Document NO-205

[been-there]

Been-there, do you agree with Dalton that Goebbels with liquidate meaned make fluid?

How does an answer to this further the conversation or the pool of shared knowledge?
Sorry, its not mainly you, but I begin to tire of what I am beginning to feel are largely one-way inquisitions/conversations.
So... Could I ask you instead to answer some of my questions, or respond to some of my references.

I can see and am convinced by Dalton's arguments regarding using translations and with seeing the whole context.

Goebbels' Diaries: excerpts.

Nov 30, 1937 (I.4.429)
"Long discussion on the Jewish Question. My new law is almost finished. But that is not the goal. The Jews must leave Germany, and get completely out (aus…heraus) of Europe. It will still take some time, but it needs to happen. The Führer is determined to do so."

Apr 11, 1938 (I.5.256)
"Long discussion at breakfast, on the Jewish Question (Judenfrage). The Führer wants the Jews completely squeezed out (herausdrängen) of Germany. To Madagascar, or some such place. Right!"

Apr 23, 1938 (I.5.269-270)
"Speaking with Helldorf on the Jewish Question. … We will take from Berlin the character of a Jewish paradise. Jewish shops will be identified. In any case we will now proceed more radically. Negotiations with Poland and Romania. Madagascar would be the most suitable for [the Jews]."

Jan 26, 1939 (I.6.239) *
"The elimination of Jewish influence (Entjudung) in the Reich Chamber of Culture continues. But now considerable financial difficulties are apparent. We shall overcome them."

Four days later, on January 30, Hitler gave his famous Reichstag speech of 1939. This was remarkable on several counts. It was sprinkled with many references to international Jewry (internationale Judentum), the Jewish world-enemy (jüdischen Weltfeind), and the Jewish Question generally.
Hitler said: "Today I will again be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Germany should succeed in plunging the nations once again into a world war, then the result will be not the Bolshevization of the Earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but rather the destruction (Vernichtung) of the Jewish race in Europe."
The ...problem is this: How likely is it that Hitler would declare to the world his intention to murder an entire race?
Kershaw (2000: p522) pointedly emphasizes Hitler’s “intense preoccupation with secrecy”; the mass murder scheme was “a secret to be carried to the grave.” But wait — he already announced it to the world in January 1939! Does it even make sense to then keep such a thing secret? Or perhaps there was no secret to keep?

Jun 6, 1940 (I.8.159)
"We will quickly be finished with the Jews after the war."

Jul 26, 1940 (I.8.238)
The big plan for the evacuation (Evakuierung) of the Jews from Berlin was approved. Additionally, all the Jews of Europe are supposed to be deported (deportiert) to Madagascar after the war.

Aug 17, 1940 (I.8.276) *
Later on, we want to ship (verfrachten) the Jews to Madagascar. There they can build their own state.

Sep 2, 1940 (I.8.301)
I fly to Kattowitz [Katowice, Poland, near Auschwitz]. … Bracht reports to me on the various concerns of the Province. The Poles are resigned to their fate, and the Jews have been pushed out (abgeschoben).

Nov 2, 1940 (I.8.406)
"With the Führer. Epp has colonial questions. Koch and Forster, questions about the East. All want to unload their trash onto the General Government: Jews, the sick, the lazy, etc. And [Hans] Frank resists. Not entirely without reason. He would like to make Poland a model nation. But that goes too far. He cannot, and should not. According to the Führer, Poland is a large labour pool for us—a place to hold failed people and use them for lowly work. We have to get them from somewhere. Frank does not like this, but he has to. And the Jews will later be moved out (abschieben) of this area."

We see here a growing vocabulary of terms relating to the status of the Jews. The large majority refer to removing, deporting, or expelling: aus-heraus, herausdrängen, ausscheiden, abschieben, evakuieren, verfrachten, deportieren. Later we find other related terms: beseitigen, herausbringen, aufräumen, herausschaffen, and others—some 18 in total, by my count (not including conjugates). This group is the most numerous, and the most benign. Two of these, evakuieren (evacuate) and abschieben (expel or push out), are especially popular with Goebbels.

A second group of terms include those that I will call ‘ambiguous’, in the sense that they have somewhat more ominous implications: vernichten (verb form of Vernichtung), ausrotten, liquidieren, eliminieren, and auslöschen. I’ve discussed the first of these already, and in the July 6 entry Goebbels first uses a form of ausrotten. This word, literally meaning ‘to root out’, translates to the ambiguous ‘exterminate’ or to ‘eradicate’ (ex-radix, lit. ‘up-root’). Once again, none of these meanings entail death, killing, or murder. A plant that is ausrottet can be replanted and live; a family can be ‘up-rooted’ and reestablished elsewhere. The exterminationist suggestion that either vernichten or ausrotten necessarily imply murder is, quite literally, nonsense.

I should note, by the way, that the German language does indeed have words for ‘killing’: morden, ermorden, töten, totschlagen, totschiessen. Goebbels had no shortage of alternatives if he wished to discuss literally killing the Jews. This is, after all, a personal and private diary.

Consider his situation: should the Germans win, he has nothing to fear. Should they lose, he must have known that his own death awaited, along with the ‘destruction’ of greater Germany — again, nothing to fear. Why hold back? So the reader might be wondering: does Goebbels ever use such explicit terms? In fact he does: once. 14th March 1945, we read that certain soon-to-be-victorious Jews are calling for no mercy on the Germans—to which Goebbels replies, “Anyone in a position to do so should kill (totschlagen) these Jews like rats.”
There we have it—an unambiguous call for murder. Except that it’s three years too late. One wonders, though, why, on the exterminationist thesis, Goebbels didn’t resort to such language much sooner.
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... e_jews.php

[Roberto]

...read the following blogs, in which I remember having shredded some his bunk regarding Goebbels on the IC blog site (namely as concerns Goebbels' diary entry dated 27 March 1942):
Been there, been-there.

I read your links. You resorted to personal attacks as a reply to a reasoned argument that was supported with copious reference material from Goebbel's actual diaries. Consequently it did not impress.

What "personal attacks" exactly did you have in mind? Quote them, please. With links.

And it's not as if my blogs were made up of personal attacks, contrary to what your remark suggests. In fact each blog contains a reasoned deconstruction of "Dalton"'s arguments addressed therein, at least one of which is so ridiculous as to make "Dalton" look like a fool.

The blogs I'm talking about are these:

Goebbels on liquidation

Thomas Dalton responds to Roberto Muehlenkamp and Andrew Mathis (3)

Goebbels on 27 March 1942 – "Dalton" keeps on trying

If you want to question any of my arguments, please fire away. But don't try to make believe that I "resorted to personal attacks" as a reply to Dalton's arguments, as if my three blogs had consisted of personal attacks alone. That's a lie plain and simple, a flagrant and accordingly stupid one.

Yes, I sometimes get personal. It comes with the contempt I feel for charlatans like "Dalton". But it's not like I "resort" to personal attacks en lieu of arguments about the subject matter under discussion. If you want less of what you on another thread call "personal vitriol" to accompany my arguments (which I'd say is rarely worse than a condescending/ironic tone warranted by the laughable fallacies of what "Dalton" or yourself produce), then you'll have to behave accordingly.

[marcom]

No one explained what was this jewish action performed by Brack and his men.

[been-there]

No one explained how this action, whatever it was, can have been performed by Brack if he was away on sick-leave.

[marcom]

Come on, what do you think is the most logical explanation why Brack placed some of his men at the disposal of Globocnik to execute this Jewish action and he proposed that those fit for work should be preserved and sterilized?

[marcom]

Medical personnel from the eutanasia staff to assist jews that were to be expelled quickly, very logical explanation.
And what about the camouflage he was talking about?

[marcom]

The fact that Brack didn't see any sinister motive in sending the staff formerly employed in the Euthanasia program can be partially confirmed by Brack's affidavit:

"In 1941 I received an oral order to discontinue the Euthanasia Program. I received this order either from Bouhler or from Dr. Brandt. In order to preserve the personnel relieved of these duties and to have the opportunity of starting a new Euthanasia Program after the war, Bouhler requested, I think after a conference with Himmler, that I send this personnel to Lublin and put it at the disposal of SS Brigadefuehrer Globocnik. I then had the impression that these people were to be used in the extensive Jewish labor camps run by Globocnik."

However he added:

"Later, however, at the end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943, I found out that they were used to assist in the mass extermination of the Jews, which was then already common knowledge in higher Party circles. Among the doctors who assisted in the Jewish extermination program were Eberle and Schumann; Schumann performed medical experiments on prisoners in Auschwitz. It would have been impossible for these men to participate in such things without the personal knowledge and consent of Karl Brandt. The order to send these men to the East could have been given only by Himmler to Brandt, possibly through Bouhler."

[been-there]

"...at the end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943, ...the mass extermination of the Jews, ...was then already common knowledge in higher Party circles."

The problem we have with this is that it is contradicted by the Nuremberg testimony of ALL - WITHOUT EXCEPTION - of the "higher Party circles".
And this brings us to one of the key aspects of what I find incomprehensible with aspects of the accepted history regarding the policy against the Jews during WW2.

Either:
1. it was a secret programme that only Himmler and a small number knew about.
or
2. it was "common knowledge" amongst the NSDP leadership.
It can't be both.

As I understand it, the 'history' in its current form ONLY fits if it was 1., "a secret programme."
In which case that means that Brack is lying here when he said it was "common knowledge in higher Party circles".
An honest and open enquiry into this whole 'holocaust' topic will therefore require an explanation as to WHY he is lying and what part of his testimony is relaible and factual. Trying to make only parts of his testimony fit by ignoring the inconsistencies in order to shoehorn it into the currently accepted and propagated mythology, would not be an honest approach.

We know that people lie in such situations for various reasons. To understand why Brack lied, the case of the Salem Witch trials stands as a well-known and helpful precedent. Those Witch trials are simpler to understand as we can assume that the whole accusation was false from the beginning and therefore even the eyewitness testimony of both accuser and accused of seeing the supernatural (Satan, and his book, people signing it, and witches flying through windows etc.,) was therefore also false. Their false testimony was given to pass guilt on to others and thereby to avoid it themself (or mitigate their culpability). Another reason is to agree to testify to that which it is understood interogators expect and want to hear in order to stop or avoid torture.

With the 'holocaust' mythology the problem is much harder as we know there WAS persecution of the Jews, we just don't know to what extent it was taken.
But this much seems clear now to me: there NEVER WAS a policy to systematically kill ALL the Jews in Europe, nor even of all those in captivity. That I regard now as demonstrably false and anyone who looks into this topic and still believes that I now regard as suffering from a delusion as great as that which informed those at the Salem Witch Trials.

[Statistical Mechanic]

The most logical explanation is that . . . the Reich needed to preserve from the Jews ordered deported a deployable labor force that did not breed.

That may seem logical to you, but it is opposite the logic expressed during the Wannsee Conference. As you must realize, the Wannsee protocol discussed, in a famous paragraph I won't bother quoting, the employment of evacuated, unsterilized Jews to die in labor in the East whilst those not to be sent East for labor were proposed for sterilization:

SS-Gruppenfuehrer Hofmann advocates the opinion that sterilization will have to be widely used, since the person of mixed blood who is given the choice whether he will be evacuated or sterilized would rather undergo sterilization. . . . State Secretary Dr. Stuckart proposed proceeding to forced sterilization.

[Statistical Mechanic]

But that is not what you claimed: your reply was to a comment on sterilizing Jews in the East - not putting them into work columns. The point of the paragraph in the Wannsee protocol is not "breeding prevention" but the killing off of "a large portion" of laboring Jews deported to the East. Your wording "to preserve from the Jews . . . a deployable labor force" is totally at odds with what the paragraph in the protocol says about "the final solution": Jews' lives, according to the notes, are not to be preserved - rather, "a large portion will be eliminated" during the course of labor projects whilst those who manage to survive will, "natural selection" not having eliminated them, "have to be treated accordingly."

Preservation of Jewish lives by the Germans in the East is your invention - it is simply the reverse of what the paragraph in the Wannsee protocol says.

Further, to sterilize Mischlinge and Jews in mixed marriages in Germany - instead of sending them to do labor in the East - is scarcely in the same vein as making certain that Jews deported to the East for labor would not breed (reproducing being beside the point as these Jews were expected to die off in large numbers or to be killed). Sterilization of the people who might remain in Germany has nothing to do with "deport[ing] a deployable labor force" to the East or with labor deployments. It is all about, instead, preventing certain groups of people from reproducing and thus eliminating these groups gradually.

Your explanation remains upside down.