The holocaust inside Generalplan Ost

[Stubble]

That we are down to quibbling about innuendo, in my opinion, is very telling about the whole situation.

We aren't looking at Huge Mass Graves, we aren't looking at the names of the missing, no, nothing of the sort. We are looking at words and saying, 'well, there was an implication of genocide if you squint'...

Also, Merry Christmas everyone.

I think you are mistaken. Words can point in a certain direction and indicate intent. There is no doubt that the technical debate is essential. But let us assume that the gas chambers did not exist, but that the documents show that there was an intention to exterminate them, based on textual analysis. That would not change the fact that there was an intention to exterminate them and that there was an attempt to commit genocide by other means (the Holocaust by bullet). The text allows us to know how to interpret the actions. Was the Holocaust by bullet an anti-partisan struggle or was it an attempt to exterminate the Jewish people? The two approaches are complementary.
Merry christmas

When it requires a contrived reinterpretation, I have to say, it isn't evidence. Instead it is window dressing.

So far as continuing to move the goalpost goes, it's been 80 years of that Mr Sceptic. The original narrative is long dead. The streamlined narrative is cracking, I don't think a 'new narrative' is what is needed, rather I would prefer an honest telling of history.

With regard to antipartisan/antiterrorism action, that should not be framed as 'intentional extermination'. Rather, even decimation and reprisal was not a campaign to 'exterminate' the jews.

I again point to Speer stating that the intention, the policy, was to bust these people up in to manageable groups of 20-2,000 and to house them in labor sites. Dilution was seen as the solution to terrorism. The ghettos had become hotbeds of anti German terrorist activity.

There is little doubt in my mind that people involved in the murder of German soldiers as they slept or took r&r were put to death. That is not extermination of the jews. That jews were heavily involved in this activity isn't even in dispute. Young girls who murdered soldiers are touted as both heroes and martyrs.

Spoiler

Jewish partisans Ruzka Korczak, Abba Kovner, Vitka Kempner. Photo by Ilya Ehrenburg. Shown here after the liberation of Vilna in July 1944, after which all three made their way to Kibbutz Ein Ha-Horesh in Palestine.

https://libraryguides.mdc.edu/Female_Le ... e_Fighters

[Monsieur Sceptique]

And yet you expect people to take seriously the notion that SS men, the most ideologically committed of all Nazis, were on the brink of insanity or close to losing their humanity because they were moving them

Nobody anywhere said the Nazis were "on the brink of insanity or close to losing their humanity because they were moving [Jews]". This is a massive strawman on your part.

All that Himmler says here is that this was the most difficult task the SS had undertaken.

"It was carried out without—as I believe I can say—our men and our leaders suffering any damage to mind or spirit. This danger was very close. The path between the two possibilities here—either becoming too brutal, heartless, and no longer respecting human life, or becoming weak and going mad to the point of nervous breakdowns—the path between this Scylla and Charybdis is terrifyingly narrow."

brink of insanity "mad to the point of nervous breakdowns"

losing their humanity "becoming too brutal, heartless, and no longer respecting human life"

I don't think this is a strawman and the audience can decide.

I think if extermination was decided on in 1941 it would have been part of the program then but not what they had in 1920. What the heck is this?

There is a problem in your logic. If we take the point of view of revisionnist i would ask you, why they fear to lose respect to human life when they are exterminating people and so killing them ?

[bombsaway]

Nobody anywhere said the Nazis were "on the brink of insanity or close to losing their humanity because they were moving [Jews]". This is a massive strawman on your part.

All that Himmler says here is that this was the most difficult task the SS had undertaken.

"It was carried out without—as I believe I can say—our men and our leaders suffering any damage to mind or spirit. This danger was very close. The path between the two possibilities here—either becoming too brutal, heartless, and no longer respecting human life, or becoming weak and going mad to the point of nervous breakdowns—the path between this Scylla and Charybdis is terrifyingly narrow."

brink of insanity "mad to the point of nervous breakdowns"

losing their humanity "becoming too brutal, heartless, and no longer respecting human life"

I don't think this is a strawman and the audience can decide.

I think if extermination was decided on in 1941 it would have been part of the program then but not what they had in 1920. What the heck is this?

There is a problem in your logic. If we take the point of view of revisionnist i would ask you, why they fear to lose respect to human life when they are exterminating people and so killing them ?

In himmlers frame they didn't kill them just for the heck of it, but out of grave neccessity and love for the german people. My personal feeling is himmler is not being quite honest in this speech - there is a rhetorical purpose - morale boosting. Providing compelling justification for something like this is important, the real reasons i suspect are not so compelling, but have to do with food security, the beauracratic needs of mid level administrators (read about functionalism) and of course a baseline level of racial animus

[Monsieur Sceptique]

"It was carried out without—as I believe I can say—our men and our leaders suffering any damage to mind or spirit. This danger was very close. The path between the two possibilities here—either becoming too brutal, heartless, and no longer respecting human life, or becoming weak and going mad to the point of nervous breakdowns—the path between this Scylla and Charybdis is terrifyingly narrow."

brink of insanity "mad to the point of nervous breakdowns"

losing their humanity "becoming too brutal, heartless, and no longer respecting human life"

I don't think this is a strawman and the audience can decide.

I think if extermination was decided on in 1941 it would have been part of the program then but not what they had in 1920. What the heck is this?

There is a problem in your logic. If we take the point of view of revisionnist i would ask you, why they fear to lose respect to human life when they are exterminating people and so killing them ?

In himmlers frame they didn't kill them just for the heck of it, but out of grave neccessity and love for the german people. My personal feeling is himmler is not being quite honest in this speech - there is a rhetorical purpose - morale boosting. Providing compelling justification for something like this is important

But he literally says that "I did not believe I had the right to exterminate [’auszurotten‘] these men — or rather, to kill [“umzubringen”] them or have them killed — and leave their children to grow up to take revenge on our sons and grandsons". Moreover, this was a small committee, so how could he not be honest? I would remind you that his right-hand men were supposed to be aware of the extermination of the Jews at the time. So, he would speak semi-honestly? But he is on familiar ground. As much as I find Callafanger unconvincing in the passage I quoted (because why not let the children grow up since their parents weren't killed?), your logic is unconvincing too.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

That we are down to quibbling about innuendo, in my opinion, is very telling about the whole situation.

We aren't looking at Huge Mass Graves, we aren't looking at the names of the missing, no, nothing of the sort. We are looking at words and saying, 'well, there was an implication of genocide if you squint'...

Also, Merry Christmas everyone.

I think you are mistaken. Words can point in a certain direction and indicate intent. There is no doubt that the technical debate is essential. But let us assume that the gas chambers did not exist, but that the documents show that there was an intention to exterminate them, based on textual analysis. That would not change the fact that there was an intention to exterminate them and that there was an attempt to commit genocide by other means (the Holocaust by bullet). The text allows us to know how to interpret the actions. Was the Holocaust by bullet an anti-partisan struggle or was it an attempt to exterminate the Jewish people? The two approaches are complementary.
Merry christmas

When it requires a contrived reinterpretation, I have to say, it isn't evidence. Instead it is window dressing.

So far as continuing to move the goalpost goes, it's been 80 years of that Mr Sceptic. The original narrative is long dead. The streamlined narrative is cracking, I don't think a 'new narrative' is what is needed, rather I would prefer an honest telling of history.

With regard to antipartisan/antiterrorism action, that should not be framed as 'intentional extermination'. Rather, even decimation and reprisal was not a campaign to 'exterminate' the jews.

I again point to Speer stating that the intention, the policy, was to bust these people up in to manageable groups of 20-2,000 and to house them in labor sites. Dilution was seen as the solution to terrorism. The ghettos had become hotbeds of anti German terrorist activity.

There is little doubt in my mind that people involved in the murder of German soldiers as they slept or took r&r were put to death. That is not extermination of the jews. That jews were heavily involved in this activity isn't even in dispute. Young girls who murdered soldiers are touted as both heroes and martyrs.

Spoiler

Jewish partisans Ruzka Korczak, Abba Kovner, Vitka Kempner. Photo by Ilya Ehrenburg. Shown here after the liberation of Vilna in July 1944, after which all three made their way to Kibbutz Ein Ha-Horesh in Palestine.

https://libraryguides.mdc.edu/Female_Le ... e_Fighters

The goal is not to establish a new narrative but to determine the truth. I understand that certain points in the narrative are eroding. But I believe that a conclusion is only valid once all potential explanations have been explored. I would remind you that to create fire, you have to strike flint and marcasite, and so it is through debate that we will potentially create a true story. Without exploring other hypotheses, we remain in the realm of theory. No one denies the role of partisans (who are, incidentally, completely illegal from the point of view of the laws of war and the Hague Convention).I want a true story, not one that is ideologically biased by either side.

[bombsaway]

There is a problem in your logic. If we take the point of view of revisionnist i would ask you, why they fear to lose respect to human life when they are exterminating people and so killing them ?

In himmlers frame they didn't kill them just for the heck of it, but out of grave neccessity and love for the german people. My personal feeling is himmler is not being quite honest in this speech - there is a rhetorical purpose - morale boosting. Providing compelling justification for something like this is important

But he literally says that "I did not believe I had the right to exterminate [’auszurotten‘] these men — or rather, to kill [“umzubringen”] them or have them killed — and leave their children to grow up to take revenge on our sons and grandsons". Moreover, this was a small committee, so how could he not be honest? I would remind you that his right-hand men were supposed to be aware of the extermination of the Jews at the time. So, he would speak semi-honestly? But he is on familiar ground. As much as I find Callafanger unconvincing in the passage I quoted (because why not let the children grow up since their parents weren't killed?), your logic is unconvincing too.

The point of the speech wasn't to be honest, it was to boost morale. Moreover humans in general (unless they're psychopaths - which is not an explanation for the Holocaust IMO) are self justifying to themselves, you will rationalize your behavior, as unethical as it may be. Stalin and Mao believed that what they were doing was necessary for the survival of their nations, mafia dons think they are protecting neighborhoods, etc.

The statement about killing children is about painting the necessity of that action once the decicion to kill the men was taken. You can see this in the escalating level of violence against Jews by SS police in the early months of the war against the USSR. At first they targeted only men, then it broadened to the general population (evident in documents).

[Monsieur Sceptique]

In himmlers frame they didn't kill them just for the heck of it, but out of grave neccessity and love for the german people. My personal feeling is himmler is not being quite honest in this speech - there is a rhetorical purpose - morale boosting. Providing compelling justification for something like this is important

But he literally says that "I did not believe I had the right to exterminate [’auszurotten‘] these men — or rather, to kill [“umzubringen”] them or have them killed — and leave their children to grow up to take revenge on our sons and grandsons". Moreover, this was a small committee, so how could he not be honest? I would remind you that his right-hand men were supposed to be aware of the extermination of the Jews at the time. So, he would speak semi-honestly? But he is on familiar ground. As much as I find Callafanger unconvincing in the passage I quoted (because why not let the children grow up since their parents weren't killed?), your logic is unconvincing too.

The point of the speech wasn't to be honest, it was to boost morale. Moreover humans in general (unless they're psychopaths - which is not an explanation for the Holocaust IMO) are self justifying to themselves, you will rationalize your behavior, as unethical as it may be. Stalin and Mao believed that what they were doing was necessary for the survival of their nations, mafia dons think they are protecting neighborhoods, etc.

The statement about killing children is about painting the necessity of that action once the decicion to kill the men was taken. You can see this in the escalating level of violence against Jews by SS police in the early months of the war against the USSR. At first they targeted only men, then it broadened to the general population (evident in documents).

Hm i see so you think it's a "Techniques of neutralization" or "Amoralizations". But there is a problem with your logic: the beginning of the Holocaust by bullet was in 1941, so they were already killing children and women at the time of Posen's speech. If it needed to be justified, it was in 1941, not in 1943, two years after the massacres began.

[bombsaway]

But he literally says that "I did not believe I had the right to exterminate [’auszurotten‘] these men — or rather, to kill [“umzubringen”] them or have them killed — and leave their children to grow up to take revenge on our sons and grandsons". Moreover, this was a small committee, so how could he not be honest? I would remind you that his right-hand men were supposed to be aware of the extermination of the Jews at the time. So, he would speak semi-honestly? But he is on familiar ground. As much as I find Callafanger unconvincing in the passage I quoted (because why not let the children grow up since their parents weren't killed?), your logic is unconvincing too.

The point of the speech wasn't to be honest, it was to boost morale. Moreover humans in general (unless they're psychopaths - which is not an explanation for the Holocaust IMO) are self justifying to themselves, you will rationalize your behavior, as unethical as it may be. Stalin and Mao believed that what they were doing was necessary for the survival of their nations, mafia dons think they are protecting neighborhoods, etc.

The statement about killing children is about painting the necessity of that action once the decicion to kill the men was taken. You can see this in the escalating level of violence against Jews by SS police in the early months of the war against the USSR. At first they targeted only men, then it broadened to the general population (evident in documents).

Hm i see so you think it's a "Techniques of neutralization" or "Amoralizations". But there is a problem with your logic: the beginning of the Holocaust by bullet was in 1941, so they were already killing children and women at the time of Posen's speech. If it needed to be justified, it was in 1941, not in 1943, two years after the massacres began.

I'd have to look back through the documents, they probably did justify it in 1941, but justification can happen after the fact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationali ... sychology)

"Rationalizations are used to defend against feelings of guilt, maintain self-respect, and protect oneself from criticism."

[bombsaway]

You can see the rationizliation here in 1941

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... m.html?m=1

The Jews are our misfortune, need 'just punishment'

And theres stuff like this

When it came to the first vans my hand was still trembling when I shot, but one gets used to this. When it came to the tenth van I already aimed calmly and fired surely at the many women, children and babies. Considering that I also have two newborn babies at home, which these hordes would treat just the same way, if not ten times worse. The death that we gave them was a nice, short death, compared [to] the infernal torments of thousands upon thousands in the dungeons of the GPU

Its obvious that some kind of convincing ideological framework is needed to justify this kind of action, prior to it and also after the fact, for the sake of individual conscience

[Archie]

Hm i see so you think it's a "Techniques of neutralization" or "Amoralizations". But there is a problem with your logic: the beginning of the Holocaust by bullet was in 1941, so they were already killing children and women at the time of Posen's speech. If it needed to be justified, it was in 1941, not in 1943, two years after the massacres began.

There are major timing problems with your hypothesis as well which you have not addressed even though I brought it up on page one.

In 1936, an anti-Nazi book was published with the following title:

Der Gelbe Fleck. Die Ausrottung von 500,000 Deutschen Juden

You have argued that "Ausrottung" must mean mass executions and you have cited it as evidence of at the very least the intent to murder Jews en masse. But obviously 500,000 German Jews were not being "exterminated" in 1936. So .... how would you explain a reference like the above which seems to contradict your interpretation?

[Monsieur Sceptique]

Hm i see so you think it's a "Techniques of neutralization" or "Amoralizations". But there is a problem with your logic: the beginning of the Holocaust by bullet was in 1941, so they were already killing children and women at the time of Posen's speech. If it needed to be justified, it was in 1941, not in 1943, two years after the massacres began.

There are major timing problems with your hypothesis as well which you have not addressed even though I brought it up on page one.

In 1936, an anti-Nazi book was published with the following title:

Der Gelbe Fleck. Die Ausrottung von 500,000 Deutschen Juden

You have argued that "Ausrottung" must mean mass executions and you have cited it as evidence of at the very least the intent to murder Jews en masse. But obviously 500,000 German Jews were not being "exterminated" in 1936. So .... how would you explain a reference like the above which seems to contradict your interpretation?

I repeat once again, I am somewhere in between. The argument you cite is clearly valid and demonstrates that the term Aussrottung is a polysemic term that can have different meanings. It also demonstrates the complexity of the debate. My goal is to know which side to take. I have already had a debate with a revisionist about Posen's speech, and he told me that in that passage, he was only talking about partisans and that it was necessary to kill fathers, mothers and children to prevent the children from taking revenge later. I do not believe in the Holocaust or disbelieve in the Holocaust; in reality, I no longer know whether one side or the other is right. That's why I'm here, to find out. To answer your question, it's obvious that in 1936 no one was exterminated, so on that point Callafanger is right. It's the sentence he quoted that I'm not convinced by, given that revisionists have given me alternative explanations.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Hm i see so you think it's a "Techniques of neutralization" or "Amoralizations". But there is a problem with your logic: the beginning of the Holocaust by bullet was in 1941, so they were already killing children and women at the time of Posen's speech. If it needed to be justified, it was in 1941, not in 1943, two years after the massacres began.

There are major timing problems with your hypothesis as well which you have not addressed even though I brought it up on page one.

In 1936, an anti-Nazi book was published with the following title:

Der Gelbe Fleck. Die Ausrottung von 500,000 Deutschen Juden

You have argued that "Ausrottung" must mean mass executions and you have cited it as evidence of at the very least the intent to murder Jews en masse. But obviously 500,000 German Jews were not being "exterminated" in 1936. So .... how would you explain a reference like the above which seems to contradict your interpretation?

I repeat once again, I am somewhere in between. The argument you cite is clearly valid and demonstrates that the term Aussrottung is a polysemic term that can have different meanings. It also demonstrates the complexity of the debate. My goal is to know which side to take. I have already had a debate with a revisionist about Posen's speech, and he told me that in that passage, he was only talking about partisans and that it was necessary to kill fathers, mothers and children to prevent the children from taking revenge later. I do not believe in the Holocaust or disbelieve in the Holocaust; in reality, I no longer know whether one side or the other is right. That's why I'm here, to find out. To answer your question, it's obvious that in 1936 no one was exterminated, so on that point Callafanger is right. It's the sentence he quoted that I'm not convinced by, given that revisionists have given me alternative explanations.

You write: “…I do not believe in the Holocaust or disbelieve in the Holocaust…”

I suggest it would serve you to FIRST define what you claim you are neither believing or disbelieving.

As an example of what I mean I will give you an example.
• I myself DEFINITELY BELIEVE that Jews were discriminated against and their freedoms were limited by the Nuremburg laws of September 1935.
• I myself DEFINITELY BELIEVE that entire Jewish communities in different parts of Axis-occupied Europe were arrested and transported to concentation camps in Poland.
• I myself accept the high probability that some prisoners including Jews were on occassion executed by lethal gas, e.g. from HCN administered with Zyklonb pellets in farmhouses behind Birkenau.
• I myself DEFINITELY BELIEVE that individual Jews PLUS whole Jewish communities (including women and children) were executed by bullets for suspected partisan activity in the aftermath of Operation Barbarrossa in order to maintain vital supply lines.

All of the above comes inder the rubric ‘holocaust’.

But…
- Does this mean I must believe that there was a plan and order from Third Reich High Command to kill all Jews in Europe?
I question that.

- Does this mean I must believe that there was a planned, designed and created policy to implement this ‘extermination’ policy?
I see no evidence supporting that.

- Does this mean I must believe that there were planned, designed and built ‘death camps’ in Poland whose sole purpose was to mass-murder Jews just for being Jewish? All of the evidence of which I am aware refutes that accusation.

- Does this mean I HAVE to believe all the many ludicrous, impractical, non-credible, physically-impossible tales, accusations and anecdotes that Jews forever after have inflicted upon humanity under this rubric ‘holocaust’?
I do not!

- Must I accept all the anti-German, racist nonsense that is presented, on a monthly basis for decades, of ludicrously sadistic camp guards and SS officers?
I think that it is racist and deluded to do so.

As it now stands, for intelligently and reasonably doubting, questioning and even empirically refuting those particular aspects of ‘the holocaust’ narrative, people are smeared, targeted and persecuted as ‘deniers’.

I ask you: in your opinion is that either fair or justified?

SUMMARY:
You need to first define what is ‘the holocaust’ that you claim you are currently neutral on.
It is a pseudo-historical term that is vague, imprecise and covers a very wide range of events and accusations.
You need to be more precise.

[Callafangers]

To answer your question, it's obvious that in 1936 no one was exterminated, so on that point Callafanger is right. It's the sentence he quoted that I'm not convinced by, given that revisionists have given me alternative explanations.

I'm not sure which sentence you're referring to here, Monsieur Sceptique. Keep in mind that revisionists are not a monolithic entity. We often disagree amongst each other in certain areas, although there is general consensus on many important matters. I have taken a different approach than some revisionists have, specifically when it comes to analyzing the language used by key figures in speeches or documents. I have spent a lot of time on this because I feel it is an underappreciated set of evidence. A lot can be gathered from the words a person used within a given context and time period.

There is a problem that revisionists (and anyone doing research into the 'Holocaust') often run into: I have referred to this tongue-in-cheek as 'Holocaust goggles' in the past but this is a very real phenomenon which I would associate to cognitive dissonance, social pressure, indoctrination and the like. Everyone who has grown up with the base impression that "Nazis = BAD" has fought an uphill battle to ever assume the goodwill and general humanity of WW2 Germans/Nazis on any particular matter. This includes revisionists, who in almost every instance were true believers in the 'Holocaust' at one point in time. What this means is that all of us are conditioned (and thus inclined) to first read the most sinister interpretation(s) of any given 'Nazi' speech, document, diary, etc. Only when taking a moment to really try to entertain the possibility that the speaker/author would find 'Holocaust' claims or implications completely outrageous and absurd does it become possible to gather enough perspective to then weigh all possible interpretations and, through reason, determine for yourself which makes the most sense.

In Himmler's Posen speeches, for example, I think every reasonable person should have to agree there is at least a possibility (however remote) that Himmler and his audience would have thought the proposition of exterminating/gassing every Jew would be not only untrue but absolutely ridiculous. This is the lens I would encourage you to approach the same document with, in at least one or two of your complete readings of it. Are Himmler's words compatible with such a lens, or not?

The answer is, in my opinion: yes, his words are absolutely compatible with such a lens. Moreover, I think this is the quote you were talking about earlier [October 4th speech]:

It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will be extirpated [ausgerottet]", says every Party comrade, "that's quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination [Ausschaltung] of the Jews, extirpation [Ausrottung] ; that's what we're doing." And then they all come along, these 80 million good Germans, and every one of them has his decent Jew.

I do not believe there is any rational way to interpret it than what I have already broken down here. If you have found a revisionist who disagrees, then I would ask: on what grounds is their disagreement? This quote demonstrates:

• Himmler is speaking of the NSDAP Party Program, familiar to his audience and all Party members
• He explicitly uses the same words in question [ausrottung/extermination]
• He speaks of the Jewish policy "we [Nazis] are doing" at that time
• He shows that the focus of his speech is rationalizing this policy and its harsh nature, which "80 million good Germans" may reject on the basis of their "one good Jew"
• The key issue here is that every Party member ("jeder Parteigenosse") is "easily saying" it is in their published Party programme to "ausrottung" the Jews, and that 80 million Germans respond to this, per Himmler

If there is any other rational way to interpret this, I am all ears. Until then, it really doesn't matter what other revisionists believe about this speech. The evidence comes first and all of the statements must be accounted for.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

There are major timing problems with your hypothesis as well which you have not addressed even though I brought it up on page one.

In 1936, an anti-Nazi book was published with the following title:

Der Gelbe Fleck. Die Ausrottung von 500,000 Deutschen Juden

You have argued that "Ausrottung" must mean mass executions and you have cited it as evidence of at the very least the intent to murder Jews en masse. But obviously 500,000 German Jews were not being "exterminated" in 1936. So .... how would you explain a reference like the above which seems to contradict your interpretation?

I repeat once again, I am somewhere in between. The argument you cite is clearly valid and demonstrates that the term Aussrottung is a polysemic term that can have different meanings. It also demonstrates the complexity of the debate. My goal is to know which side to take. I have already had a debate with a revisionist about Posen's speech, and he told me that in that passage, he was only talking about partisans and that it was necessary to kill fathers, mothers and children to prevent the children from taking revenge later. I do not believe in the Holocaust or disbelieve in the Holocaust; in reality, I no longer know whether one side or the other is right. That's why I'm here, to find out. To answer your question, it's obvious that in 1936 no one was exterminated, so on that point Callafanger is right. It's the sentence he quoted that I'm not convinced by, given that revisionists have given me alternative explanations.

You write: “…I do not believe in the Holocaust or disbelieve in the Holocaust…”

I suggest it would serve you to FIRST define what you claim you are neither believing or disbelieving.

As an example of what I mean I will give you an example.
• I myself DEFINITELY BELIEVE that Jews were discriminated against and their freedoms were limited by the Nuremburg laws of September 1935.
• I myself DEFINITELY BELIEVE that entire Jewish communities in different parts of Axis-occupied Europe were arrested and transported to concentation camps in Poland.
• I myself accept the high probability that some prisoners including Jews were on occassion executed by lethal gas, e.g. from HCN administered with Zyklonb pellets in farmhouses behind Birkenau.
• I myself DEFINITELY BELIEVE that individual Jews PLUS whole Jewish communities (including women and children) were executed by bullets for suspected partisan activity in the aftermath of Operation Barbarrossa in order to maintain vital supply lines.

All of the above comes inder the rubric ‘holocaust’.

But…
- Does this mean I must believe that there was a plan and order from Third Reich High Command to kill all Jews in Europe?
I question that.

- Does this mean I must believe that there was a planned, designed and created policy to implement this ‘extermination’ policy?
I see no evidence supporting that.

- Does this mean I must believe that there were planned, designed and built ‘death camps’ in Poland whose sole purpose was to mass-murder Jews just for being Jewish? All of the evidence of which I am aware refutes that accusation.

- Does this mean I HAVE to believe all the many ludicrous, impractical, non-credible, physically-impossible tales, accusations and anecdotes that Jews forever after have inflicted upon humanity under this rubric ‘holocaust’?
I do not!

- Must I accept all the anti-German, racist nonsense that is presented, on a monthly basis for decades, of ludicrously sadistic camp guards and SS officers?
I think that it is racist and deluded to do so.

As it now stands, for intelligently and reasonably doubting, questioning and even empirically refuting those particular aspects of ‘the holocaust’ narrative, people are smeared, targeted and persecuted as ‘deniers’.

I ask you: in your opinion is that either fair or justified?

SUMMARY:
You need to first define what is ‘the holocaust’ that you claim you are currently neutral on.
It is a pseudo-historical term that is vague, imprecise and covers a very wide range of events and accusations.
You need to be more precise.

So i will define it. I would define the Holocaust as the systematic extermination of European Jewish populations (i.e. Ashkenazi Jews) by means of gassing or shooting. On the question of discrimination, this is a fact, as shown by the Nuremberg Protocols. As for the gas chambers, I doubt the plausibility of such an undertaking and the technical feasibility of such an undertaking, particularly the underlying logic. I think there should be a scientific debate involving different sciences on this issue. On the question of the Holocaust by shooting, I think it is entirely scientifically possible that such an undertaking took place, but I think that in order to determine whether such an undertaking took place, we must first know what type of operation these operations were carried out as part of (anti-partisan or otherwise).

[Monsieur Sceptique]

To answer your question, it's obvious that in 1936 no one was exterminated, so on that point Callafanger is right. It's the sentence he quoted that I'm not convinced by, given that revisionists have given me alternative explanations.

I'm not sure which sentence you're referring to here, Monsieur Sceptique. Keep in mind that revisionists are not a monolithic entity. We often disagree amongst each other in certain areas, although there is general consensus on many important matters. I have taken a different approach than some revisionists have, specifically when it comes to analyzing the language used by key figures in speeches or documents. I have spent a lot of time on this because I feel it is an underappreciated set of evidence. A lot can be gathered from the words a person used within a given context and time period.

There is a problem that revisionists (and anyone doing research into the 'Holocaust') often run into: I have referred to this tongue-in-cheek as 'Holocaust goggles' in the past but this is a very real phenomenon which I would associate to cognitive dissonance, social pressure, indoctrination and the like. Everyone who has grown up with the base impression that "Nazis = BAD" has fought an uphill battle to ever assume the goodwill and general humanity of WW2 Germans/Nazis on any particular matter. This includes revisionists, who in almost every instance were true believers in the 'Holocaust' at one point in time. What this means is that all of us are conditioned (and thus inclined) to first read the most sinister interpretation(s) of any given 'Nazi' speech, document, diary, etc. Only when taking a moment to really try to entertain the possibility that the speaker/author would find 'Holocaust' claims or implications completely outrageous and absurd does it become possible to gather enough perspective to then weigh all possible interpretations and, through reason, determine for yourself which makes the most sense.

In Himmler's Posen speeches, for example, I think every reasonable person should have to agree there is at least a possibility (however remote) that Himmler and his audience would have thought the proposition of exterminating/gassing every Jew would be not only untrue but absolutely ridiculous. This is the lens I would encourage you to approach the same document with, in at least one or two of your complete readings of it. Are Himmler's words compatible with such a lens, or not?

The answer is, in my opinion: yes, his words are absolutely compatible with such a lens. Moreover, I think this is the quote you were talking about earlier [October 4th speech]:

It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will be extirpated [ausgerottet]", says every Party comrade, "that's quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination [Ausschaltung] of the Jews, extirpation [Ausrottung] ; that's what we're doing." And then they all come along, these 80 million good Germans, and every one of them has his decent Jew.

I do not believe there is any rational way to interpret it than what I have already broken down here. If you have found a revisionist who disagrees, then I would ask: on what grounds is their disagreement? This quote demonstrates:

• Himmler is speaking of the NSDAP Party Program, familiar to his audience and all Party members
• He explicitly uses the same words in question [ausrottung/extermination]
• He speaks of the Jewish policy "we [Nazis] are doing" at that time
• He shows that the focus of his speech is rationalizing this policy and its harsh nature, which "80 million good Germans" may reject on the basis of their "one good Jew"
• The key issue here is that every Party member ("jeder Parteigenosse") is "easily saying" it is in their published Party programme to "ausrottung" the Jews, and that 80 million Germans respond to this, per Himmler

If there is any other rational way to interpret this, I am all ears. Until then, it really doesn't matter what other revisionists believe about this speech. The evidence comes first and all of the statements must be accounted for.

You know that historical disputes exist in all circles. Just to give you an example, there is a historical dispute about whether Hitler was a socialist and therefore part of the left wing. I will respond to the passage in red. If a historian ever tells you that they are neutral, know that they are lying. Because humans are incapable of overcoming cognitive biases, in this case either the halo effect or the horn effect. All historians are unconsciously subject to their ideologies. We strive for neutrality, but I am under no illusion that we are not neutral, even if we try hard to be.

To answer your question, they said that you had to consider the context first and foremost, which was a context of fighting against partisans, and that by killing the whole family, they were preventing the children from becoming partisans themselves and fighting against them. That, therefore, it had nothing to do with the Holocaust because they were talking about partisans.