Is it true about the SS doing this?

[Silbers]

At the end of the war did the SS try to kill as many Jews as possible?

[HansHill]

No

[Stubble]

Even according to the orthodox thesis, no. Where have you ever heard this?

Can you cite me some sources?

[Silbers]

Even according to the orthodox thesis, no. Where have you ever heard this?

Can you cite me some sources?

During an exchange with a German on YouTube he commented the following:

But at mid 1944 even the last SS high up knew the war was good as lost and the SS just went on to kill as many Jews. The only reason they didn't kill all at once is that they didn't had the Capacity to do so and it would probably cost a good amount of SS Man and Woman if riot's break out.

[Stubble]

Ok.

The orthodox line is not that. They maintain that the genocide campaign was stopped as the defeat was projected and policy shifted to consolidating the jews to ransom them.

They point to stuff like the jews for trucks negotiations and things like that.

How exactly They pair this with classifying the salvation marches as death marches I don't know, but they do agree that Himmler wanted to keep the jews under german control and alive as a bargaining chip.

The revisionist thesis is that there was no genocide campaign to begin with and that what happened during the war years was of course tragic, but that the suffering of the jewish people during the war was not 'unique' and there was no campaign to remove them from the face of the earth.

[Hektor]

Even according to the orthodox thesis, no. Where have you ever heard this?

Can you cite me some sources?

During an exchange with a German on YouTube he commented the following:

But at mid 1944 even the last SS high up knew the war was good as lost and the SS just went on to kill as many Jews. The only reason they didn't kill all at once is that they didn't had the Capacity to do so and it would probably cost a good amount of SS Man and Woman if riot's break out.

The official thesis is literal the opposite. What they will allege is that there was a killing program between 1941 and 1945, but that this was stopped closer to the end of the war. The Jewish world congress didn't believe in maximising killing, neither.

During an exchange with a German on YouTube

I presume that this is a BRD-German probably after Gen X. Well, that would explain it. After the Holocaust subject was pushed for decades, plenty of Germans went nuts. And they come up with narratives that exceed the officious version.

[Stubble]

Even according to the orthodox thesis, no. Where have you ever heard this?

Can you cite me some sources?

During an exchange with a German on YouTube he commented the following:

But at mid 1944 even the last SS high up knew the war was good as lost and the SS just went on to kill as many Jews. The only reason they didn't kill all at once is that they didn't had the Capacity to do so and it would probably cost a good amount of SS Man and Woman if riot's break out.

The official thesis is literal the opposite. What they will allege is that there was a killing program between 1941 and 1945, but that this was stopped closer to the end of the war. The Jewish world congress didn't believe in maximising killing, neither.

During an exchange with a German on YouTube

I presume that this is a BRD-German probably after Gen X. Well, that would explain it. After the Holocaust subject was pushed for decades, plenty of Germans went nuts. And they come up with narratives that exceed the officious version.

To be precise, it is alleged that 'the extermination of the jews' was 'stopped' in 'late '44.

Spoiler

THE PRESIDENT: In order that the record should be properly complete, the Tribunal would like the Prosecution to state when the translation has been done, so that the matter should be thoroughly in order.

COL. AMEN: Precisely.

Defendant, we will now read this document together:

"I, Kurt Becher, former SS Standartenfuehrer, born 12 September 1909, at Hamburg, declare the following under oath:

"1. Between the middle of September and the middle of October 1944 I caused the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to issue the following order, which I received in two originals, one each for SS Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner and Pohl, and a copy for myself:

" 'By this order, which becomes immediately effective, I forbid any extermination of Jews and order that, on the contrary, care should be given to weak and sick persons. I hold you'- and here Kaltenbrunner and Pohl were meant-'personally responsible even if this order should not be strictly adhered to by subordinate offices.'

"I personally took Pohl's copy to him at his offices in Berlin and left the copy for Kaltenbrunner at his office in Berlin. Therefore, in my opinion Kaltenbrunner and Pohl bear the responsibility after this date for any further killings of Jewish prisoners.

334

12 April 46

"2. When visiting Mauthausen Concentration Camp on 27 April 1945 at 0900 hours, I was told in the strictest secrecy by the camp commandant, SS Standartenfuehrer Ziereis, that 'Kaltenbrunner gave me the order that at least a thousand persons would still have to die at Mauthausen each day.'

"The facts mentioned above are true. These statements are made by me voluntarily and without any coercion. I have read them through, signed them, and confirmed them with my oath."

Is that true or false, Defendant?

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-12-46.asp

This exchange quoted from the IMT is of course the extent of any admission to any order ever regarding 'elimination of the jews'. This was grafted into the historiography because there were no orders and so this confession of an order to terminate the killing program is used as de facto proof of the program's existence. The orthodox thesis then pivots to 'Himmler wanted to keep them alive to use them to negotiate'.

Spoiler

As with the missing Hitler Order, there is also no Himmler Order for the extermination of Europe’s Jews. To circumvent this “problem,” American interrogators managed to “convince” German mid-level official Kurt Becher that he once saw an order issued by Himmler in late 1944 to stop the extermination. (See the entry on Kurt Becher.) However, no such order has ever been found either, so it stands to reason that Becher made it up in order to receive favorable treatment from his Allied captors.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/docum ... -solution/

Spoiler

In the second, 1985 edition, Hilberg deleted any reference to a Hitler order to exterminate all Jews. He replaced it with a reference to musings of a German general on having to render harmless “all Bolshevik chieftains and commissars” in the Soviet Union. (See the section “Extermination Order” in the entry on the Einsatzgruppen.) A second source he quoted is an order eventually issued which, however, mentions nothing about killings.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/docum ... -solution/

That of course falls apart when you begin to closely scrutinize the exchanges between the Foreign Office in Berlin and the other countries of the world and you see that they were doing things like collecting jews with funny papers in Belsen for example so they could be repatriated or whatever.

The history gets complex.

A lot of people, like this random person on YouTube and primary school teachers just flatten the whole damn thing, because they don't even understand the convoluted concoction that is the 'approved' history.

[Silbers]

Ok.

The orthodox line is not that. They maintain that the genocide campaign was stopped as the defeat was projected and policy shifted to consolidating the jews to ransom them.

They point to stuff like the jews for trucks negotiations and things like that.

How exactly They pair this with classifying the salvation marches as death marches I don't know, but they do agree that Himmler wanted to keep the jews under german control and alive as a bargaining chip.

The revisionist thesis is that there was no genocide campaign to begin with and that what happened during the war years was of course tragic, but that the suffering of the jewish people during the war was not 'unique' and there was no campaign to remove them from the face of the earth.

If I have another question about the SS should I start another topic? I just wanted to know if they really were as evil as everyone makes out? I mean, did they really burn Russian villagers in barns when retreating from Stalingrad? Apparently, according to Russian survivors themselves, it happened. I realise the rules of war at the time allowed for the shooting of partisans but clearly burning them to death can't have been.

[Silbers]

Even according to the orthodox thesis, no. Where have you ever heard this?

During an exchange with a German on YouTube

I presume that this is a BRD-German probably after Gen X. Well, that would explain it. After the Holocaust subject was pushed for decades, plenty of Germans went nuts. And they come up with narratives that exceed the officious version.

He seems to be young. I'd guess he'd be in his twenties.

[Stubble]

'The SS' is a broad group. With topics and when to create new ones you should try to keep them tight in scope so that they will be of the most use to new readers. For example, talking in broad generalities here about the SS in general may be OK, but, if you start a thread about a specific thing, like 'did the SS rip babies in half and throw them into the river?' You might want to stick to that allegation.

I am prone to topic drift myself, and, so far, Archie has been accommodating.

Welcome to the forum by the way.

Here is some food for thought;

[Silbers]

Ok, thanks. Sounds like I should start a new topic.

As yet, I can't get that video to play for some reason.

[Wetzelrad]

During an exchange with a German on YouTube he commented the following:

But at mid 1944 even the last SS high up knew the war was good as lost and the SS just went on to kill as many Jews. The only reason they didn't kill all at once is that they didn't had the Capacity to do so and it would probably cost a good amount of SS Man and Woman if riot's break out.

One thing you'll find with Holocaust history is that people just make things up. There is no quality control mechanism to prevent their doing so; to even point out a witness's or historian's or museum's errors is to risk nearing closer to Holocaust Denial, so no one does it. And the literature is filled with such errors. These errors are never really contended with in a public way, just brushed under the rug by later historians.

One example of this is the widespread claim that children and infirm were automatically selected to be gassed. This claim is casually refuted by well-known counter-examples like Anne Frank and Elie Wiesel. Yet the myth carries on.

As to this Youtube commenter's claim, here is what top historian Raul Hilberg believed about the end of killing operations. Note that Hilberg's only citation here is Kurt Becher's story mentioned above.

In 1944, only one camp was still operating at full capacity—Auschwitz. From May through October the reduction of most of the remaining Jewish population clusters was in progress. During this period nearly 600,000 Jews were brought into the killing center. With Romania and Bulgaria already out of reach, transport breaking down, Jewish laborers desperately needed in war industry, and the Jews in mixed marriages exempt, the destruction process was nearing its conclusion. By November 1944, Himmler decided that for practical purposes the Jewish question had been solved. On the twenty-fifth of that month he ordered the dismantling of the killing installations.

The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg, p.1046

In table B-3, Hilberg gives us what he believed to be the breakdown by year.

Code: Select all

DEATHS BY YEAR
1933–1940  under 100,000
1941           1,100,000
1942           2,600,000
1943             600,000
1944             600,000
1945        over 100,000
Total          5,100,000
Note: Rounded to the nearest 100,000.

Therefore this Youtube debater's conception of the Holocaust narrative is way off. Like Hektor said, it's almost the opposite.

The purpose of saying that mass killings ended in 1944 is that it helps to explain why there was an utter dearth of evidence when the camps were liberated. If the Youtube debater was right, then we would expect huge numbers of bodies of Jews, especially those recently-deceased, to have been found by the Allies, but that's not what happened.

[Eye of Zyclone]

To be precise, it is alleged that 'the extermination of the jews' was 'stopped' in 'late '44.

THE PRESIDENT: In order that the record should be properly complete, the Tribunal would like the Prosecution to state when the translation has been done, so that the matter should be thoroughly in order.

COL. AMEN: Precisely.

Defendant, we will now read this document together:

"I, Kurt Becher, former SS Standartenfuehrer, born 12 September 1909, at Hamburg, declare the following under oath:

"1. Between the middle of September and the middle of October 1944 I caused the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to issue the following order, which I received in two originals, one each for SS Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner and Pohl, and a copy for myself:

" 'By this order, which becomes immediately effective, I forbid any extermination of Jews and order that, on the contrary, care should be given to weak and sick persons."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-12-46.asp[/spoiler]

This exchange quoted from the IMT is of course the extent of any admission to any order ever regarding 'elimination of the jews'. This was grafted into the historiography because there were no orders and so this confession of an order to terminate the killing program is used as de facto proof of the program's existence.

True. Why didn't Kurt Becher keep in his pocket the copy of an order he had originated and which was his best chance of survival and perhaps even immunity once captured by the enemy ? The answer is : because this order was just a fiction fabricated by the victors to back up their own atrocity propaganda.

[Eye of Zyclone]

The purpose of saying that mass killings ended in 1944 is that it helps to explain why there was an utter dearth of evidence when the camps were liberated. If the Youtube debater was right, then we would expect huge numbers of bodies of Jews, especially those recently-deceased, to have been found by the Allies, but that's not what happened.

Not my opinion because the dead bodies of typhus victims found by the Allies in the last operational camps of the collapsing Third Reich were portrayed as compelling graphic evidence for the alleged mass killing of Jews and others ("the proofs of these frightful crimes now daily coming into view," as Churchill put it on April 19, 1945) and they are still portrayed that way to this day (which led Obama to mistakenly believe that his uncle had liberated a Nazi "death camp"). The Allies just needed to avoid publicizing Charles Larson's autopsy reports and miscaption the horror pictures they photographed and filmed in typhus-ridden concentration camps at the very end of WW2.

[borjastick]

It is a strange and unexplained anomaly the normal camps such as Buchenwald and Belsen were found in such terrible state of repair with bodies piled up and broken infrastructure etc but of course no gas chambers and once the dust had settled no claims of mass murder, but the camps opened up by Russia, the 'death camps' were completely different. They were either evaporated into myth and thin air such as Treblinka, Belzec or like Auschwitz intact and operational but no bodies, no cremains and no evidence of mass murder yet these are the camps which it is claimed were the centre of holocaust industrialised mass murder etc.

This is exactly why the story falls apart. 80 years on and despite all the evidence to the contrary the 6m dead and gas chambers theory is still clung onto by the Zionist loons we have to endure and accept today.