Chronology of the Holocaust

[bombsaway]

This thread is intended to be an open-ended research project for myself and others that see value in the project (Stubble voiced interest)

The focus will be on laying out relevant data related to the Holocaust in a more or less chronological and assessing from different viewpoints. The idea right now is to start at the beginning, which would be 1941, though maybe some things could be said before.

I think revisionists are in agreement on most things that happened to Jews in Nazi Germany before the war.

This would include being stripped of their citizenship and eventual near total economic restriction, forced to give up their businesses, deprived of most work opportunities, conscripted into labor projects.

Where things begin to diverge is with the origins of the war, and Nazi plans for Eastern Europe. A document like this is relatively mild (speaking of the "impossibility" of physical extermination, though that shows they were at least even considering it at this point) https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 00#p570101 though you can see that they are concerned with permanent governance of a population - in this case explicitly the Poles. In this document it is written that Poles (except those deemed to have 'good blood' are going to be deprived of state education past elementary school, barred from universities in their own country, become a population of "laborers without leaders". They will never have their country back.

In the weeks following Barbarossa this conference was held https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cf ... nt_id=1549

We see Hitler's directive that though the Nazis should present themselves as liberators "It must be clear to us, however, that we shall never withdraw from these areas."

"We have to create a Garden of Eden in the newly won eastern territories; they are vitally important to us; as compared with them colonies play only an entirely subordinate part."

"We shall then emphasize again that we were forced to occupy, administer and secure a certain area; it was in the interest of the inhabitants that we should provide order, food, traffic, etc., hence our measures. It should not be recognizable that thereby a final settlement is being initiated! We can nevertheless take all necessary measures—shooting, resettling, etc.—and we shall take them."

"The Russians have now given an order for partisan warfare behind our front. This partisan war again has some advantage for us; it enables us to exterminate everyone who opposes us."

The logic here (Hitler's stated "advantage") would be that the war provides the opportunity for exterminating enemies, an opportunity that otherwise might not exist, or would come with added difficulties. The relevance to the Holocaust here is obvious, so too the idea that the Nazis weren't just trying to win the war, they wanted to establish a New Europe with them permanently in charge.

I'll wait to hear if anyone has any thoughts or complaints before getting into the meat of this discussion, which will from here on principally concern killing operations targeting Jews.

[Stubble]

I am inclined to agree with you that the point of divergence is 19 and 41 between revisionists and orthodox historians.

I appreciate your time and effort to putting this post together. I am sure this endeavour will pan out to be useful for all involved.

I am going to go vet the documentation provided from the first links.

Again, thank you for both your time and your effort bombs, much appreciated.

[TlsMS93]

Hitler is mentioning the guerrilla war already underway in the USSR and not conventional warfare as a way of eliminating enemies.

Hitler is only mentioning the advantage of eliminating those who were actively harboring resentment towards the Germans and even passively giving aid as a method of eliminating pockets of resistance in the population and not eliminating entire populations.

The fact that he expresses himself as wanting to create a Garden of Eden in the East seems to indicate a lenient or even comfortable treatment of the native population, different from what he would expect to do with the return of overseas colonies.

If he mentions that no weapons should be allowed to the local population, it is a strong indication that he would not exterminate any of them. In fact, there is a conference in January 1941 about Barbarossa where he mentions that the objective is to conquer and dominate Russia but without annexing it.

I do not know if the purpose of mentioning the treatment of peoples in the East has anything to do with the objective of determining the chronology of the Holocaust.

[bombsaway]

The fact that he expresses himself as wanting to create a Garden of Eden in the East seems to indicate a lenient or even comfortable treatment of the native population, different from what he would expect to do with the return of overseas colonies.

Your thought here is this is a concession to the native population?

"In principle we have now to face the task of cutting up the giant cake according to our needs, in order to be able: first, to dominate it; second, to administer it; and third, to exploit it."

I think it's all about Germany and Germany's needs. When it comes to annexation, there is the explicit statement ("we shall never withdraw"). These people are seen as "inferior" in Himmler's 1940 document, "racially non-valuable".

Their treatment of these people, which they wanted to deny political sovereignty to, but also eliminate their cultural life, deny them education, etc, contextualizes the racial animus they held towards Jews, which they viewed as much worse and more threatening than Slavs.

[bombsaway]

The war itself is another huge factor here. We know about the Hunger Plan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

A meeting on 2 May 1941 between the permanent secretaries responsible for logistical planning for the invasion of the Soviet Union, as well as other high-ranking Nazi Party functionaries, state officials and military officers, included in its conclusions:

1.) The war can only be continued if the entire Wehrmacht is fed from Russia in the third year of the war.
2.) If we take what we need out of the country, there can be no doubt that tens of millions of people will die of starvation.[8]

Revisionists will justify such a statement as they weren't planning on starving people just to starve them, rather it was about winning the war. I think this is actually true, it doesn't exactly morally justify such a war, but excepting that we can view the mass starvation as being contingent.

The relevant question is, if so many natives are going to starve, and Jews (who are going to be ghettoized and isolated and thus much more reliant on German supplies) are much less racially desirable, why would you keep them alive, particularly those Jews who are non-employable? When it comes to diverting food supplies, these are choices the Germans have to make, and no matter what the choice is, certain groups of people are going to suffer and die. The issue of the racial totem pole, with Jews being on the bottom, is relevant here.

As a revisionist you can be skeptical about this, but I'm just letting you guys in on the mainstream perspective for why the Holocaust happened. It wasn't just that the Nazis hated Jews so so much that decided to kill all of them. It's my personal opinion that if there weren't food issues, it wouldn't have happened, or would have been much lower in scope, probably similar to what many revisionists currently believe.

[TlsMS93]

The hunger plan was a contingency to feed the Wehmarcht without having to sacrifice the German civilian population, which at that time was already suffering from severe protein and grain rationing.

The Nazis were always concerned about 1917-18 and Goebbels mentions the food issue in Germany in several entries, even complaining that the army was looting everything in the East and that a minimum should be left for the local population to survive, especially in the winter.

The prediction of millions of deaths is what they would expect if the war were to drag on and not that this was desirable. Apparently Germany even imported food to the occupied zones, and urban areas often provided seeds for the starving population, making it difficult to plant since almost everything was destroyed in Stalin's scorched earth.

As for the Jews, they would not in fact receive priority treatment; they would in fact be at the end of the line, especially those unfit for work. As for the ghettos, the one in Warsaw for example, they were constantly called to work in the factories, but internal guerrilla groups and a black market began to form, where food and medicine were diverted to finance their armaments, and this impoverished the ghetto. Sometimes the Germans had to impose sanitary measures on them because of this. Therefore, they were a people who were not given to hard work and the Germans would not feed them without compensation, and those who were not fit suffered from these measures.

The plan in my conception was to push the 6 million Jews to the Urals at the end of the war, along with a large part of the Russian population, to Germanize those who were Germanizable, and to colonize the rest. It is a gloomy prediction, without a doubt, since a large part of Russia is comfortable living in the western part of the country.

[bombsaway]

The plan in my conception was to push the 6 million Jews to the Urals at the end of the war, along with a large part of the Russian population, to Germanize those who were Germanizable, and to colonize the rest. It is a gloomy prediction, without a doubt, since a large part of Russia is comfortable living in the western part of the country.

This much is clear in German documents, which talk about the deportation of tens of millions.

It should be stated that such a massive ethnic cleansing (easily the greatest in the history of the world) would have made the Holocaust seem minor in comparison in terms of the death toll.

A poster on skeptics translated this document https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... 98#p852498

The relations between the German people and foreign peoples within its jurisdiction are therefore a problem of national and racial politics and only secondarily of constitutional law or power politics. There are four possible ways of dealing with the problem:
1. coexistence with racially and ethnically equal groups;
2. assimilation of foreign ethnic groups into the German nation;
3. spatial displacement of foreign ethnic groups; and
4. physical destruction of foreign peoples that are undesirable in the sphere of power of the German Reich. All 4 paths can be followed, they can also be followed side by side. The decisive factor, however, is that once a path has been taken, it must be marched through to the end without compromise and that one is not forced to turn back halfway due to insufficient prior preparation and consideration. It is clear that such a deviation from the foreign nation must always be interpreted as weakness."

So it's clear they were at least considering outright killing people at this time (orthodoxy would say non-Jews, since the fate of Jews had been decided on already)

The last word I'll say on this subject is the fate of the Soviet POWs. These were young men mostly, well capable of labor if healthy, and they died like flies in the first year of the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_at ... ers_of_war

I don't think it's really questioned by revisionists, but the death rate is higher than the Holocaust at peak intensity.

So another question for revisionists which I don't think has a good answer : why would they maintain millions of non-employable Jews , but not this population group?

[TlsMS93]

Do you correlate ethnic cleansing with genocide? Of course, deaths happen, but they are far from indicating genocidal intent. Otherwise, you would have to include the post-war German genocide in that.

The cleansing process was foreseen in the minutes of the Generalplan Ost as taking place within 30 years. In other words, it was not something done haphazardly. It would involve a project and waves of deportations, apparently.

As for physical destruction, what do you understand? It can be interpreted as complete ethnic cleansing, unlike the second option, which is basically to keep these groups away from the territory.

The fact is that the Nazi regime was not monolithic on any issue. There were many options on the table, and the most radical ones seemed to be addressed more when the military situation deteriorated.

As for the millions of deaths of Soviet prisoners in 1941, it was clearly due to the German logistical collapse and the lack of winter clothing that the Germans did not prepare for themselves or for the prisoners of war, so much so that the following year the mortality rate was lower and Stalin at no time accepted the German appeals for a mutual agreement on food for the prisoners, failing to send a list of captured German prisoners.

[Stubble]

Let's let bombs present in this thread and we can splinter new threads off that do not pertain to chronology. For example, dispute about particular documents and their intent.

I for one am curious to see the orthodox narrative presented in a coherent way.

I will personally attempt to refrain from derailment on particulars and can assure you all I am already firmly biting my tongue.

Perhaps when bombs has finished we can take some time for rebuttal given that bombs is not opposed.

I'm not eager to see this thread cluttered with argumentation before it has run course.

Of course, that's just my perspective.

[bombsaway]

Do you correlate ethnic cleansing with genocide? Of course, deaths happen, but they are far from indicating genocidal intent. Otherwise, you would have to include the post-war German genocide in that.

No there's overlap but you can ethnically cleanse without seeking the destruction of a group. You could also enslave all of them and this wouldn't be genocidal necessarily. I would view these worse actually than genocide in some cases. I think what the Allies did to the Germans and Japanese meets my criteria of genocide, bad, but not as bad as an ethnic cleansing campaign that would lead to 15 million dying. Ethically, by my standards, what the Nazis planned to do in their colonization of Russia would have been a greater crime than the Holocaust, in my understanding of it.

As for physical destruction, what do you understand? It can be interpreted as complete ethnic cleansing, unlike the second option, which is basically to keep these groups away from the territory.

I see #3 as covering the ethnic cleansing option
3. spatial displacement of foreign ethnic groups

#4 means killing
4. physical destruction of foreign peoples

We have the original German. So let's see what the AI analysis is

The word "physische" relates to the physical/material existence or body, similar to English "physical." When combined with "Vernichtung" (destruction/annihilation), it specifically points to the destruction of the physical body/existence, as opposed to other forms of "destruction" that could be:

Cultural destruction (destroying language, customs)
Social destruction (breaking up communities)
Economic destruction (removing property rights, livelihoods)
Political destruction (removing political rights)

The use of "physische" therefore narrows down the type of destruction being discussed to one that acts upon the physical body itself. This is further reinforced by how it's positioned as distinct from option #3 (spatial displacement) - if "physische Vernichtung" meant anything other than killing, it would be redundant with the other categories.

It's not something I'm compelled to argue much further, we can let both our points stand.

As for the millions of deaths of Soviet prisoners in 1941, it was clearly due to the German logistical collapse and the lack of winter clothing that the Germans did not prepare for themselves or for the prisoners of war, so much so that the following year the mortality rate was lower and Stalin at no time accepted the German appeals for a mutual agreement on food for the prisoners, failing to send a list of captured German prisoners.

I would defer to Himmler on this over your interpretation

"In 1941 the Führer attacked Russia. That was, as we know now, shortly – perhaps 3 to 6 months – before Stalin prepared to embark on his great penetration into Central and Western Europe. I can give you a picture of this first year in a few words. The attacking forces cut their way through. The Russian Army was herded together in great pockets, ground down, taken prisoner. At the time, we did not value the mass of humanity as we value it today: as raw material, as labor. The fact that prisoners died of exhaustion and hunger in tens and hundreds of thousands is by no means regrettable from the standpoint of lost generations but is deplorable now for reasons of lost labor."

https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cf ... nt_id=1513

So he's saying they could have used them, but they didn't value them enough. This emerges out of Nazi racial ideology. He calls them "human animals" a few sentences down.

I'm content to leave these points to stand and move on, but I'll give you the last word if you want.

[bombsaway]

Let's let bombs present in this thread and we can splinter new threads off that do not pertain to chronology. For example, dispute about particular documents and their intent.

I for one am curious to see the orthodox narrative presented in a coherent way.

I will personally attempt to refrain from derailment on particulars and can assure you all I am already firmly biting my tongue.

Perhaps when bombs has finished we can take some time for rebuttal given that bombs is not opposed.

I'm not eager to see this thread cluttered with argumentation before it has run course.

Of course, that's just my perspective.

I view this as a research project so we can explore the history together rather than me coming at you from a position of authority. I would actually be interested in studying something that I don't know about.

My conception of what happened in occupied USSR was this

Initial wave of violence (though some communities were spared) followed by ghettoization. Then by 1943 all the ghettos are in the process of being liquidated, with most members being shot or sent west to extermination centers. Smaller portions of the population might have survived by being taken for labor, but this would be a minority, like 1/3 at most. In most cases the number of dead would be over 90%. Nowhere will you see evidence of a Jewish population being maintained, of children or elderly definitively surviving (I assume that you will not take evidence of them being sent to alleged extermination facilities as them being killed, this would be an ambiguity).

I was thinking of asking you to choose an area, any area of German occupation for us to look at, and then we could examine what happened to the people there. This would also give us a sense of how German policy evolved from the early days of the war. If this is amenable to you, we should proceed. Or if you have any strong objections to my thoughts on Nazi colonization policy and objectives, please voice them.

[Stubble]

Well, in an effort to keep the chronology straight, we should likely start with the opening of operation barbarossa. So far as a locality, if you like, for this portion, let's be general and any points of contention can be brought into a tighter focus. I think this will be streamlined enough to provide usefulness for future observers of the thread.

So far as points of contention thus far, I am trying to be generous here and letting you present your side of the coin. I don't see a reason to bust your balls or anything and what you have presented does in fact exist. There may be some bones to pick about interpretation, but, that can be subjective, so, being eager to move the thread forward, let's move the thread forward.

[TlsMS93]

According to Hilberg, the genocide began with the Commissars' Order, implying that it was pre-Barbarossa. But this approach fails to consider the requests to cancel this order and its subsequent approval the following year.

Another group mentions late summer or early fall 1941, but what is this based on?

And finally, there is the most recent group that mentions a secret and unrecorded meeting between Hitler and high-ranking party officials on December 12. Based on diary entries by Goebbels and Hans Frank, Hitler considered declaring war on the US as a fulfillment of the prophecy of January 30, 1939, and therefore the genocide began on that date.

There is a problem with this last theory, as there is also a record of Goebbels and Hitler treating the Jewish question as something yet to be implemented, in some cases only after the war and not something that happened. Goebbels's records may mention some humanitarian tragedy befalling the Jews as the food crisis or even reprisals in the East took place but do not indicate widespread execution.

[bombsaway]

Well, in an effort to keep the chronology straight, we should likely start with the opening of operation barbarossa. So far as a locality, if you like, for this portion, let's be general and any points of contention can be brought into a tighter focus. I think this will be streamlined enough to provide usefulness for future observers of the thread.

So far as points of contention thus far, I am trying to be generous here and letting you present your side of the coin. I don't see a reason to bust your balls or anything and what you have presented does in fact exist. There may be some bones to pick about interpretation, but, that can be subjective, so, being eager to move the thread forward, let's move the thread forward.

There really is no "general" at this point. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... n_1941.png

There are 4 main groups, which are sent out and conduct killings with the help of local collaborators. This evidenced in many different ways, through post-war witness statements from perpetrators and bystanders, through documents created by these police groups themselves and other Nazis. There are also intercepted radio messages that were recorded by the British. I think these are pretty interesting and good rebuttal to revisionists who tend to believe the EG and SS police documents are fabricated.

https://fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Cavend ... tinck.html

Bentinck was the chairman of JIC (The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) is an interagency deliberative body of the United Kingdom responsible for intelligence assessment) and was following these intercepts during the war

In 1943 he hadn't received convincing evidence of gas chambers, but had of the shootings, so you can see a statement like this

"On the other hand we do know that the Germans are out to destroy Jews of any age unless they are fit for manual labour."

How and why did he come to such a conclusion? That's another avenue we can take here.

Ultimately the evidence for a systematic killing program in occupied USSR is immense and there are many different ways we start to learn about it. What would be most convincing to you? Or give me your thoughts. I want to personalize this research project as much as possible. If you want a general overview there are many books on the matter, and a good summation would be the one HC Blog put out https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... _6356.html

[Stubble]

Alright, well, I see narrative, but it lacks substance.

Let start with the Einsatzgruppen I suppose since they have been thrust right in without much preface.

What was the stated task and purpose of the Einsatzgruppen, what were their general orders, and what were their responsibilities? Further, did they generate and submit reports up the chain of command and are those reports extant and available for review both translated and in their original form for comparison?