree... What, actually?

Postby hermod » 4 years 5 months ago (Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:28 pm)

Nessie. wrote:The other area where historians have disagreed is the numbers killed. For example here various historians answer questions about the numbers killed

RJ Green "Most sources put the number of non-Jews at between 5 and 6 million, roughly equal to the number of Jews murdered."

A Mathis "Hilberg's death-toll estimate (5.1 million) is at the lower end of the range accepted by most Holocaust historians. A precise accounting is virtually impossible, but most estimates are in the 5.8 million range."


Top Zionist Nahum Goldmann also put the number at between 5 and 6 million...but he did it in mid-1940. :wink:

Image
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=8 ... 19,1761516

Zulu wrote:- During Summer 1941 according with the IMT Judgment at Nuremberg
[...]In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the " final solution" of the Jewish question in all of Europe. This " final solution " meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B4 of the Gestapo, was formed to carry out the policy.

The plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union. [...]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judwarcr.asp


How did/do the Nuremberg clowns and "Holocaust scholars" hope to be taken seriously if they don't even know the difference between the Gestapo and the SS?
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests