While I have been unable to find any Holocaust Studies professors to rebut Thomas Dalton on Saturday’s show, despite inviting dozens of them, an old acquaintance, Dr. Andrew Mathis, and the prominent anti-revisionist blogger Roberto Muehlenkamp have agreed to appear during the second hour of the show and respond to Dalton’s arguments. Should be a great show! Details here.
Apologies to Muehlenkamp — it turns out I had tried to contact him at a defunct email address, and now that he has been alerted to the event, he is perfectly willing to appear on the show.
Kevin,
Why are you having it as separate 1 hour segments? Obviously the guests with the last word have the advantage in any debate. If you don't allow Dalton to rebut any arguments from the other side you are doing your listeners a big disservice. I hope you reconsider the planned format of your show and allow for a more fair debate that will allow the truth to come forward.
Fair question, Anonymous! Why indeed? Well… First, I want to give each side a full hour (more like 45 minutes due to commercials) to lay out the basics of their case, without being slowed by the many challenges from the other side that would ensue if everyone were on the air at once.
Second, as someone publicly associated with the 9/11 truth movement, I don't want to be accused of "promoting holocaust revisionism," so I want to make it clear that I'm being more than fair to the anti-revisionists. Since Dalton's book is a big part of the show, if I gave him the advantageous second-hour position, it might look like I was doing this to promote him and his arguments, rather than to seek the truth and defend free speech and free inquiry.
Finally, in a case like this where a minority of revisionists is challenging a broad consensus of sixty-plus years of scholarship, the revisionists should be happy to get a reasonably fair hearing, even if the other side gets the second hour.
Also, since Dalton has a legitimate complaint about going first, I will post his written response to whatever Mathis and Muehlenkamp say; and I hope to do a follow-up show sometime down the road in a format where both sides can cross-examine each other about key points.
Kevin,
I am listening now the program live; I see there are no phone call-in's. Understandable. But I want to rebut two items here right now.
Mathis says Rudolf Hoess would not have been tortured before he gave his testimony for the defense for Kaltenbrunner. THE FACT IS that Rudolf Hoess was tortured by the British military agents immediately after he was arrested and was putty in the hands of the Allies from then on. They not only beat him senseless, but they threatened him with turning his wife and children over to the Soviets if he didn't cooperate. Here is the account written by the head of the "investigation" team, Bernard Clarke:
"The Jewish sergeant and the five other specialists in third degree interrogation then left to seek out Höss, whom they surprised in the middle of the night, sleeping in an alcove of the room used to slaughter cattle on the farm.
Höss screamed in terror at the mere sight of British uniforms.
Clarke yelled "What is your name?"
With each answer of "Franz Lang," Clarke's hand crashed into the face of his prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Höss broke and admitted who he was.
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants in the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat. Then Höss tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in German: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I took my orders from Himmler. I am a soldier in the same way as you are a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. (p. 237)
So it is that Bernard reveals "It took three days to get a coherent statement out of [Höss]" (ibid.). This admission was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in an article in the Wrexham Leader. (October 17,1986)."
The full story can be found at http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html
This was just the beginning of what they did to Hoess, so he really was not responsible for anything he said after that. All researchers know this, so for Mathis to say that Hoess "was not tortured because he was testifying for the defense" in one instance is simply misinformation.
Second, Muehlenkamp brings up the Koherr Report and pretty much depends on that throughout the program. This report is questionable for many reasons that I can't go into here, but listeners should know not to take Muehlenkamp's faith in it at face-value.
Lastly, for now, the Goebbels Diary is also not an assured genuine document, plus your discussion of "liquidation" left much to be desired. Germar Rudolf, a native German speaker, has more credibility in discussing the German words used than you and/or Dr. Mathis. Muehlenkamp, of course, applies the interpretation he wants.
Thanks for the program. I think you did a good job, even though you bent over backward to find something to agree with the Hour Two guys on, i.e. the terms used in Goebbels diary and the alleged "diary" itself.
Re Mr. Muehlenkamp's use of Josef Goebbels diary entry for proof of extermination (by killing) of Jews.
Here is the latest answer from well-known Swiss revisionist Juergen Graf on the Goebbels quote from his alleged diary. Graf is basing his answer on the assumption the diary is authentic, and sent this to a Hungarian Holocaust historian who is the author of Argument #3:
Argument 3: On 27 March 1942, Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that „barbaric methods“, which he preferred not to describe, were used against the Jews, and that 60% of them would be liquidated; the other 40% would be used for labour.
Answer: No revisionist has ever been able to furnish a satisfactory explanation for this passage. But let us compare it with what Goebbels wrote in the same diary only 20 days earlier, on 7 March 1942: „There are about 11 million Jews in Europe [a heavily inflated figure!]. Later it will be necessary to concentrate them in the East. After the war some island such as Madagascar can be assigned to them.“
The deportation of the European Jews to Madagascar was not Dr. Goebbel’s brainchild. The so-called „Madagascar plan“ was taken very seriously by the National Socialist leadership, but finally abandoned as unworkable . Now the „holocaust“ historians may argue that the German government dropped this plan between 7 and 27 March and decided to exterminate the Jews instead; this would explain the discrepancy between the two diary entries. However this argument would be untenable for the following reason: According to the „holocaust“ story, the first „extermination camp“, Chelmno, started to function as early as in December 1941. Since it is unthinkable that a local commander would have set up an „extermination camp“ without an order from the highest authorities, an extermination policy must already have existed in late 1941, if the claims about Chelmno are correct (which the revisionists dispute ). Being one of the leading figures of the Third Reich, Dr. Goebbels would of course have known about such an extermination policy, so how do the „holocaust“ historians explain the fact that he spoke of the concentration of the Jews in the East and advocated assigning them Madagascar (or another island) as late as on 7 March 1942?
Let’s sum up: While the revisionists are unable to explain the second entry in Goebbels’ diary, the „holocaust“ historians are at a loss to explain the first one! It is unlikely that this mystery will ever be solved.
(End of Graf quote)
Muehlenkamp's argument is a case of using selective passages to "prove" a monstrous crime. Nothing is proven in this way; entire documents must be taken into account in an honest investigation.
I will remind you and your listeners that Josef Goebbels, important though he was, was NOT a policy maker in the Third Reich, he was the information (called propaganda) and culture minister and the Gauleiter of Berlin (a Party leadership position). He wanted to get the Jews out of Berlin; he disliked Jews intensely, and he lobbied Hitler to allow him to begin a deportation program. It was complicated and he may have had some guilt feelings as to the results in human suffering of the deportation process (I believe he did, but at the same time his personal code was to be firm and tough, so he was expressing his own inner conflicts in his diary). The Nazis were human beings just like you and I; they were not some special species of monster-humanoid.
Thanks for posting this further comment. I hope you will.
Yawn.
Höss was indeed beaten by the British. Of course, he was not in British custody when he testified. He was being held by the Poles.
a.m.
> Höss was indeed beaten by the British. Of course, he was not in British custody when he testified
Out of the frying pan onto the fire is what that's called. Höss was given to the Poles two weeks after the British caught him. Most people regard Britain as having better legal standards than eastern Europe in the 20th century.
I wonder if Andrew Mathis realizes what a dumb statement he just made. Maybe it will dawn on him soon.
One small error which Dalton made: he asserted that the postwar Jewish demographics were given as 12 million. The American Jewish Yearbook of 1948-9 gives a claimed estimate of 11,373,350.
Lastly, for now, the Goebbels Diary is also not an assured genuine document, plus your discussion of "liquidation" left much to be desired. Germar Rudolf, a native German speaker, has more credibility in discussing the German words used than you and/or Dr. Mathis. Muehlenkamp, of course, applies the interpretation he wants.
Dear Carolyn, I'm also a native speaker of the German language, and Germar Rudolf is the kind of fellow who will try to sell you anything he thinks he can get away with if it helps his agenda. As a native speaker of German I can only say that Germar Rudolf's attempt to explain away the "liquidated" and other tough parts of the diary entry in question (if he doesn't simply omit them) is nothing short of ridiculous.
Regarding the authenticity of Goebbels' diary, I suggest you read my post 12133 on the RODOH forum. And I wouldn't challenge authenticity and argue against a document's incriminatory nature at the same time, if I were you. It looks rather desperate.
Please feel free to join us on the RODOH forum, by the way. We need fresh "Revisionist" blood there.
Out of the frying pan onto the fire is what that's called. Höss was given to the Poles two weeks after the British caught him. Most people regard Britain as having better legal standards than eastern Europe in the 20th century.
The British MPs who beat up Höss didn't keep to those better standards, then. Polish criminal justice authorities, on the other hand, seem to have complied with what "lower" standards they supposedly had. They even allowed Höss to write highly inconvenient things in his diary and in the notes he made of statements during pre-trial interrogation. Case in point: he stated that his earlier 2.5 million estimate of AB victims had been much too high, gave deportation figures adding up to little more than one million, and dismissed estimates by former prisoners (which supported the Soviet figure of 4 million, a figure the Poles clung to until 1992) as "figments of the imagination" that "lack any foundation" (from Constantine FitzGibbon's translation). Are we asked to believe that the Poles were so boundlessly dumb as to induce Höss into shooting them in the foot, into openly writing that the estimates of the AB death toll they supported were wildly exaggerated?
During the 2nd half of the program, you got into quite a discussion about the use of the word "liquidation" in reference to the Jews. I mentioned it in my first post here.
Now I've come across an answer to this question by Juergen Graf, the Swiss revisionist. In this instance, the 'Argument' is by the Hungarian historian Dr. Karsai, and the 'Answer' is by Graf.
Argument 2: In a speech delivered in the Reichstag on 30 January 1939, Adolf Hitler predicted that the effect of a new war would be the annihilation of the Jewish race.
Answer: In today’s language, „annihilation“ is a synonym for „physical liquidation“. But if we analyze Hitler’s writings and speeches, we discover that he often used the word „annihilation“ („Vernichtung“), as well as the word „extermination“ („Ausrottung“), in the sense of „depriving someone of his power“. An example from Mein Kampf clearly illustrates this point. In this book, Hitler wrote that in the Hapsburg monarchy the German population had been threatened by „langsame Ausrottung“ („slow extermination“) . Did Hitler insinuate that Austrian emperor Franz Josef planned to gas or to shoot all 10 million Austrians of German nationality? Of course not; he simply feared that in the multi-national Hapsburg empire the Germans would gradually lose their dominating position to the Slavs.
Hitler’s speech from 30 January 1939 is often quoted in „holocaust“ literature, so it is not surprising that Dr. Karsai uses it to „prove“ that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews. Unfortunately, the „holocaust“ historians always „forget“ to quote the continuation of Hitler’s speech, and Dr. Karsai is no exception, so we shall quote it ourselves: „The times where the non-Jewish peoples were defenseless in the field of propaganda are gone. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy now have institutions which in case of necessity enable them to enlighten the world about the essence of a question of which many peoples are instinctively conscious, but lack scientific knowledge.“
So the „annihilation“ of the Jews simply meant the enlightenment of the non-Jewish nations about the Jewish peril!
(End of Graf quote)
In addition, Mr. Mathis brought up the subject of the French priest Father Desbois and his discoveries of mass graves of Jews. I have look into this enough to know that Father Desbois is a fraud who is not qualified to know a mass grave when he sees one, but is supported by Jewish organizations and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum for propaganda purposes. Juergan Graf has something to say about this too.
Argument 7: French priest Patrick Desbois has located more than 600 mass graves with murdered Jews in Ukraine. This is hard evidence for the reality of the holocaust.
Answer: In order to judge the value of Patrick Desbois’ book about the „holocaust by bullets“ , we can do no better than quote what two French revisionists, Vincent Reynourd and Prof. Robert Faurisson, have written under the headline „Father Desbois is one hell of a prankster“:
Vincent Reynouard: „The alleged mass graves have not been dug open and never will be. […] The people claiming to have discovered the ‚mass graves’ have not, in reality, carried out any excavations, hence no inventory of remains, no verification, forensic or physical or material certification of the standard, compulsory kind made in the inquest following the discovery of even a single corpse or skeleton. No police or justice official has been to any of the sites to do any examination whatsoever. […] Two Jewish associations […] have gone about gathering ‚testimonies’ […] Ukrainian villagers, mustered for the occasion, are filmed giving their accounts from which, subsequently, only choice bits will be picked. […] But, coming back to those alleged mass graves, how is the value of testimony to be assessed if the material reality of the facts has not been established beforehand?“
Robert Faurisson: „These supposed mass graves will not be dug open; no disinternment or any material verification will be carried out, all under the pretence that the Jewish religion prohibits the touching of Jewish corpses; however it is enough to look in the Encyclopedia Judaica (1978) at the entry ‚Autopsies’ (plural) and ‚Dissection’ (Singular) to see that there is no such prohibition at all.“
(end of Graf quote)
So I think that covers about everything. Thank you for posting this.
Re Mr. Muehlenkamp's use of Josef Goebbels diary entry for proof of extermination (by killing) of Jews.
Here is the latest answer from well-known Swiss revisionist Juergen Graf on the Goebbels quote from his alleged diary. Graf is basing his answer on the assumption the diary is authentic, and sent this to a Hungarian Holocaust historian who is the author of Argument #3:
[Graf quote see Carolyn's post of April 25, 2010 9:07 AM]
(End of Graf quote)
So this change of subject is the best that Mr. Graf has got? For the entry of 7 March 1942 there may be several explanations. One is that a "territorial" solution implying deportation to the occupied eastern territories was definitely dropped only a short time before the start of deportations from Lublin to Belzec. Another is that the killing program advanced step by step and that, while the decision to wipe out the Jews in the occupied Soviet territories had already been taken in July/August 1941, Gauleiter Greiser's program of wiping out a large portion of the Warthegau's Jews at Chelmno was under way since December 1941 with Himmler's blessing (apparently Hitler gave his paladins such a high degree of autonomy that this was enough) and commencing the extermination of the General Government's Jews had been decided upon pursuant to Secretery of State Bühler's request at the Wannsee Conference, the "Madagascar" solution had not yet been ruled out for the Jews of Germany and other countries and there was an idea of keeping them in the eastern territories vacated of the local Jews until the war's end. Yet another is that Goebbels was informed only with a certain delay about the particulars, which Himmler, Heydrich and others were handling with the degree of autonomy granted to them by Hitler and a certain amount of secrecy even among insiders for the sake of propagandistic deniability. Yet another is that wholesale mass murder was too horrifying even for Goebbels to contemplate (mind that he didn't want to talk about the particulars of the "barbaric process" in his diary entry of 27 March 1942) and he was clinging to a scenario that would give him some peace of mind. And then there is the possibility that Goebbels had not yet made up his mind to break the news to posterity, for the sake of whom he wrote his diary. By 27 March 1942 he had, hence his justifying stance that the "barbaric judgment" being visited upon the Jews was fully deserved by them.
[t.b.c.]
[continuation]
Muehlenkamp's argument is a case of using selective passages to "prove" a monstrous crime. Nothing is proven in this way; entire documents must be taken into account in an honest investigation.
Selective what, Carolyn? I read out the whole of Evans' translation of Goebbels diary entry of 27 March 1942 as transcribed in my blog Goebbels on liquidation. Perhaps you can show me what part you think Evans left out and explain how it is supposed to change the incriminatory content of this diary entry.
I will remind you and your listeners that Josef Goebbels, important though he was, was NOT a policy maker in the Third Reich, he was the information (called propaganda) and culture minister and the Gauleiter of Berlin (a Party leadership position).
Thanks, that helps my point in that it adds plausibility to one of the possibilities I considered in my previous post. Goebbels' not being a policy-maker would explain why he was not necessarily always in on the latest news about the particulars of the killing program that others were taking care of.
[continuation]
He wanted to get the Jews out of Berlin; he disliked Jews intensely, and he lobbied Hitler to allow him to begin a deportation program. It was complicated and he may have had some guilt feelings as to the results in human suffering of the deportation process (I believe he did, but at the same time his personal code was to be firm and tough, so he was expressing his own inner conflicts in his diary).
It just happens that this diary entry was not about the deportation of Jews from Berlin, it was about the deportation of Jews from the General Government. It was written ten days after the first deportations from Lublin to Belzec extermination camp and mentions "the former Gauleiter of Vienna", Odilo Globocnik (the head of Aktion Reinhard(t)), as the man in charge of the operation. It refers to the liquidation of the majority of a group of human beings, the Jews of the General Government, and liquidating a group of human beings cannot possibly mean anything other than killing theme (in the blog mentioned in my previous post I linked to a German film about the Soviet Katyn killings in which the term is used in exactly the same sense to describe what the Soviets did to those Polish officers). As to Goebbels' having had "guilt feelings", I consider that possible and it helps my point: as I pointed out in my blog Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (5,2), Goebbels was a man who could write unabashedly about killing, yet this "barbaric procedure", this barbaric judgment being visited upon the Jews ("An den Juden wird ein Strafgericht vollzogen, das zwar barbarisch ist, das sie aber vollauf verdient haben" in the German original – Evans translation is somewhat feeble in this respect), this "most terrible manner" in which the Führer's "prophecy" was becoming fulfilled, was something so horrendous that even Goebbels shrank from going into details about it, hence his remark that the "barbaric process" was "not to be described in any more detail".
The Nazis were human beings just like you and I; they were not some special species of monster-humanoid.
Of course they were human beings. It just happens that human beings can do the most inhuman things under certain circumstances, as history has shown and keeps on showing us.
Thanks for posting this further comment. I hope you will.
I say the same.
Re R. Muehlenkamp's (RM) post of April 26, 3:11 A.M. ….
He is demonstrating the Holocaust-defenders technique of flooding the debate with data (mostly inconsequential or even false, but meant to impress the unknowing) which the revisionist is supposed to refute, item by item, taking up much valuable time and completely losing any observers. If the revisionist falls for this, the H-defender will then do the same with his follow-up answers.
RM first mischaracterizes the two selections from G's diary that are only 20 days apart, as a "change of subject." They are, in fact, seeming contradictions, which can typically be found in diaries, wherein people express their feelings as well as account for the activities of their day. It is not a change of subject.
RM then goes on to invent various reasons for this without regard to plausibility or historical documentation. This gives him the opportunity to throw many slurs into the mix, such as here:
"Gauleiter Greiser's program of wiping out a large portion of the Warthegau's Jews at Chelmno was under way since December 1941 with Himmler's blessing (apparently Hitler gave his paladins such a high degree of autonomy that this was enough) and commencing the extermination of the General Government's Jews had been decided upon pursuant to Secretery of State Bühler's request at the Wannsee Conference .."
"Apparently" Hitler lets his "paladins" do whatever they want?? NOT SO. The use of "wiping out" and "extermination" in this paragraph is to emphasize this idea without proving it. This rambling is meant to deceive the ignorant. Let RM speak in plain terms to the readers of these comments and leave his dissembling for those at the RODOH forum. The original issue of the two passages is very simple indeed, and let's remember that diary entries are not proof of anything, especially when it is Goebbels' diary, not Hitler's or even Himmler's.
Re RM's post of April 26, 3:15 AM
Selective in that you took one passage (27 March 1942) from the diary, without considering it in context with other passages. This is done all the time with "Mein Kampf", the Wannsee Protocol and many other documents and alleged documents.
We all know that anything can seem to be "proved" by cherry-picking the parts to quote. Your partner A. Mathis said that himself on the program — I think it was about the 6 million figure used in history. Although in that case, I would like to see him come up with all the other numbers he thinks could be found. In my looking at the long list of New York Times articles, 5 million was sometimes used, but that's about it. Six was the magic number.
Re RM's post of April 26, 3:19 AM
I know that the diary entry was not about the Jews of Berlin, but Goebbels' involvment was his desire to rid Berlin of it's Jews. Otherwise, he is just giving his own thoughts.
I remind you again that "liquidation" can certainly mean something other than killing or murder. Liquidation means to "get rid of" and that meant, in every statement made about it, to "rid" Europe of Jews. I know that is very offensive in itself to many (especially Jews), but it does NOT evidence a plan of extermination by wholesale murder.
You do not, cannot, and will never prove that if you haven't already done so in the last 65 years!
Re R. Muehlenkamp's (RM) post of April 26, 3:11 A.M. ….
He is demonstrating the Holocaust-defenders technique of flooding the debate with data (mostly inconsequential or even false, but meant to impress the unknowing) which the revisionist is supposed to refute, item by item, taking up much valuable time and completely losing any observers. If the revisionist falls for this, the H-defender will then do the same with his follow-up answers.
Hollow rhetoric, Carolyn. None of my data are inconsequential let alone false.
RM first mischaracterizes the two selections from G's diary that are only 20 days apart, as a "change of subject."
Invoking supposed uncertainties about one diary entry to avoid discussing another is a change of subject, sorry.
They are, in fact, seeming contradictions, which can typically be found in diaries, wherein people express their feelings as well as account for the activities of their day. It is not a change of subject.
The "change of subject" referred to Mr. Graf’s approach. Read before writing.
RM then goes on to invent various reasons for this without regard to plausibility or historical documentation.
Actually I'm considering rather plausible hypotheses that can be matched with other historical evidence. My opponent seems to have little more than rhetoric to offer, on the other hand.
This gives him the opportunity to throw many slurs into the mix, such as here:
"Gauleiter Greiser's program of wiping out a large portion of the Warthegau's Jews at Chelmno was under way since December 1941 with Himmler's blessing (apparently Hitler gave his paladins such a high degree of autonomy that this was enough) and commencing the extermination of the General Government's Jews had been decided upon pursuant to Secretery of State Bühler's request at the Wannsee Conference .."
"Apparently" Hitler lets his "paladins" do whatever they want?? NOT SO.
I didn't say he let them do what they wanted, but that he gave them much autonomy as concerns how, when and where to proceed with exterminating Jews. Big difference.
The use of "wiping out" and "extermination" in this paragraph is to emphasize this idea without proving it. This rambling is meant to deceive the ignorant. Let RM speak in plain terms to the readers of these comments and leave his dissembling for those at the RODOH forum.
Can you only produce hollow musings about what I'm supposed to be up to, or do you also have arguments?
Himmler's authorization to Greiser is mentioned in the book Krieg, Ernährung, Völkermord, by German historian Christian Gerlach. It is also mentioned in a letter that Greiser sent to Himmler, which is discussed here. Let's see if you can respond to the questions in that blog.
[tbc]
[continuation]
The original issue of the two passages is very simple indeed,
Definitely. Goebbels is referring to the deportations to Belzec extermination camp that started ten days before, organized by the former Gauleiter of Vienna, as the beginning of a barbaric judgment being visited upon the Jews. And he is stating very clearly that in the course this barbaric judgment he expects 60 % of the General Governmen's Jewish inhabitants to be liquidated.
and let's remember that diary entries are not proof of anything, especially when it is Goebbels' diary, not Hitler's or even Himmler's.
How about insider knowledge of an extermination policy being put into practice? That’s rather damning evidence to the implementation of such policy, especially in the context of other evidence about the deportations to Belzec that had started 10 days before. And let's remember that it's not Carolyn Yeager who determines what is proof of what and what is not.
Selective in that you took one passage (27 March 1942) from the diary, without considering it in context with other passages. This is done all the time with "Mein Kampf", the Wannsee Protocol and many other documents and alleged documents.
I don't see what other diary entries would change the obvious meaning of this:
"The Jews are now being pushed out of the General Government, beginning near Lublin, to the East. A pretty barbaric procedure is being applied here, and it is not to be described in any more detail, and not much is left of the Jews themselves. In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna [Globocnik], who is carrying out this action, is doing it pretty prudently and with a procedure that doesn't work too conspicuously. The Jews are being punished barbarically, to be sure, but they have fully deserved it. The prophesy that the Führer issued to them on the way, for the eventuality that they started a new world war, is beginning to realise itself in the most terrible manner. One must not allow any sentimentalities to rule in these matters. If we did not defend ourselves against them, the Jews would annihilate us. It is a struggle for life and death between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of the question. Here too, the Führer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution, which is demanded by the way things are and thus appears to be unavoidable. Thank God, during the war we now have a whole series of possibilities which were barred to us in peacetime. We must exploit them. The ghettos which are becoming available in the General Government are now being filled with the Jews who are being pushed out of the Reich, and after a certain time the process is then to renew itself here. Jewry has nothing to laugh about…"
as describing the deportations to Belzec extermination camps that had started 10 days before. But perhaps you can show me some.
[t.b.c.]
[continuation]
We all know that anything can seem to be "proved" by cherry-picking the parts to quote.
A trick often attempted by "Revisionists", but not one I am using here. I'm interpreting a description of certain events in a diary entry written on a certain day, on hand of the wording of that description and of what is known from other evidence about the events described. I'd say that's the exact opposite of cherry-picking.
“Your partner A. Mathis said that himself on the program — I think it was about the 6 million figure used in history. Although in that case, I would like to see him come up with all the other numbers he thinks could be found. In my looking at the long list of New York Times articles, 5 million was sometimes used, but that's about it. Six was the magic number.”
If you think you can show me another entry or another couple of entries in Goebbels’ diary that make his diary entry of 27 March 1942 into anything other than a reference to the deportations to Belzec extermination camp that had started 10 days before, please fire away. As to your "magic number", the most you can reasonably argue is that one reason why the upper range of estimates about the Jewish death toll under the Nazis is more often used, at least in non-academic circles, may be that the number "6" or "6 million" has some special connotation. So what?
[t.b.c.]
[continuation]
Re RM's post of April 26, 3:19 AM
I know that the diary entry was not about the Jews of Berlin, but Goebbels' involvment was his desire to rid Berlin of it's Jews. Otherwise, he is just giving his own thoughts.
I remind you again that "liquidation" can certainly mean something other than killing or murder. Liquidation means to "get rid of" and that meant, in every statement made about it, to "rid" Europe of Jews. I know that is very offensive in itself to many (especially Jews), but it does NOT evidence a plan of extermination by wholesale murder.
Sorry, Carolyn, but when something that is to be done to a person or a group of persons is being referred to as "liquidation", the only possible meaning is killing that person or group of persons. That's how the term was used in the clip about Katyn linked to in my blog Goebbels on liquidation, in regard to what the Soviets had done to those Polish officers at Katyn. And it was used in the same sense in Goebbels' diary entry of 27 March 1942, in regard to what the Nazis considered necessary to do to the overwhelming majority of the General Government’s Jewish population.
You do not, cannot, and will never prove that if you haven't already done so in the last 65 years!
Actually it’s up to you to explain why on earth "liquidation" should have meant killing in regard to the Polish officers at Katyn but not in regard to the General Government's Jews, although in both cases the term referred to something that had been or would be done to people.
And the events you deny have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the inability of certain fanatics to deal with that.
Re RM's post of April 26, 3:41 AM
I already commented on the "liquidation" question, but about "challenge(ing) authenticity and argue(ing) against a document's incriminatory nature at the same time," I can say that the authenticity of the Goebbels diary is not accepted by all, and for good reason since it's been in Soviet custody since 1945. I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm not convinced it is. However, it is brought up all the time, so one must at least counter the false arguments made based on it.
Actually, I don't understand where the idea of "desperate" comes in. Wishful thinking on your part?
I wouldn't go to RODOH forum; I have looked at it and it is a waste of time. Senseless arguments of the type I called you on in your first post here. I understand the IP addresses are taken from the registered users there, and used against them if a reason arises. People should be careful of where they go on the world-wide web.
On 14.12.41. Goebbels wrote that "in many cases" the deportation of French Jews would be "a death sentence". So he already knew at that point that many Jews would die, albeit not all Jews.
On 7.3.42. he is referring to Madagascar, but combining that quote with 14.12.41. shows that by then he knew that Madagascar would have been a place where many of the Jews died.
By 27.3.42. he knows that Madagascar is no longer on the table and that 60% of the deported Jews are being killed in the General Government.
It's not actually a huge shift in knowledge. His knowledge has simply become more specific about how, where and when "many" Jews will die, and the "many" has become "60%".
Regarding liquidation, what did Goebbels mean here?:
"Aug 7, 1941 (II.1.189)
In the Warsaw ghetto there was some increase in typhus; although provisions have been made to ensure that it will not leave the ghetto. The Jews have always been carriers of infectious diseases. They must either be cooped up in a ghetto and left to themselves, or liquidated (liquidieren); otherwise they will always infect the healthy population of the civilized nations"
Does 'liquidated' here mean send typhus sufferers to Madagascar, even when the entry already says the infected will not be allowed to leave the ghetto?
Gas chambers never existed according to David Cole. He was death-threatened into silence by the JDL.
Others have been thrown in jail for questioning the lie.
Actions speak louder than words.
Well said Carolyn.
Can anyone tell me:
Why is it that concentration camps existed only in Poland?
I've read that camps within Poland were the only camps never to have been independantly investigated, is this true?
"Can anyone tell me:
Why is it that concentration camps existed only in Poland?"
I think you mean extermination camps. As Peter Novick wrote in The Holocaust in American Life, Poland was where most of the Jews were. It was also where the killing could be done well out of sight of the general population. Reasons enough to set up the extermination camps there and nowhere else, don't you think so?
"I've read that camps within Poland were the only camps never to have been independantly investigated, is this true?"
Depends on what you mean by "independently investigated". Crimes are usually investigated by the authorities locally competent for the crime site, which in this case would be the Polish authorities. Comparing their investigations reports about extermination camps with evidence on which they could have had no influence shows that Polish criminal justice authorities were far more independent than "Revisionists" are prepared to admit.
Gas chambers never existed according to David Cole. He was death-threatened into silence by the JDL.
That's deplorable but doesn't make Cole's nonsense into anything other than nonsense.
Others have been thrown in jail for questioning the lie.
No, others have been thrown in jail for disseminating hate propaganda that some governments see as a thread to public order. That's not what should be done in my opinion, but inferring from hate speech laws that someone is trying to protect a "lie" is baseless wishful thinking.
"Actions speak louder than words."
For instance the murderous actions of your Nazi heroes, right?