Revisionist arguments about the shootings are "essentially numerical"?

[bombsaway]

viewtopic.php?p=26487#p26487

In a previous discussion here about fabricated documents, Archie states that the disagreement is "essentially numerical" (this is my interpretation at least). Documents stating high kill counts may be legitimate, but the numbers are wrong for various reasons. I pointed out that the documentary record goes beyond mere numbers, so even if we accept the inflation of numbers, that does not mean genocidal killing operations weren't taking place. My belief is that the numbers were not substantially inflated, because the German army isn't really known for this, and also there's no evidence for inflated numbers. You don't see more Jews being killed than exist in given areas. If a ghetto had a stated max Jewish population of 50,000, and there are documents describing 100k being killed from there, this would be evidence of inflated numbers, but nothing like this exists.

Revisionists may respond by saying the numbers don't exceed because as a matter of practice entire populations were not killed, but the documentary record shows something else.

now I'll reference this article and the "the general resettlement of the Jews" in Generalbezirk Wolhynien, which is in mind particularly illustrative of the problems revisionists have and why I believe if they reject any historicity of genocide the amount of fabricated documents must be considerable

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... to_16.html

we see killing documents which mention that unfit Jews are being killed, that 420 / 425 Jews from a given village were killed - this does not fit with partial resettlement

we see the quote " Jews fit for work...shall no longer be executed" meaning that even Jews fit for work were previously being executed.

a particularly blatant document reads

"10,000 people were executed. On 30 October, the ghetto was searched through for second time, on 31 October for the third time and on 1 November for the fourth time. A total of about 15,000 Jews were brought to the assembly point. Sick Jews and some children left in the houses were immediately executed in the ghetto in the courtyard. In the ghetto, about 1,200 Jews were executed."

If what happened in Generalbezierk Wolhynien was a true resettlement we wouldn't see populations like this (the entire ghetto) being summarily executed.

elsewhere we see records of systematic planning for a cleansing of Wolhynien + reports of that being successful.

So a clear question to revisionists would be, if your disagreement is primarily numerical, would you agree with orthodoxy that the brunt of the Jewish population in Wolhynien was killed in a planned, systematic manner?

[Archie]

When I say that the disagreement on Einsatzgruppen is essentially numerical I mean that most revisionists seem to accept some version of Einsatzgruppen but at the same time most don't seem to agree with orthodox seven-figure death toll by shooting. This to me is more a revision of degree rather than an absolute categorical difference.

Revisionist opinion varies on Einsatzgruppen and the variance compared to orthodoxy will depend on the exact position. Samuel Crowell, who referred to himself as a "moderate revisionist," seemed to accept most of the Einsatzgruppen claims, though he did not believe the shootings were the consequence of a formal extermination program and he did acknowledge the problem of lack of physical evidence (at Babi Yar and elsewhere). He left open a few doors for stronger revisionist positions but didn't seem comfortable endorsing them more strongly. Arthur Butz was quite dismissive of the Einsatzgruppen claims in his book but even he granted that it had "a particle of truth." IIRC David Irving (during his peak revisionist period) did believe there had been a significant number of shootings but also believed and emphasized that the numbers were greatly exaggerated and not part of an extermination program. He also emphasized killings by the locals ("pogroms"). Weber back in the day had a similar position.

The revisionists who are most skeptical on Einsatzgruppen are those who put very high weight on physical evidence above all other evidence. Keen would be a good representative of that end of the spectrum. But probably all revisionists would agree in principle that the lack of physical evidence for 2M shootings is a valid point.

Another matter of varied opinion will be over how to contextualize the killings. Some may take the descriptions of reprisals and anti-partisan measures at face value and take a more apologetic tack (i.e., make a stronger effort to defend German actions). Others aren't interested in trying to defend everything but instead simply focus on the accuracy of the Holocaust claims.

Your use of the term "genocide" here is imo imprecise in the sense that one could argue that X, Y, Z is "genocidal" yet X, Y, Z could still fall short of "the Holocaust" and the six million. I think more in the following terms: What bundle of factual claims are part of "the Holocaust"? And are those claims actually true? I'm not interested in arguing over genocide definitions.

I have not looked into Hans's article you linked in any detail yet, but I will try to go through it at some point and offer some comments. For sake of context for this overall discussion, I would appreciate if you could clarify whether you believe the Einsatzgruppen documents clearly indicate a formal policy of extermination, including the 1941 documents.

I think about all of this in terms of the overall death toll. Einsatzgruppen is not enough to save the Holocaust if the rest of it fails, so in my mind it will always be a very secondary matter.
viewtopic.php?t=751

[bombsaway]

They indicate local and regional policies of extermination. Some killings could be seen as reprisal or anti partisan actions, but the vast majority don't fall into these buckets. They were taking imprisoned Jews in ghettos and executing them in remote locations under the guise of resettlement. If these actions might be considered reprisals or anti-partisan work, then so too should the alleged mass gassings, which differ mainly in terms of the final killing methodology.

There are documents that indicate a genocidal policy at large, like Himmler's Posen speeches, but you don't find those convincing, so we don't need to bother about them now. An exterminate all Jews EG planning document has not surfaced. What exists are regional plans, like the "the general resettlement of the Jews" in Generalbezirk Wolhynien, which slated over 300,000 for destruction, which was then carried out in planned systematic fashion.

The Holocaust was the planned, systematic population reduction of European Jews that fell under German control. Ultimately this was a massive success for them as probably 90% of the Jews that fell under their control did not survive. This is what you see in Generalbezirk Wolhynien. I think it's a good example which serves as a microcosm of what was happening elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands killed indicates the scale of this microcosm. People still talk about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre and this is 1/40th the scale as what is alleged to have happened in Wolhynien.

I think it is important for you guys to determine

A) if the "general resettlement" of the Jews in Generalbezirk Wolhynien was in all likelihood a killing operation
B) if it was an exception

[Wahrheitssucher]

They indicate local and regional policies of extermination.

No they don’t.

They were taking imprisoned Jews in ghettos and executing them in remote locations under the guise of resettlement.

No they weren’t.

There are documents that indicate a genocidal policy at large,…

No there are not.

An ‘exterminate all Jews’ EG planning document has not surfaced.

Correct.

The [holyhoax mass-gassing narrative was actually] the planned, systematic population reduction of European Jews that fell under German control.

Yes, a “reduction” that was planned to be by forced emigration.
Which is exactly what the Wannsee protocol states.
And is what those who attended the Wannsee conference and survived WW2 said they heard being discussed.
See here: viewtopic.php?p=9985&hilit=Wannsee#p9985

…probably 90% of the Jews that fell under their control did not survive.

That is false.

SUMMARY:
Your whole argument is predicated upon such false-premises.
You are a ‘believer’ employing circular logic. It is the logical fallacy called ‘begging-the-question’.

Just basing an argument upon making unsubstantiated claims is an extremely juvenile way of presenting a position.
Which is why I began by replying in kind, i.e. just giving unsubstantiated contradictions back in reply. I intended to show you what you are doing by giving you the same back.
I hoped you would see by this, how unhelpful and unconvincing your approach is.

[bombsaway]

They indicate local and regional policies of extermination.

No they don’t.

so an example of local extermination (which was part of the larger "general resettlement" of Jews in the area) would be

On 9 August 1942, the KdS branch office in Pinsk noted that "the execution of Jews was carried out in the village Mikasewitschi, Pinsk area. There were 425 Jews in the village. Thereof were executed: 1. 102 men 2. 159 women 3. 159 children. 420 total number. For economic and for sanitary reasons, three engineers and two doctors were kept [alive]." (VEJ 8, document 147).

these were ghettoized Jews, 99% were killed. this proportion is important and moves the conversation away from debate about the raw death total, to what was actually happening - systematic destruction of the population

this is what revisionists don't want to talk about, and in my mind are diverting from with all the arguments about inflated totals.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
"The war in the East was unbelievably difficult.
We did not want any war with Russia but suddenly we learned that the Russians had 20,000 tanks, and that forced us into action. Either we prevailed, or we would perish.

The war at the eastern front made the most difficult demands on our soldiers: a terrible climate; never-ending distances; an enemy population; and constantly-appearing partisans.
Only by being harsh could the troops prevail. Because of this they were forced to destroy whole villages, if there was resistance and shooting from such a village.

The Russians are not ordinary enemies, we cannot understand their mentality. In the most hopeless situations, they would refuse to capitulate.

If, because of these difficulties in the east, the Jewish people suffered great casualties, one needs to remember, that the German people also suffered severely".
~ Heinrich Himmler. April 1945.

Full citation follows:

"When the first World War began, I was 14 years old. The war hardly ended when the civil war began, and the Jews were deeply involved in the Spartacus revolt. The Jews were a foreign element in our midst, which always evoked irritation. They were driven out of Germany several times, however they always returned. After coming into power, we wanted to settle this issue once and for all, and I was in favour of a humane solution through emigration. I conferred with American organizations, to arrange for a quick emigration, but even countries who claimed to be friendly toward the Jews did not want to admit them.
Then the war brought us into contact with the Jewish masses of the East, who were mostly part of the proletariat. Because of this, many new problems arose. We could not tolerate such an enemy at our backs. The Jewish masses were infected with many diseases, especially typhoid fever. I lost thousands of my S.S. troops through these diseases. Also the Jews were helping the partisans."

Answering my question as to how the Jews could be helping the partisans, after the Germans concentrated them into large ghettos, he said: "They sent news to the partisans. In addition, they were shooting at our troops in the ghettos."

"The war in the East was unbelievably difficult", said Himmler. "We did not want any war with Russia. But suddenly we learned that the Russians had 20,000 tanks, and that forced us into action. Either we prevailed, or we would perish.
The war at the eastern front made the most difficult demands on our soldiers: a terrible climate; never-ending distances; an enemy population; and constantly-appearing partisans. Only by being harsh could the troops prevail. Because of this they were forced to destroy whole villages, if there was resistance and shooting from such a village.
The Russians are not ordinary enemies, we cannot understand their mentality. In the most hopeless situations, they would refuse to capitulate. If, because of these difficulties in the east, the Jewish people suffered great casualties, one needs to remember, that the German people also suffered severely".

Himmer then got to the subject of the concentration camps. "The bad reputation of these camps was because of the unfortunate choice of names for them; that was a mistake, we should have called them 'educational camps'. There were not only Jewish and political prisoners in the camps, but also criminal elements, who were detained after they served their sentence in prison. Because of this, in 1941 a war year, Germany had the lowest crime rate in decades. The prisoners had to perform heavy labour, but that was true of the German people, too. The treatment in the camps was severe, but just".
I interrupted: "But one cannot deny, that many atrocities occurred in the camps", to which he answered: "I have to admit that this happened, but I then punished the guilty".

Himmer continued on: "It was my intention to turn over the concentration camps without defending them, as I had promised. I turned over Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, but I got no thanks for this. In Bergen-Belsen they tied up a guard, and photographed him with some prisoners who had just died. And such pictures are now being published all over the world press. I also turned over Buchenwald without a struggle. Suddenly the advancing American tanks opened fire, hit the hospital building, which consisted of a wooden barrack, and which of course caught on fire, burned down completely, and the burned corpses were later photographed. With these kind of pictures the world press is now printing hate propaganda.
When I released 2,700 Jews into Switzerland last year, this also resulted in a press campaign against me personally. It was written that I only released these people in order to establish an alibi for myself. I do not need an alibi, as I only did what I thought was necessary for my people, and I will stand on that. I did not become a rich man.

Nobody has been covered with as much dirt in the newspapers in the last 12 years as much as I have been. It never made any difference to me, even in Germany anybody could write about me whatever they wanted. But the publication of atrocities as incitement against myself does not encourage me to continue my policy to turn over the camps without resistance. That is why, a few days ago, when the American tank columns closed in on a camp in Saxony, I had this camp evacuated. Why should I do anything differently?"

Himmer stressed that Theresienstadt is not a camp per se, but is a town inhabited only by Jews, is completely governed by Jews, and all the necessary labour is performed by Jews. "This is the kind of camp created by myself and my friend Heydrich" he said "and we hoped to make all the camps this way."

The talks lasted exactly 2 1/2 hours. It finished at 5 o'clock in the morning, and Himmler left by car. We talked the entire time, except for the 20 minutes that I spent in the adjacent room. For one half hour I was alone with him, a free Jew face to face with the …chief of the Gestapo.
…Himmler spoke calmly most of the time, even when interrupted [by me] with some sharp challenges. …He talked a lot. Only the most important part of the conversation is contained herein, with my own wording only when there was a need for further clarification. My report is either word for word, or at least shows the meanings of what was said, even though not necessarily in the proper chronological order.
Without a doubt, Himmer was intelligent and well educated, he was very interested in history.

~ Norbert Masur.
MY MEETING WITH HEINRICH HIMMLER 20th -21st April 1945.
Report to the Swedish Section of the World Jewish Congress, Stockholm, Sweden.

[bombsaway]

Because of this [partisans] they were forced to destroy whole villages, if there was resistance and shooting from such a village.

from the same holocaustcontroversies article

In November they report the resistance as having been infrequent previously (the killing of 420/425 happened in August) and also they term the resistance as being defensive in nature.

"there is not much to report about Jewry, as in most areas the final resettlement is carried out; only now is it more often to be noted that this rabble is defending itself"

this is completely in line with witness reports about ghettoized Jews in occupied USSR stocking up on weapons and supporting break out attempts with small arms fire. This makes sense, if they didn't trust the Germans about resettlement.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Heinrich Himmler said:
“Because of this [partisans] they were forced to destroy whole villages, if there was resistance and shooting from such a village.”

from the same holocaustcontroversies article…

But… That isn’t from any “holocaustcontroversies article”. (holy moly).

Plus I just revisited our discussion on Wannsee (linked previously). I’d forgotten just how much you demonstrated there what a dimitted, dishonest debater you are.

Time-waster.

[bombsaway]

Heinrich Himmler said:
“Because of this [partisans] they were forced to destroy whole villages, if there was resistance and shooting from such a village.”

from the same holocaustcontroversies article…

But… That isn’t from any “holocaustcontroversies article”. (holy moly).

Plus I just revisited our discussion on Wannsee (linked previously). I’d forgotten just how much you demonstrated there what a dimitted, dishonest debater you are.

Time-waster.

i meant this, sorry for the confusion

from the same holocaustcontroversies article

In November they report the resistance as having been infrequent previously (the killing of 420/425 happened in August) and also they term the resistance as being defensive in nature.

"there is not much to report about Jewry, as in most areas the final resettlement is carried out; only now is it more often to be noted that this rabble is defending itself"

this is completely in line with witness reports about ghettoized Jews in occupied USSR stocking up on weapons and supporting break out attempts with small arms fire. This makes sense, if they didn't trust the Germans about resettlement.

[Callafangers]

Germany, official records:

They [Jews] were literally resettled.

bombsaway:

See?! It's right there, "literally exterminated". It doesn't get much clearer than that.

[bombsaway]

I don't think it's so simple.

Mattogno from his EG book:

"Umsiedlung” is sometimes clearly used as a synonym for execution ...

So there is definitive evidence (which I can show you if you want) of commanders using the term in this way. Therefore we should rely on context to provide the meaning when such language is used. The context w the resettlement operations in Wolhynien is that at every major Jewish settlement mass killings took place during this time period followed by ghetto closure. Not a shred of evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, points to actual resettlement - eg the Jews from Pinsk were resettled at such and such location

No, instead we see

On 9 November 1942, the leader of 10th company of SS-Polizeiregiment 15, Helmut Saur, reported that the men were employed for "guarding at the assembly point, securing the individual transports to the execution site, which was about 4 km outside Pinsk". He goes on that "10,000 people were executed. On 30 October, the ghetto was searched through for second time, on 31 October for the third time and on 1 November for the fourth time. A total of about 15,000 Jews were brought to the assembly point. Sick Jews and some children left in the houses were immediately executed in the ghetto in the courtyard. In the ghetto, about 1,200 Jews were executed." (VEJ 8, document 219).

This does not look like anti-partisan actions or reprisals. It looks like blanket killing of the population, in different stages, indicating the systematic and planned nature of the action. So the individual action evidence the claim the general resettlement was a mass killing operation, which is why I think for the hard revisionist position to be compelling, documents like the above need to be fake.

I suggest people who are still unsure go through the histories of what happened to Jewish ghettos in this region during the exact time period of the "general resettlement"

https://www.ushmm.org/online/camps-ghet ... _PartA.pdf
https://www.ushmm.org/online/camps-ghet ... _PartB.pdf

[Archie]

They indicate local and regional policies of extermination.

Well, I'm not quite sure what this means. If you think all the local policies were pursuing an extermination policy in parallel, that would imply a general policy.

As I noted, some mainstream historians have argued that there was no general extermination order for the Einsatzgruppen (at least at the beginning). And many don't believe there was a general extermination order until the end of 1941. Martin Broszat for example has said that the killing in summer and fall of 1941,

...was obviously based on the fanatical determination of the National Socialist leadership to eradicate 'Jewish Bolshevism' root and stem. This does not yet necessarily signify that physical liquidation, including the Jews of Germany, was the overall aim of NS Jewish policy, and had already been adopted at that time, nor that Göring's order to Heydrich for the preparation of a comprehensive programme for the deportation of Jews dated 31 July 1941, should be interpreted in this sense. Uwe Dietrich Adam in his study of the National Socialist Jewish policy had rejected this theory some years before, and with good cause.

viewtopic.php?t=38

Christopher Browning has argued for a complicated, compromise position, distinguishing the policy for Jews in different regions. He assumes there was some sort of plan but readily concedes that it was not rolled out in an instantaneous or uniform manner.

The point I'm trying to make here is that even mainstream scholars (the more functionalist ones) don't necessarily interpret the Einsatzgruppen actions to reflect a general extermination policy. And imo the Einsatzgruppen reports themselves strongly imply this. For example,

OSR 24: "On July 2 the corpses of 10 German Wehrmacht soldiers were found. In retaliation, 1160 Jews were shot by the Ukrainians with the help of one platoon of the police and one platoon of the infantry."

OSR 26: "As the German troops marched in, most of the Jews fled to Russia and into the surrounding forests. Most of the cases of arson in the town are committed by Jews. As the German troops marched in, they found some 60 totally mutilated Latvians, whereupon 80 Jews were liquidated."

OSR 19: "In Kaunas, up to now a total of 7,800 Jews have been liquidated, partly through pogroms and partly through shooting by Lithuanian Kommandos. All corpses have been removed. Further mass shootings are no longer possible. Therefore, I summoned a Jewish committee and explained that up to now we had no reason to interfere with the internal arrangements between the Lithuanians and the Jews."

viewtopic.php?p=26495#p26495

You seem to read these and say, "Omg they're shooting Jews. Holocaust proved." But the fact that they so frequently invoke security reasons suggests to me that there was no extermination policy. Rather we have them dealing very harshly with a group they considered to be hostile. I'm sure that you think "Judeo-Bolshevism" is an anti-Semitic canard and that is likely a major reason why you interpret any shooting documents as reflecting an extermination policy.

I'll make a quick comment on partisan and guerrilla warfare. This is to add context, and is not necessarily intended as a justification for harsh policies. In Stalin's speech from July 3, 1941, he openly called for guerrilla warfare and sabotage.

In areas occupied by the enemy, guerilla units, mounted and on foot, must be formed; sabotage groups must be organized to combat enemy units, to foment guerilla warfare everywhere, blow up bridges and roads, damage telephone and telegraph lines, set fire to forests, stores and transports. In occupied regions conditions must be made unbearable for the enemy and all his accomplices. They must be hounded and annihilated at every step, and all their measures frustrated.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /07/03.htm

For purposes of the Holocaust debate imo the key thing would be the numbers killed. If it's really true that basically all of the Jews in these territories were killed, then I would be inclined to say the official policy is not so important since the effect would be the same. But if the numbers are not correct and there's good reason to see the executions as part of something other than an extermination program, that takes us into revisionist territory (without the need to argue that ALL killings were justified which seems to be the debate you want to have).

We can debate the ethics of guerrilla warfare all day, but I don't see the German policies as a unique evil in human history. The Vietnam war had elements of this, and some of the US policies seem very harsh. For example, they had "free-fire zones" where they would declare an area had to be cleared and then anyone later found in that area was assumed to be an enemy combatant. All of the 4th generation warfare with guerrilla warfare, insurgency, terrorism, etc is nasty.

[Reines Blut]

"Numbers Killed" is important, also important is yes and by whom?

I'm sure its been said before here that there are plenty of accounts where locals took revenge into their own hands while the Einsatzgruppen sat on theirs.

Anyway, when the subject of the Six Million come up, my standard reply is "It wasn't near enough". The Reich was too kind to this "international clique".

[HansHill]

"Numbers Killed" is important, also important is yes and by whom?

I'm sure its been said before here that there are plenty of accounts where locals took revenge into their own hands while the Einsatzgruppen sat on theirs.

Anyway, when the subject of the Six Million come up, my standard reply is "It wasn't near enough". The Reich was too kind to this "international clique".

Reported. I don't believe comments like this belong on CODOH.

[Archie]

"Numbers Killed" is important, also important is yes and by whom?

I'm sure its been said before here that there are plenty of accounts where locals took revenge into their own hands while the Einsatzgruppen sat on theirs.

Anyway, when the subject of the Six Million come up, my standard reply is "It wasn't near enough". The Reich was too kind to this "international clique".

That's enough obvious trolling out of you, Mr. "Pure Blood." You are no longer welcome on the forum.

His prior contributions.

I've read so much literature that in this case I cannot remember where I heard it, only that I remember reading that the shoes were actually donated by caring German citizens for the Jews in the work camps.

This may or may not be true but it fits with what I know about our people.

Okay, Mr. "Pure Blood"

Okay, Mr. "Genuine and Bold" (or did you not know the meaning of Archibald?) it may not be true.

The Jew cucked AI's deny it except to say that, "There is a possible source of confusion: the Nazis did redistribute some confiscated clothing and footwear. According to the Auschwitz Memorial, better footwear could be sold, while poorer-quality items could be given to workers or prisoners; confiscated clothing and shoes could also be issued to prisoners."

I do remember reading it somewhere in a testimony, as workers would have a hard time being productive without proper clothing, shoes, food, and water, etc. This makes more sense to me than the Jewish narrative that the pile of shoes represents footwear removed from those that were holocausted (a verb that I invented).