Another WWII question. I will promise to tone down my negative feelings and be fair.

[Shooter452]

Germany I mean The Third Reich never saw Japan as their equal race. Mostly German General and Field Marshal (The Desert Fox) of Africa Corps Erwin Romel most defitnely hated I mean DESPISED that their glorious Third Reich of Nazi Empire was allied to a not other race than a asian nation. And he was opposed to Hitler's idea allied to japan and dragging WW2. And that is probably why Romel tried to uprise his supporters and his soldiers to go against Hitler and they also planned to assasinate Hitler, but the plan failed and Romel commited suicide.

That position is not totally supported by all of the facts. In fact it may be one of the "urban legends" of the Second World War.

Desmond Young, in his book the Desert Fox, promoted the story of Rommel's involvement in the "20 July plot." His major source for this fable was General-Leutnant Hans Speidel, who served as Rommel's chief-of-staff while he commanded Army Group B in France during 1944. That Speidel misrepresented the facts is almost without question.

Speidel was heavily involved in the plot. As a conspiritor, one of his functions was to draw Rommel and other general officers of note into the conspiracy. He attempted to do this--while still concealing his own complicity--by using Luftwaffe Lieutenant Colonel Caesar von Hofacker as a go-between for Guenther Blummentritt who was von Rundstedt's C-of-S and a major link in the chain of conspiracy.

Despite von Hafacker's attempts to involve Rommel--and contrary to the report he gave his superiors within the plot--ample evidence abounds that Rommel never gave his support to the plotters. Although he never became a party member, his wife Luci was very active within the Nazi Party and he received the favor of Hitler and his inner circle up to the point he clashed with the Fuehrer on 28 June 44 (Rommel attempted to influence the strategic objectives of the Third Reich, an area vastly beyond his responsibilities and his abilities--while an able tactician, his grasp of strategy was not very astute--and Hitler dismissed him from the conference).

Rommel did engage in treasonous activities while at the Normandy front. He solicited support from other generals to attempt direct negotiations with Allied leaders to arrange a cease-fire and other talks without the knowledge or the approval of Hitler. When he was implicated by von Hafacker and several other plotters after their capture (they believed he was involved only because of von Hafacker's report), he was surprised. His questionable activities at the front were suspicious enough to require explanation, but the truth would have damned him as much as his involvement in the plot, so he was caught in a "Catch-22" situation. When he was offered a chance to take his own life, he was actually relieved that no scandal would attach to his reputation and that the Reich would care for his family.

Speidel, deeply involved in the conspiracy, was desperate to avoid trial before the People's Court. He was awarded a court-of-honor where he also implicated Rommel in order to save himself--he ratted him out! It worked. He survived the war and saw instantly that in order to make himself acceptable to the Allied military government he needed to announce his credentials as an anti-Nazi.

Speidel saw to his surprise that Rommel had become almost a cult figure to the Western Allies. He shrewdly used that noteriety to his advantage by weaving a tale that enhanced the Allied (largely American) view of Rommel as a worthy opponant (from Africa fame), a fair-player, and now--surprise!--even an anti-Hitler figure, and a martyr on top of that. And Speidel was able to bask in Rommel's reflected fame. He also gave this fable to Young while old Desmond was researching his book. For a fee.

In any case it worked. Speidel became the leading figure in the Bundeswehr after Germany rearmed during the Fifties. And Rommel became the Nazi general you could admire.

All of this is amply documented by Irving's book the Trail of the Fox, (my copy is the Avon paperbound, ISBN : 0-380-40022-7). FYI, Soviet Soldier.

Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit

 

[sabro]

Baffled the heck out of me....

 

[bossel]

Despite von Hafacker's attempts to involve Rommel--and contrary to the report he gave his superiors within the plot--ample evidence abounds that Rommel never gave his support to the plotters.

It's true that Rommel was not directly involved, but latest research (Maurice Philip Remy) has it that he was in favour of the assassination attempt & was prepared to take a role in a regime after Hitler.

he received the favor of Hitler and his inner circle up to the point he clashed with the Fuehrer on 28 June 44

AFAIK, he lost much of that favour already in 1942 when he against Hitler's direct order retreated in North Africa.

All of this is amply documented by Irving's book the Trail of the Fox

I own this book myself (German title is simply "Rommel") & it's not too bad, but Irving in general is not that good a source regarding the Nazi times. He's kind of a Nazi apologist (& in Germany called a Holocaust denier).

 

[Shooter452]

It's true that Rommel was not directly involved, but latest research (Maurice Philip Remy) has it that he was in favour of the assassination attempt & was prepared to take a role in a regime after Hitler.


AFAIK, he lost much of that favour already in 1942 when he against Hitler's direct order retreated in North Africa.


I own this book myself (German title is simply "Rommel") & it's not too bad, but Irving in general is not that good a source regarding the Nazi times. He's kind of a Nazi apologist (& in Germany called a Holocaust denier).

Last item first: his reputation as a "Holocaust denier" could just as easily be a case of well-organized character assassination. It happens to anyone who runs afoul of powerful interests these days. While I admit that Irving's work could easily be a case of "pickin' & choosin'" the facts as he wants to support his theories, his research as far as I can discern is flawless. He goes directly to the very source materials--original German records in the various archives and his results show that effort. I am unhappy that he did not footnote. It makes it difficult to research his work to double check his findings (a peculiar habit of mine). I have yet to see anything in his writings that support the outlandish accusations his enemies have laid at his door.

Next, Rommel's appointment to command of Army Group B in early 1944 shows that he still had much favor in Hitler's eyes despite his failures in Africa, and his banishment to meaningless commands in Italy in the interim. It was the second most important command on the Western Front and arguably the third most important in the Reich. One does not give such authority to an unworthy or untrusted vassel, my friend.

I have not read Remy yet, but it is my understanding that he relies too much on the diaries of participants of the time (particularly Goerdeler's). Letters are always safer source documents than diaries, since the latter are written with the sure and certain knowledge that someone would read them in the future. Diarists tend to "massage" the truth to make themselves look better (smarter, innocent, etc.) for future readers. Letters tend to be more candid. Correct me if you think that I am wrong.

Rommel's letters--particularly to Luci, and hers back to him--abounded with faith in the Fuehrer, until after the 28 June conference (I think it was at Soissons, but I cannot remember just now). It was after that event that each (Hitler and Rommel) came away with disenchantment with the other. Additionally, all of his staff at Herresgruppe B except Speidel discount even the possibility of Rommel's involvement, support, or even acquiescence of the plot to murder and overthrow Hitler. Until I read your referrence, I remain unconvinced, but also uncertain. More to come....

While it is easily conceivable that Rommel could have harbored secret desires to kill and replace the man he had sworn to give his total obedience and fealty "unto death," it is IMHO highly unlikely that he would have so done. Rommel was a creature of honor and his given oath was not one that he would easily foreswear. In today's world where people lie routinely, foreswear sacred oaths, and where honor is an anachronism, many have trouble believing that. As one who holds his honor and given word very dear, I do not. You may, Bossel, choose your own path in that regard.

I await your learned response, sir.

 

[bossel]

Last item first: his reputation as a "Holocaust denier" could just as easily be a case of well-organized character assassination.[...] I have yet to see anything in his writings that support the outlandish accusations his enemies have laid at his door.

According to German standards he is a Holocaust denier. Saying "I have always argued that the original Holocaust figures are probably exaggerated by a factor of ten" accounts for that.

Another Irving quote:
"I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney. It's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney? I say quite tastelessly in fact that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."

Next, Rommel's appointment to command of Army Group B in early 1944 shows that he still had much favor in Hitler's eyes despite his failures in Africa,[...] One does not give such authority to an unworthy or untrusted vassel, my friend.

Failures in Africa? He was revered by the German public as war hero for his actions in Africa. That's probably the reason why he didn't get executed (well, OK, slight exaggeration from my side) after he returned from there, although he did not follow Hitler's direct order to make a last stand. When he was needed for the defence of Western Europe he was of course put into action again.

BTW, early 1944? I think, that was in Nov. 1943. (a little test?)
But I don't know too much about Rommel, anyway. It's long ago that I read Irving's book & at the moment I have to concentrate on other stuff.

Letters are always safer source documents than diaries, since the latter are written with the sure and certain knowledge that someone would read them in the future.

Letters & diaries are both only partially reliable. Letters could be read by the secret police, hence your wording should be especially careful. According to the memories (admittedly also not entirely reliable) of Rommel's son (sorry, link in German), he lost confidence in Hitler after aforementioned order.

While it is easily conceivable that Rommel could have harbored secret desires to kill and replace the man he had sworn to give his total obedience and fealty "unto death," it is IMHO highly unlikely that he would have so done.

I don't think, Remy (sorry again, just German) says that he was directly involved in that conspiracy. But according to document's obtained, he knew of the plans to assassinate Hitler, approved of it & was prepared to take a role in the future regime.
Remy's book is not available at the moment, but I will try to get hold of it & look which documents Remy relies on.

 

[Shooter452]

According to German standards he is a Holocaust denier. Saying "I have always argued that the original Holocaust figures are probably exaggerated by a factor of ten" accounts for that.

Another Irving quote:
"I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney. It's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney? I say quite tastelessly in fact that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."

I present an argument only for discussion and not as an advocate of David Irving, but when he dug into the numbers he found (his words) "vast discrepencies" between the vaunted 6,000,000 and the numbers actually recorded. Pre- and post bellum censes have also brought up questions. For example, the vast majority of the Jews who died at Birkenau (the death center of KZ Auschwitz) came from Hungary when the "gas chambers and crematorium" became active (in 1944...before then Treblinka was the main "death center" with smaller camps such as Sobibor and Maidanek taking the "overflow."). When the numbers of Jews in post war Hungary are compared to the numbers of Jews in pre war Hungary, there is no room for a figure like 4,000,000 deaths--which is the number that was given on the Birkenau memorial prior to the outcry over Irving's statements. It was further reduced to 2,000,000, but even that cannot be substantiated by the censes. There are lots of examples like this. But we are expected to pretend that such differences are (a) unimportant; (b) deliberate lies; (c) undependable. We are expected to swollow whole the numbers of deaths and how these deaths happened. We are forbidden to question these "facts" for any reason.

Irving also stresses how the deaths that are recorded could easily have been from typhus--as is usually recorded on the death certificates--and not from "extermination centers". I do not endorse his ideas, but who is to say for certain he is wrong? The Allied bombing campaign constantly disrupted rail and barge traffic in Europe. All cargo in Europe at the time moved by rail or barges. Food and medical supplies--both in short supply and vitally needed by all segments of the population--would have been difficult if not impossible to reach the KZ's. Large concentrations of population enclosed in small areas without proper sanitation, medicines, and food are extremely vulnerable to typhus and the slaughter would have been devestating. Does it matter that much how these people died? Why? Is there another agenda at work here? I do not know the answers to those questions, but in Germany it seems to be against the law to ask the questions.

My point is not that Irving was correct or incorrect. It is because of these facts that there are lots of reasons to question the "official story" that is used to bludgeon Germany--and other nations--for concessions and reparations. Exactly when are the Germans to be absolved of all of this, anyway?

That David Irving can be tasteless in not subject to dispute. That he is wrong is yet to be determined. That he should be censued because of his reluctance to "toe the party line" is IMHO disgraceful, and the German people should be outraged. It is unconscionable to think that information, in and of itself, should be witheld by your government from your people. Are not the people able to decide for themselves what is and what is not valid?

Again, since I am not German, it is not for me to say.

But the real issue is "how thourough was/is his research?" Not whether he is well-liked by the ADL.

Other issues in your post later, sir. I am pressed for time right now.

*salute*

 

[Shooter452]

Failures in Africa? He was revered by the German public as war hero for his actions in Africa. That's probably the reason why he didn't get executed (well, OK, slight exaggeration from my side) after he returned from there, although he did not follow Hitler's direct order to make a last stand. When he was needed for the defence of Western Europe he was of course put into action again.

BTW, early 1944? I think, that was in Nov. 1943. (a little test?)
But I don't know too much about Rommel, anyway. It's long ago that I read Irving's book & at the moment I have to concentrate on other stuff.

Second reply first: small points are worthy of discussion and when I make a mistatke, I freely stand corrected. It would seem that he did assume command of Army Group B at the end of November '43. My apologies.

Rommel's handling of the North African campaign after El Alamein was a strategic disaster for the Reich--and more importantly for Italy. Every inch of ground that Rommel abandoned in Cyrenaica brought Allied air bases (from which bombers could be used to attack the Reich and the Italians) closer to their intended targets. Whether or not the Allied strategic bombing campaign had the effect that the US Air Force says it did (the post war strategic bombing survey conducted by the USAF itself belies that falsehood) the bombing disrupted the rail traffic on which Germany was utterly dependant and threatened Balkan crude oil sources which were a critical strategic asset. Hitler did not discuss these issues with Rommel, but as a subordinate he was not entitled to second guess the decisions of senior commanders--including the Fuehrer himself--and did not need to know all the issues in order to follow his orders. Rommel did seem determined to race as far toward Tunis as he could, as fast as he could, without regard to the effect on the strategic situation. That is called "insubordination" and "disobedience of a lawful order" and you could be shot for it--then and now.

That, my friend, was a disaster. While it can be argued that he saved Panzerarmee Afrika from destruction in the process this changes not the disaster he created, because the ground lost was never going to be regained. And everyone knew that, most particularly Rommel. He wrote Luci to take all of their money from the bank in Ulm because he feared the coming bombing raids that would be the result of closer Allied air bases--he did not otherwise seem to care.

Rommel was unduly effected by illness in the latter days of 1942 and this effected his morale. Getting his *** kicked out of Egypt by the Brits did not help his morale either. After Alamein, he could not wait to retreat away from the British 8th Army, and fell back exactly as fast as the British forces pushed him, no matter how gently. In several places where his logistical situation was better than that of his opponants, however temporary, and where the enemy had been compelled to accept exposed positions, Rommel declined to enthusiatically engage his enemy as he would have less than a year before.

The Reich propaganda mill could call it anything that they wanted, but it was IMHO a disaster, strategically. Hitler knew it. It made him doubt Rommel, but obviously not all that much. He still gave him another job in the end.

 

[Shooter452]

Letters & diaries are both only partially reliable. Letters could be read by the secret police, hence your wording should be especially careful. According to the memories (admittedly also not entirely reliable) of Rommel's son (sorry, link in German), he lost confidence in Hitler after aforementioned order.

Here we have a primary dissagreement. I maintain that the Gestapo (the "secret police" you speak off?) had not the slightest possibility of reading all of the mail that was sent from the fronts to the folks at home in Germany. I also doubt that they would engaged of this practice randomly--letters surely would have censored at the front for security reasons but this would have been done by officers within given units as collateral duties, not by the Gestapo. General officers would have been exempt from this censorship anyway.

Since the end of the war, the Gestapo has been given super powers that not even the FBI today can match--possibly to afford excuses for the people who find it inconvenient to admit that they supported the Reich prior to the collapse and the AMG occupation. While the Gestapo had no reluctance about opening and reading the mail of persons that they had already begun to suspect of treason, these invasions of postal privacy were always the result of prior suspicions, not random actions. AFAIK there are no documented cases in the surviving record of their ever randomly reading the mails.

Not that it matters in the least. Rommel usually sent his letters home by private courier (his aide Alfred Brandt did this often), circumventing even the chance of these private messages being intercepted. Many other general officers did likewise.

It is amazing how many memories were altered to fit the times after the fall of the Reich. I do not call Manfred Rommel a liar, but I submit that his memory might have suffered from this "malady" while he was being re-elected mayor of Stuttgart over and over again. It was inconvient to remember the actual past so it was gradually altered to fit the past that they wanted to remember. It wonder how many opportunistic individuals attached themselves to the fable of Rommel's anti-Nazi activities after the war for economic and political reasons.

I bring your attention to the fact that Luci was not one who subscribed to that fairytale while she lived. Maybe now that she is dead, they will find "records" of her anti-Nazi activities too.

 

[bossel]

Since I don't have so much time, just this post for now. Maybe tomorrow I can find the time for your other posts.

"vast discrepencies" between the vaunted 6,000,000 and the numbers actually recorded.

Not really, at least not to the degree Irving alleges. I think, the estimates are now between 5 & 6m, the lowest scientifically valid I have heard of is 5.29m.

the vast majority of the Jews who died at Birkenau (the death center of KZ Auschwitz) came from Hungary[...]
When the numbers of Jews in post war Hungary are compared to the numbers of Jews in pre war Hungary, there is no room for a figure like 4,000,000 deaths--which is the number that was given on the Birkenau memorial prior to the outcry over Irving's statements. It was further reduced to 2,000,000,

Well, I can attest for at least the last 30 years (that's how far my memory goes) that in Germany the mentioned number of 6m killed Jews is constant. If there would have been such a significant drop in numbers for one camp alone, you would expect to find it in the overall number as well. The memorial plaque seems to be a favoured item of criticism for revisionists, but it has not much scientific validity, anyway.
The overall number of murdered is 1.1m to 1.3m for Auschwitz, the number of Jews killed there is estimated at 960,000. How many of those were gassed, shot or simply starved to death is an open question.

Hungarian Jews: AFAIK, some 440,000 were deported to Auschwitz, some 250,000 of those have been killed there.

We are forbidden to question these "facts" for any reason.

Only partially. Even in Germany science is allowed to review the numbers. What is not allowed is the belittlement of Holocaust. An unreasonably low number as given by Irving can be seen as such.

The Allied bombing campaign constantly disrupted rail and barge traffic in Europe. All cargo in Europe at the time moved by rail or barges. Food and medical supplies--both in short supply and vitally needed by all segments of the population--would have been difficult if not impossible to reach the KZ's.

Actually, there is some criticism towards the allies for not bombing (enough) the railroads towards the death camps. Food & medical supplies were a problem of course. But not as much as you think. Even for the work camps the outlined policy (Wannsee Conference) was to work/starve the inmates to death. Food supplies were supposed to be short.

Germany it seems to be against the law to ask the questions.

See above.

That David Irving can be tasteless in not subject to dispute. That he is wrong is yet to be determined.

That depends what you mean. His numbers are definitely wrong. Whether there were gas chambers in Auschwitz is another question. But it seems there is enough evidence to support their existence.

That he should be censued because of his reluctance to "toe the party line" is IMHO disgraceful, and the German people should be outraged. It is unconscionable to think that information, in and of itself, should be witheld by your government from your people. Are not the people able to decide for themselves what is and what is not valid?

I'm all for free speech, even for Holocaust deniers like Irving. But we should not forget German history. There is a reason for censorship. BTW, we largely owe that to US influence when German Basic Law was considered in the 1940's.

Information as such is not withheld by the government, AFAIK, but certain information has to be published with a special commentary.

 

[Shooter452]

Not really, at least not to the degree Irving alleges. I think, the estimates are now between 5 & 6m, the lowest scientifically valid I have heard of is 5.29m.

Whoa! Hold on there, kemosabe!! From whence cometh that figure??? Irving says his figures come from death certificates, issued by the Reich in the KZ's, including Birkenau. And he says that these figures are far short of anything like 6 million, or for that matter, your low ball figure of 5.29.

The stock answer to that is that the Germans--who were attempting to hide their deeds--would not be truthful in their records keeping. If you can believe that they would do that when all other statistics were meticulously kept as if with a mania, then the next question emerges: if not from the German archives, then exactly from where does the figure of 6 million arise (or 5.5, or 5.4. or 5.29 for that matter)?

And the answer to that question is that to ask the question at all makes one a "Holacaust denier," especially in Germany.

Actually, the figure of six million murdered Jews arises before the war was over. THe WJC was talking about six million in late 1944, while the war still raged across Europe. How did they know? Well, the insensitive answer was/is "they couldn't."

The figure stood, and lacking proof to the contrary, no one of consequence disputed it until people like Davif Irving brought the whole subject up. Me, I dunno where the truth doth lie, and I suspect that--no offense intended--neither do you. We only know what we've been told, over and over and over and over. And as long as we do not question those "facts" everything is hunky-dory. But comes a doubter, attacks on your character are issued, epithets are hurled, and a propaganda war is released upon the doubter.

Righteously or wrongly, when debate is suspressed about any matter I automatically suspect that I have been sold a bill of goods. I am surprised if you do not hold the same opinion.

I wonder if the death records of Birkenau do not fall under the same category. Getting back to that infamous and mutable memorial, the numbers keep changing. Why is that? Because they do not know, or because they do not want to know?

Actually, there is some criticism towards the allies for not bombing (enough) the railroads towards the death camps. Food & medical supplies were a problem of course. But not as much as you think.

And those who raise the criticism of the application of Allied air power do not know what the hell they were talking about. It is based soley on the presumption that a secret agenda existed amongst the Allies to allow more Jews to perish. Be serious!

Think about it.

The amount of air power wielded by the Allied air forces was huge, but it was not infinite. Priority was given to (a) destroy German war industry, by US 8th Air Force; and (b) massacre the German urban population, by the RAF Bomber Command. The attrition to the German rail net was largely a product of the fact that rail centers resided within the German cities (or course) and these suffered collateral damage. The attention to the interdiction of rail lines did not become an Allied target in an of itself until just prior to the landings in France in mid '44, and was restricted largely to the rail lines (and barge traffic) between the German border and western France.

Rail lines that effected the war effort ran east-west. Rail lines that fed Jews to Birkenau ran north-south. To single out the latter meant reducing the attrition to the former. Simple economy of force here. You can devote your efforts to winning the war and save the maximum amount of Jews by shortening the war, or you can dedicate your efforts to reducing the movment of Jews to Poland, and risk lengthening the war perhaps without saving a single Jew. But you could not have it both ways. So much for criticism.

That depends what you mean. His numbers are definitely wrong.

See above.

I am all for free speach also. But I think your reasoning is more dangerous than the history you fear. To each his own opinion.

And I feel for you...that your laws were influenced by a foreign power with an eye toward vengence and not justice was unfair, but the AMG ended a long time ago. The German government has had many a chance to alter that basic code, if they wanted to so do.

Bottom line: do you see the real effect of this all? The question was initially over the accuracy of Irving's research. But you turned it into an attack on the character of the researcher (as is usually done in his case). Can you not see how easy and effective this tactic is? Because of the "sacred cow" nature of the topic itself, the accusation in itself alone is sufficient to convict. Nothing else need be said--or in Germany, is permitted to be said.

Thanks for the lively debate thus far. I have not had this much fun in a long time. Carry on, carry on....

 

[sabro]

The method for determining how many the Nazi's slaughtered...there are several good secondary sources which document how the number is arrived at. The Simon Weisenthal center and the American Holocaust museum are probably the best I can think of...
Not easy when records were destroyed or lost by accident on purpose, not easy when when entire communities were killed and governments wanted to hide the complicity, but they do exist: Records from ss teams in the east. Records from the SS- death camps. Records from labor camps. Transportation and purchase records, Testimony at Nuremburg, Comparative census data. Anecdotal stuff. Can you get 6 million from all of this? My last history prof at UCLA says yes, 6 million is an easy number to arrive at and he has a PhD in the subject. Are the numbers rock solid-- not at all. For Jewish victims the number tends to include all who died of all causes during that time period, including those who may have been slaughtered by Ukrainians, Poles, French and Russians, those who were worked to death, died of starvation, disease or were outright murdered. There are about another 5 million victims which were non-Jews that the Nazi's slaughtered. There are millions more who aren't counted in these numbers. I posted some numbers on another thread about the Nanking Massacre if you would like to look them over. I, however am not an expert. I just see no reason to believe the numbers are substantially lower.

 

[Shooter452]

The method for determining how many the Nazi's slaughtered...there are several good secondary sources which document how the number is arrived at. The Simon Weisenthal center and the American Holocaust museum are probably the best I can think of...

Try looking at it from the opposing point of view. Neither source is objective. Both are emotional about the subject, understandably. Each has heavy influences from groups like the ADL, groups that have a definite political and financial axe to grind over the Holacaust--particularly the numbers. These groups are also rabidly anti-David Irving. And we are supposed to accept them as authoritative?

 

[sabro]

It is difficult to look at it from the opposing point of view because that would align me with Nazis. Mass murder tends to raise certain emotions. I don't necessarily expect Jews to be unemotional and objective about the holocaust. The six million number was arrived at quickly and early, but I think it expresses the accurate truth: the Nazi's murdered an inconcievable number of humans. The totals are not likely to get any firmer in the future.

David Irving and other revisionist seem to want to say that it is not that bad. I question the motivation.

 

[bossel]

Whoa! Hold on there, kemosabe!! From whence cometh that figure??? Irving says his figures come from death certificates, issued by the Reich in the KZ's, including Birkenau. And he says that these figures are far short of anything like 6 million, or for that matter, your low ball figure of 5.29.

Death certificates will obviously give a rather low number. Eg. the Einsatzgruppen operating in Eastern Europe never issued a single death certificate. There was not really a standard in reporting their kills, but usually they gave summaries of weeks or months of operation. Some units reported individual groups of victims (Jews, Gypsies, Communist commissars etc.), others gave only a total.

I think, in the death camps there was also not one single standard. If I remember correctly, the Hungarian Jews can count as example. We know that 440,000 were deported to Auschwitz, we know that 190,000 have been transported elsewhere later. Conclusion is that 250,000 never left Auschwitz, probable reason: death.

The stock answer to that is that the Germans--who were attempting to hide their deeds--would not be truthful in their records keeping. If you can believe that they would do that when all other statistics were meticulously kept as if with a mania,

As you can see above, the German records were not as meticulous as often is assumed.

And the answer to that question is that to ask the question at all makes one a "Holacaust denier," especially in Germany.

Nope. As I said, you are allowed to ask questions, esp. as a historian. What is not allowed is belittlement of the events. Saying that only 600,000 Jews have been killed, although all serious research (see below) points in the direction of several millions, can hardly be called "asking questions."

The figure stood, and lacking proof to the contrary, no one of consequence disputed it until people like Davif Irving brought the whole subject up.

Not really. For what I know, the Holocaust is one of the most researched subjects of WWII. Which is kind of sad, because all those other victims of genocide are often forgotten. Many more Slavs than Jews were killed, for example.

Numerous studies exist, & although the numbers vary widely, all conclude that several million Jews were killed. Just today I came across another number: 4,204,400 to 4,575,400 killed Jews, study by Reitlinger. But that's the only one I've seen that goes below 5m. If you're interested in an overview of research on the subject I recommend Rummel's "Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder."

Me, I dunno where the truth doth lie, and I suspect that--no offense intended--neither do you.

Of course I don't know. But it's quite secure to say that all probability points to several million Jewish victims.

Righteously or wrongly, when debate is suspressed about any matter I automatically suspect that I have been sold a bill of goods. I am surprised if you do not hold the same opinion.

As I already said, I'm not a friend of censorship. I prefer to disprove revisionists by argumentation (although that won't change their opinion/delusion).

Getting back to that infamous and mutable memorial, the numbers keep changing. Why is that? Because they do not know, or because they do not want to know?

Frankly, I don't know where they get their numbers from & actually, I don't see the relevance of some plaque. More important is historic research.

And those who raise the criticism of the application of Allied air power do not know what the hell they were talking about. It is based soley on the presumption that a secret agenda existed amongst the Allies to allow more Jews to perish. Be serious!

Well, it's not me who makes that accusation. I know that allied troops had other objectives & priorities. But it's an adequate question to be asked: Why not divert a minor number of planes from the bombing of civilian targets to destroy the genocide infrastructure.
I doubt, that it would have had much effect, but the question needs to be asked.

I am all for free speach also. But I think your reasoning is more dangerous than the history you fear. To each his own opinion.

Which history do I fear? History is just that: history. It's an interesting matter of study, not more.

And I feel for you...that your laws were influenced by a foreign power with an eye toward vengence and not justice was unfair, but the AMG ended a long time ago. The German government has had many a chance to alter that basic code, if they wanted to so do.

The problem is that the German public has been brainwashed over the decades to believe in this concept. A vast majority supports the limitations of free speech. That's democracy for you.

Bottom line: do you see the real effect of this all? The question was initially over the accuracy of Irving's research. But you turned it into an attack on the character of the researcher (as is usually done in his case).

The character? No.
The reliability of his research? Yes.

Can you not see how easy and effective this tactic is? Because of the "sacred cow" nature of the topic itself, the accusation in itself alone is sufficient to convict. Nothing else need be said--or in Germany, is permitted to be said.

Yeah, the sacred cow, that's quite some problem. But I doubt that Irving is really such a victim. There are others (journalists & politicians) here in Germany who actually suffered unjustified from such accusations. In Irvings case the accusations hold quite some water, IMO.

 

[sabro]

Today the National Democratic Party (Right wing Neo Nazi's) and thousands of supporters marched in Dresden in remeberance of the tens of thousands of German victims. These are the same guys that walked out on the moment of silence in the Saxony legislature to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz last month. They are increasingly popular with young Germans and love to call into question holocaust numbers and the entire history of WWII ("We were the victims of Jewish-American
aggression!" they like to say.)

News
BBC NEWS | Europe | Germans mark bombing of Dresden

As night fell however, the thousands of candles lit by Dresdeners spelled it out for all to see: "Diese Stadt hat Nazi's SATT!" "This town is sick of Nazis"

 

[Shooter452]

The last word, at least from me...

I never intended for this to run off into a long debate about the Holacaust, only that the jury should still be out, and it is not. And my point is over the research that I have been able to verify.

My field is not Holacaust studies. It is military history. And the history of the Third Reich has many researchers but none that I have found who surpass David Irving.

History is one of the most incestuous fields of study that I know, especially military history. Authors who list bibliographies it their writings about the Second World War usually list as their sources other books written by their peers. Ergo, Reynolds quotes Hastings, who quotes Keegan, who quotes Reynolds, etc. Few ever go to the source documents for their information. Irving did. He reads German, which is an invaluable tool in researching the written record of the period I would think. None of the others I mentioned can. Makes you wonder where their information originally came from.

That he is controversial is given. As I said before, he can be tasteless as well. But his books about the war--discounting the few lines found to be so egregiously offensive--are stand-alone works. What facts I have been able to verify (and he can make this difficult by failing to note his works) have impressed me greatly. The fact that they were often iconoclastic makes his works intriguing. He researches down to the level of daily entries in unit diaries, which are not usually falsified, since so much depends on their accuracy. If that does not impress you, I do not know what will.

Correct me if I am wrong, bossel, but IIRC, KZ death certificates were recorded in many, many offices back in Berlin. It is my understanding that a copy went to RHSA, another to the Reich Chancellory, another to the German version of the Bureau of Vital Statistics, another to the NOK, and so forth, ad nauseum. Because of that, if you dig deep enough, you will find a wealth of data about those deaths that no one had ever discovered, and which Irving said he did. Again, I dunno, just telling you what the man said.

I have read many estimates about the numbers murdered by the Einsatzgruppen in the USSR. The numbers generally range from less than 700,000 to the more commonly found figures that settle around the 2,000,000 range. Which brings me back to the numbers: if you add the 4 million figure origionally attributed to Birkanau alone to the 2 million attributed to the Einsatzgruppen, you get the mystical figure of 6 million right there. This discounts the thousands of Jews who died in KZ's that were not death centers, as well as Triblinka, Sobibor, Maidenik, and Chelmno. Without consensus, exactly what figure were we supposed to believe? Answer: what ever we were told to believe, appearently.

Anyway, I am done with this topic. Do with it what you will from here.

I am confident that Rommel not only was unaware of the 20 July plot, but that when he he was informed of the attmept he was aghast that any German officer would foresake his oath and betray the Fuerher. He made statements to that effect to his wife and son in Herrlingen in August 1944 while recovering from his injuries. These statements were confirmed by testimony from both Manfred and Luci. They were made in privacy and one would assume with the total candor a spouce would grant to any marital confidence. How much more do you want?

 

[bossel]

History is one of the most incestuous fields of study that I know, especially military history. Authors who list bibliographies it their writings about the Second World War usually list as their sources other books written by their peers.

That is a sad truth.

Irving did. He reads German, which is an invaluable tool in researching the written record of the period I would think. None of the others I mentioned can.

But a lot of others who researched the issue can (BTW, if you look at the attached pic, you'll see that Irving is not very fond of German historians). Rummel's assessment takes into account different sources, also German ones.

and he can make this difficult by failing to note his works

Which invalidates his works to quite a degree. It's more docutainment than science, since science should work with verifiable data.

He researches down to the level of daily entries in unit diaries, which are not usually falsified, since so much depends on their accuracy.

This is what makes his early works rather valuable, then again. He was able to get sources others couldn't, for he had the ability to convince "perpetrators" to make material available. The problem is that he over time seemed to associate ever more with those "perpetrators".

Correct me if I am wrong, bossel, but IIRC, KZ death certificates were recorded in many, many offices back in Berlin.

For what I know, death certificates were by far not as abundant as you think. Eg. none were issued for Jews who arrived in mass transports & were gassed directly afterwards. After the middle of 1943 no death certificates at all were issued (for those who came through the selection), at least in Auschwitz.

Without consensus, exactly what figure were we supposed to believe? Answer: what ever we were told to believe, appearently.

Nope, the studies are openly available. & you can go directly to the sources, if you want (& if you don't have already a reputation as "Holocaust denier", like Irving).

For Rommel, you'll have to wait till the beginning of next week. The book with his wife's documents was not available this week, probably for restoration purposes.