Great thread so far.
Adding some relevant commentary here re the discrepancy in timeline of events, as per Mattogno HH vol 35, section 3:
First of all, we need to look at the date. Höss mentioned repeatedly that the
meeting took place in June, or more generally in the summer of 1941. In his
interrogation on April 1, 1946, he insisted that his summons to Berlin had tak-
en place “before the Russian campaign had started,” “before the date that the
Russian campaign was launched,” which puts it at the first 20 days of June.
However, in the short handwritten statement of March 16, 1946, the meeting
took place “in May 1941.”
In Berlin, Himmler conveyed to the Auschwitz commandant the “Füh-
rerbefehl,” the order to exterminate the Jews – we will see shortly in what
context.
It is a well-known fact that the current orthodox Holocaust narrative tends
to date Höss’s alleged meeting with Himmler a year later, hence in the sum-
mer of 1942, because there are irresolvable anachronistic contradictions for a
date in 1941, which were well-documented by Karin Orth in 1999.
In Höss’s chronology, 1941 is a fundamental year for his reconstruction of
the events, all of which emanate from it. This is not a mere “mistake,” but a
very serious anachronism that all by itself impugns the entire reconstruction.
Here it is worth quoting Steven Paskuly’s incredible comment (his Note 2,
p. 27):
“Contrary to what Richard Breitman contends in The Architect of Genocide,
1991, Höss is not incorrect that it was 1941 that Himmler gave him the order
to prepare for the Final Solution. The evidence that Breitman dismisses is
monumental: the experimental gassings in Auschwitz in September 1941 [see
Section 17]; the gassings at Majdanek by Globocnik in December 1941;[
the reference in the Wannsee Conference minutes to a ‘solution’ having been
found for those unable to work; and the first transport of Silesian Jews
gassed in January 1942 [see Section 21]. These and hundreds of other pieces
of evidence are overlooked by Breitman. Simply put, Breitman is wrong in his
conclusion that it was not until the summer of 1942 that Höss received the or-
der from Himmler.”
These alleged proofs demonstrate exactly that the year 1941 is indispensable
for Höss’s reconstruction, otherwise the execution of the extermination order
in its preliminary stages would precede its issuance. On the other hand,
Himmler’s order prohibiting the emigration of Jews, which, logically speak-
ing, should precede the supposed extermination, was issued by him only four
months later, on October 23, 1941 (T/394):
“The Reichsführer SS and Head of the German Police has ordered that the
emigration of Jews has to be prevented, effective immediately.”
Paskuly seems to believe that Breitman had advanced his personal hypothesis;
he evidently did not know that experts such as J.-C. Pressac and Robert Jan
van Pelt also favor 1942 as the order year. As for the Auschwitz Museum,
Danuta Czech gave July 29, 1941 as the date (1989, p. 106), hence after the
start of the war against the Soviet Union. In the five-volume history of the
camp, Franciszek Piper still supported 1941 (2000b, p. 60), but in more-recent
studies, the Auschwitz Museum has assumed an ambiguous position, renounc-
ing the supposed meeting in the summer of 1941, yet without indicating a pre-
cise date. Piotr Setkiewicz asserted in this regard (2001, p. 12):
“We do not know exactly when Auschwitz began to be considered as a place
for the mass execution of Jews and as a part of this plan.”
He adds that on July 17, 1942, during his visit to Auschwitz, Himmler ordered
“the acceleration of the operation to exterminate the Jews” (ibid., p. 119). In
2014, Setkiewicz wrote in a work he edited together with Igor Bartosik and
Łukasz Martyniak that on this occasion the Reichsführer SS “gave the orders
to continue expanding the Birkenau camp and intensify the extermination pro-
cess.” A footnote elaborates that “Höss had presumably been informed of
these plans somewhat earlier, because the decision to build bunker II and in-
troduce systematic selection was surely made before Himmler’s July 17-18,
1942 visit”; this decision would have been made “at the beginning of June
1942” (Bartosik et al. 2014, p. 33). Hence, during this period of time, Höss is
said to have received – no one knows from whom, where and under which cir-
cumstances – the infamous “Führerbefehl.” As mentioned earlier, this date
shift to 1942 completely disrupts the whole reconstruction of the genesis and
development of the extermination of the Jews at Auschwitz as laid out in
Höss’s statements and, historically speaking, in Czech’s Kalendarium. In the
meantime, the historians at the Auschwitz Museum are still busy trying to
come up with a credible alternative explanation as to how the first extermina-
tions were perpetrated without a specific order from Himmler.
Typical Polish wartime and postwar propaganda is Höss’s statement made
during the trial that “among Himmler’s plans was the extermination of Slavic
peoples, primarily the Poles and the Czechs”!
Emphasis mine. It's also worth noting that Mattogno, in this same volume, makes a compelling case for that Hoess' own "knowledge" of the extermination policies and procedures across his various statements, confessions (both handwritten and typeset) along with affidavits, mirror exactly the British "knowledge" of such.
This makes sense from the Revisionist position. This explains for example, how Hoess can casually namedrop an Eastern deathcamp that simply does not exist (“Wolzek”). His interrogators simply
did not have much knowledge of Soviet occupied territories to correct him or omit this hilarious fabrication.
