Chronology of the Holocaust

[Numar Patru]

You might also consider why Reich Jews were being sent to Riga when the ghetto there was full.

[Stubble]

You might also consider why Reich Jews were being sent to Riga when the ghetto there was full.

Like I said, this whole event, it is a huge tarbaby. I'll likely be chewing on this for some time. It is food for thought.

So far as the fullness or not fullness of the ghetto, and the reason these jews were shot, I don't know what I don't know. I'll be digging though.

[Numar Patru]

I’ll give you this: you’ve at least got an open mind

[Archie]

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.

In the 1930s, Jews revealingly referred to the relatively mild pre-war measures as "extermination."
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/conce ... ation/507/

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.

I quoted that recently. I think your spin here, that is "shows they were at least even considering it [physical extermination] at this point," is quite unsound.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=194

This line here says that such a policy would be "Bolshevist" and "un-German." And this is Himmler saying this.

Cruel and tragic as every individual case may be, this method is still the mildest and best one if, out of inner conviction, one rejects as un-German and impossible the Bolshevist method of physical extermination of a people.

And since this is from November 1940, this disproves the traditional interpretation of e.g. Hitler's oft-quoted Jan 1939 speech threatening the annihilation of Jewry.

[bombsaway]

You might also consider why Reich Jews were being sent to Riga when the ghetto there was full.

Like I said, this whole event, it is a huge tarbaby. I'll likely be chewing on this for some time. It is food for thought.

So far as the fullness or not fullness of the ghetto, and the reason these jews were shot, I don't know what I don't know. I'll be digging though.

I'm not sure you're going to find much of a reason, sometimes there was an inciting incident but I don't think there was in this case. The outright murder of employable Jews points to some higher level directive to kill, irrespective of "events".

https://fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Bruns/

This is a very interesting document (vouched for here by Irving) that I think will be a valuable perspective for you about Rumbula.

"BRUNS: As soon as I heard those Jews were to be shot on Friday I went to a 21-year old boy and said that they had made themselves very useful in the area under my command, besides which the Army MT park had employed 1500 and the 'Heeresgruppe' 800 women to make underclothes of the stores we captured in RIGA; besides which about 1200 women in the neighbourhood of RIGA were turning millions of captured sheepskins into articles we urgently required: ear-protectors, fur caps, fur waistcoats, etc. Nothing had been provided, as of course the Russian campaign was known to have come to a victorious end in October 1941! In short, all those women were employed in a useful capacity. I tried to save them. I told that fellow ALTENMEYER(?) whose name I shall always remember and who will be added to the list of war criminals: "Listen to me, they represent valuable man-power!" 'Do you call Jews valuable human beings, sir?" I said: "Listen to me properly, I said valuable man-power'. I didn't mention their value as human beings." He said: "Well, they're to be shot in accordance with the FÜHRER's orders! I said: "FÜHRER's orders?" "Yes", whereupon he showed me his orders. "

[Nessie]

...

I quoted that recently. I think your spin here, that is "shows they were at least even considering it [physical extermination] at this point," is quite unsound.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=194

This line here says that such a policy would be "Bolshevist" and "un-German." And this is Himmler saying this.

Cruel and tragic as every individual case may be, this method is still the mildest and best one if, out of inner conviction, one rejects as un-German and impossible the Bolshevist method of physical extermination of a people.

And since this is from November 1940, this disproves the traditional interpretation of e.g. Hitler's oft-quoted Jan 1939 speech threatening the annihilation of Jewry.

Your spin that because sometimes senior Nazis said things that suggest there was no physical extermination planned or being carried out, that means there was no physical extermination, is unsound. Himmler saying one thing, does not prove that an interpretation of something Hitler said, is wrong.

The correct, evidential and logical way to interpret what senior Nazis were saying, is to look for evidence to establish what was happening at the time they said it, or after they said it. Revisionists are hopeless at and really do not want to gather evidence to establish what happened, even though it is the basic task of any historical investigation. The evidence is that the Nazis were identifying and arresting Jews, who were then forced into ghettos, or in the case of the Jews of Kiev, gathered at a remote spot, where they were all shot. Those taken to the ghettos were also shot. That is evidence Hitler's use of the word annihilation means destruction, obliteration.

It is odd that many revisionists accept mass shootings took place, but claim somehow that is not annihilation, especially when the Nazi's policy was to make those places Juden-frei. Revisionist theorising, does not fit with the evidence of what happened.

[bombsaway]

I think my issue with Archie's statement is the selective reading of "physical extermination". Identical phrase but when Ehlich uses it it's non homicidal, and when Himmler uses it that's the meaning.

[Numar Patru]

I'm not sure you're going to find much of a reason, sometimes there was an inciting incident but I don't think there was in this case. The outright murder of employable Jews points to some higher level directive to kill, irrespective of "events".

IIRC, Bruns is referring to the Jews in the Riga ghetto and not the German Jews newly arriving in Latvia. A turf war of sorts breaks out between the SS and the civil authorities regarding whether “work Jews” should be exempted from execution.

The bigger point I’m making is that Reich Jews were shot because they got caught up in the bigger events of that day.

[TlsMS93]

It is odd that many revisionists accept mass shootings took place, but claim somehow that is not annihilation, especially when the Nazi's policy was to make those places Juden-frei. Revisionist theorising, does not fit with the evidence of what happened.

No place became Judenfrei, no country was, and no city, for that matter, because there was no census. Paper accepts everything and I do not take these reports of action with fire and sword, if you take good luck to you.

[bombsaway]

I'm not sure you're going to find much of a reason, sometimes there was an inciting incident but I don't think there was in this case. The outright murder of employable Jews points to some higher level directive to kill, irrespective of "events".

IIRC, Bruns is referring to the Jews in the Riga ghetto and not the German Jews newly arriving in Latvia. A turf war of sorts breaks out between the SS and the civil authorities regarding whether “work Jews” should be exempted from execution.

The bigger point I’m making is that Reich Jews were shot because they got caught up in the bigger events of that day.

Yes. One other thing for Stubble here in terms of "reasons" is this aspect of the army wanting to protect useful working Jews against SS initiated killing actions. One would think the army would approve of these actions, if justified in terms of winning the war, instead you consistently see a conflict here, with the SS prevailing in almost all cases.

The killings weren't about winning the war, there were other ideological concerns, reasons for why the SS initiated these actions. Bruns even speaks their language in his account "the Jews have committed a crime against the people of the world"

[Stubble]

I'm still gathering threads so I can look at this tapestry.

Again, personally, I'm looking for facts free of opinion.

If I have missed a thread concerning a scheduled reprisal or decimation on that day, please provide supporting evidence.

So far as an interpretation of the events that day, I have very little information and cannot yet form an opinion.

Basically, I know some jews were shot and it was unwarranted. I also know that those responsible were not put on trial and in turn put to death for it, as one would expect to have happened given that others were for similar.

There is an exception made in this case, and that detail is strikingly odd.

I'm not sure you're going to find much of a reason, sometimes there was an inciting incident but I don't think there was in this case. The outright murder of employable Jews points to some higher level directive to kill, irrespective of "events".

IIRC, Bruns is referring to the Jews in the Riga ghetto and not the German Jews newly arriving in Latvia. A turf war of sorts breaks out between the SS and the civil authorities regarding whether “work Jews” should be exempted from execution.

The bigger point I’m making is that Reich Jews were shot because they got caught up in the bigger events of that day.

I still haven't found the order. Do you know if it is extant? I have found some supporting documentation for a mass shooting being carried out that day specifically, though I cannot speak to the veracity of the claim, only that it has been made.

I've also not failed to notice the architecture of the monument at the burial site and am forced to wonder when it was constructed and if it was after the GPR studies. There is a consistency in the monuments being composed of jagged stone, tightly packed, over mass graves, and that is a very specific design choice.

[bombsaway]

I still haven't found the order. Do you know if it is extant? I have found some supporting documentation for a mass shooting being carried out that day specifically, though I cannot speak to the veracity of the claim, only that it has been made.

There's an order from Himmler, specifically stating that Jews from Berlin should not be liquidated on arrival

https://fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Note301141.html

There's also this https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/lo ... ed-workers Not quite an order, but a request. I believe Bruns is the chief Quartermaster, Lohse refers to here. This is an additional data point about the shooting.

[Nessie]

It is odd that many revisionists accept mass shootings took place, but claim somehow that is not annihilation, especially when the Nazi's policy was to make those places Juden-frei. Revisionist theorising, does not fit with the evidence of what happened.

No place became Judenfrei, no country was, and no city, for that matter, because there was no census. Paper accepts everything and I do not take these reports of action with fire and sword, if you take good luck to you.

List of countries and cities declared Juden-frei here;

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

It does not include EG OSR 101 which stated;

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... rt101.html

"In the period covered by the report, the towns of Nikolayev and Kherson in particular were freed of Jews."

[HansHill]

These weren't meant to be sources but rather a starting point for future inquiry. Everything has to be checked obviously. Looking at the Codoh page I see the hypothesis is the documents are fabricated, the witnesses are lying, and the Latvian Jews were in fact transported east. The only place where positive evidence is given is about Latvian Jews moving east, a newspaper article. Historians generally eschew such evidence if better evidence exists, because they lack footnotes, aren't sourced at all.

Basically the newspaper article stating the Latvian Jews were sent east is explainable in terms of it being the narrative the authorities (Riga was under Nazi occupation) put out. This story was also told to the Jews that arrived at the ghetto to find it empty. No more information, whether documentary or witness, exists for the "resettled" Latvian Jews being housed or maintained anywhere. I think it's hypocritical for revisionists to treat this as a given.

Emphasis mine.

Are you conveniently forgetting that England was at war with Germany at this time? You are suggesting that an English newspaper would reproduce blatant German propaganda? While this is not completely outside the realm of possibility that a journalist could go rogue and defect (William Joyce, for example) it would need to be substantiated in some kind of way, rather than handwaved.

Regardless, that point is rather redundant given the sub-headline is "Another Chapter in the Record of Nazi Savagery". Why would the NSDAP feed that to a British newspaper?

Rather, the far more prescient point here is that the shambolic Orthodox narrative - accounts from eyewitness are appalling (basic errors like getting the location wrong), along with the numbers being in complete disarray, all of which Wikipedia seem to gloss over!

Finally, the method as described by Ezergailis:

The Jeckeln method of killing even surpassed the killing rates in the death-camp factories. To kill 25,000 people in two 10-hour days, it meant that 1,250 were killed per hour; or 21 per minute, or one person every three seconds.

Emphasis mine again. This insanity conveniently is omitted from the Wikipedia article, obviously!

[TlsMS93]

"In the period covered by the report, the towns of Nikolayev and Kherson in particular were freed of Jews."

They also stated that there were 800,000 Jews in France, and that they deported less than 10%, but that is not true; there were around 300,000. Just because the Nazis said something does not make it absolute true. There are several reports of many Jews still in Berlin during the chaos of 1945, which means that not even the nerve center of the Third Reich was empty of Jews.

According to Wikipedia, no country had a 100% Jewish death toll. The highest ESTIMATE of Jewish deaths by country is said to have been the Netherlands, with 91.5%. In fact, 45% of the Jews in the occupied countries were not affected. Could it have been only those able to work?