Jump to content
tanknet.org

The Holocaust Just Got More Shocking


Recommended Posts

The Holocaust Just Got More Shocking

 

THIRTEEN years ago, researchers at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum began the grim task of documenting all the ghettos, slave labor sites, concentration camps and killing factories that the Nazis set up throughout Europe.

What they have found so far has shocked even scholars steeped in the history of the Holocaust.

The researchers have cataloged some 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe, spanning German-controlled areas from France to Russia and Germany itself, during Hitler’s reign of brutality from 1933 to 1945.

The figure is so staggering that even fellow Holocaust scholars had to make sure they had heard it correctly when the lead researchers previewed their findings at an academic forum in late January at the German Historical Institute in Washington.

“The numbers are so much higher than what we originally thought,” Hartmut Berghoff, director of the institute, said in an interview after learning of the new data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/sunday-review/the-holocaust-just-got-more-shocking.html?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry for going Off Topic, bur recently I saw a British "Holocaust Denial" guy speak on Youtube.

 

"The Holocaust Lie - David Irving"

 

I read separately on the internet that he is a neo-Nazi. Can we talk about such things on TN?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we can talk about such things. Usually it involves how the ideas of holocaust denial are easily defenestrated and how their advocates in main probably also need to be defenestrated.

 

As it was pointed out by the Band of Brothers series, how could they [Germans] not have known what was going on under their very noses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link?

 

And, well, yes, he's of the holocaust denial ilk. IIRC correctly he started off as hobby historian who learned german and somehow got ensnared by the idea that the Nazi's didn't intend to kill the jews at all, but that it was rather a sort of "consequence" of the poor living standard in the "Reich" during WWII, sort of "well, many people were on the brink of starvation, and they were to poorest lot so they just didn't make it".

Problem is that he was so ensnared by his view - or couldn't stand being wrong - that he started to misquote and/or translate wrong german official documents on the basis that "he knows german language", which eventually destroyed what reputation he ever had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He also made a bg deal of Dresden death count and promotes the idea it was a war crime IIRC. AFAIR his death count (initially up to 250 000) was debunked some time ago already and his main source was proven to be a forgery.

 

As for archives, IIRC there is also strong suspicion he "disappeared" some documents during his archive visits.

Edited by Tuccy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ on a cross, why are people so bloody naive?

 

Why is this shocking? That man is such a savage to his fellow man? That weakness attracts violence?

 

What exactly is shocking? The only thing shocking to me is that people are such fools to believe such obvious bullshit, even for a moment. S/F....Ken M

Edited by EchoFiveMike
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for archives, IIRC there is also strong suspicion he "disappeared" some documents during his archive visits.

 

Do you mean he destroyed evidence or that his discoveries of documents were displacements?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Holocaust Just Got More Shocking

 

THIRTEEN years ago, researchers at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum began the grim task of documenting all the ghettos, slave labor sites, concentration camps and killing factories that the Nazis set up throughout Europe.

What they have found so far has shocked even scholars steeped in the history of the Holocaust.

The researchers have cataloged some 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe, spanning German-controlled areas from France to Russia and Germany itself, during Hitler’s reign of brutality from 1933 to 1945.

The figure is so staggering that even fellow Holocaust scholars had to make sure they had heard it correctly when the lead researchers previewed their findings at an academic forum in late January at the German Historical Institute in Washington.

“The numbers are so much higher than what we originally thought,” Hartmut Berghoff, director of the institute, said in an interview after learning of the new data.

http://www.nytimes.c...-shocking.html?

 

It depends on what they mean by "camp" and "ghetto" etc. If the number includes "Slave labour sites" and that included every place where non-voluntary labour was used, the number can hardly be surprising? The number of farms, factories, pits, roadwork sites etc. where slave or forced labout was utilized must be huge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Holocaust Just Got More Shocking

 

THIRTEEN years ago, researchers at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum began the grim task of documenting all the ghettos, slave labor sites, concentration camps and killing factories that the Nazis set up throughout Europe.

What they have found so far has shocked even scholars steeped in the history of the Holocaust.

The researchers have cataloged some 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe, spanning German-controlled areas from France to Russia and Germany itself, during Hitler’s reign of brutality from 1933 to 1945.

The figure is so staggering that even fellow Holocaust scholars had to make sure they had heard it correctly when the lead researchers previewed their findings at an academic forum in late January at the German Historical Institute in Washington.

“The numbers are so much higher than what we originally thought,” Hartmut Berghoff, director of the institute, said in an interview after learning of the new data.

http://www.nytimes.c...-shocking.html?

 

It depends on what they mean by "camp" and "ghetto" etc. If the number includes "Slave labour sites" and that included every place where non-voluntary labour was used, the number can hardly be surprising? The number of farms, factories, pits, roadwork sites etc. where slave or forced labout was utilized must be huge.

 

I think that's what's going on here: They've finally cataloged all the different sites involved, whether it was a "transitional" camp that was in operation for only a week or two, on up to the biggies like Auschwitz.

 

Technically, if you go back far enough along the chain, I suppose that you'd be able to connect every home and structure that a victim of the Holocaust lived in when it started as being a "site". Definitions are key, and I'll note that none of the journalists who are bringing us this story are bothering to include any of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even when some scholars have attempted to calculate the total number of dead in the Holocaust, they have been castigated as "Holocaust Deniers" if they document X-2 million instead of X million dead. If you mention the numbers of Polish, Russian, or Gypsy victims, you are also a "Denier". If you note that the Japanese caused the deaths directly or indirectly of several times the numbers of Chinese dead during the war, you are also a "Denier".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even when some scholars have attempted to calculate the total number of dead in the Holocaust, they have been castigated as "Holocaust Deniers" if they document X-2 million instead of X million dead. If you mention the numbers of Polish, Russian, or Gypsy victims, you are also a "Denier". If you note that the Japanese caused the deaths directly or indirectly of several times the numbers of Chinese dead during the war, you are also a "Denier".

 

It'd be nice to see some honest discussion on the issue, but the unfortunate fact is that the ideological blinders come down the minute someone even brings a discussion of the numbers up. Any way you do it, you're damned by all the parties with an interest in it who think they're on the other side.

 

I don't doubt that there are flaws in the scholarship surrounding this. Anyone going into it is almost inevitably going to do so with preconceived notions, and will also develop prejudices and favorites while doing the research. A truly objective view on the whole issue is probably impossible.

 

That said, I do think that a lot of the other victims of the Holocaust are not given the attention they deserve. And, of course, all the collateral damage done by Stalin is usually left in the shadows, and blamed on Hitler and his minions. How many of the Soviet dead are really the responsibility of the Nazis?

 

There's a recorded verbal history out there, somewhere, of a woman talking about her life in the Ukraine before the Revolution, during the Holodomor, and WWII. You listen to the litany of all the friends and family of hers who died at the hands of the Communists and Nazis, and you're just left awestruck at the magnitude of it all. If her recollections were accurate, the sheer scale of what went on in that region during the first half of the 20th century is mind-boggling. It was just hours of a old woman recounting matter-of-factly what she'd had to do to survive as a young woman, and how her family and friends had been eradicated from the earth. The stunning thing was, the Nazis weren't even the worst thing that happened to her: Think about that, for just a moment. She remembered the Nazis as a relatively minor problem, compared to the Communists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me numbers are a distraction. X or x- y does it make a real difference. It was horrible. Millions disappeared. Jews gypies,poles,Russians the. Infirm

Are there other worse players? Hello yes. They all need to be exposed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for going Off Topic, bur recently I saw a British "Holocaust Denial" guy speak on Youtube.

 

"The Holocaust Lie - David Irving"

 

I read separately on the internet that he is a neo-Nazi. Can we talk about such things on TN?

 

Sure you discount the documental evidence, the eyewitness testomony, the film and photographic evidence, and the physical evidence then you could say the holocaust never happend.

 

The other problem is that during a war or any kind of tormol most people just want to be left alone to survive they don't really care about what happens to some other people in someother part of their country they only care about their survival so the normal German might have suspected something was going on with the Jews but it wouldn't be on the top of their lists. Yes there was very bad things going on and it should be exposed as those who do learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Its a shame so much humans are so illitterate when it comes to histroy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a USAAF study done on the V-2 project after the war where they estimated that the V-2 project had consumed about the equivalent of (IIRC) 24,000 warplanes worth of resources. I wonder if any similar sort of estimates have been made concerning Germany's campaign of murdering their own people?

 

When I was in high school we had a (Jewish) survivor of one of the camps come and speak. One of the things he said at the end of his presentation that he wanted to make absolutely clear was that he didn't think that you could really understand the events if you just focused on the Jews. In his opinion, it was absolutely important to remember all the victims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the big takeaway is that the horrible stuff happened in a lot more places than earlier research indicated, which renders even more bullsh*t the claims of contemporary Germans (and other Europeans) that they had no idea of what was going on. That's been debunked already from an anecdotal standpoint, but it's good to have more proof. The spin that it means that the Holocaust was even worse than we thought isn't very accurate because they don't seem to have revised the overall death toll.

 

I agree that if you get reductive enough you can start saying things like "how many Jews died just because there was an apocalyptic war going on," but it's pretty different than civilian deaths in E. European countries et al because killing Jews was intentional German policy vs. a side effect of the war. Far-left historians bring up the Indian Famine all the time as some kind of counterpoint, but it's obvious that killing lots of Indians wasn't intentional British policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for going Off Topic, bur recently I saw a British "Holocaust Denial" guy speak on Youtube.

 

"The Holocaust Lie - David Irving"

 

I read separately on the internet that he is a neo-Nazi. Can we talk about such things on TN?

 

Important to remember that David Irving is just an attention bitch - he´ll claim whatever in order to get the attention of the media, he switched horses after he got spanked with his claims regarding Captain Broome RN on PQ-17.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even when some scholars have attempted to calculate the total number of dead in the Holocaust, they have been castigated as "Holocaust Deniers" if they document X-2 million instead of X million dead. If you mention the numbers of Polish, Russian, or Gypsy victims, you are also a "Denier". If you note that the Japanese caused the deaths directly or indirectly of several times the numbers of Chinese dead during the war, you are also a "Denier".
That depends a lot on context. I haven't seen many folks getting upset at people bringing up the victims of other genocides and democides or quibbling about wether it's five million or over six, except when they try to use those numbers to criticize reaction to the Holocaust itself. These are the people who say things like the Jews control the media this is why we hear about the few million of them who died and not the bigger number of non-Jews - perferable of the speaker's favourite ethnicity.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the place, Poland saw 2 million deaths under the Nazis, they are remembered for sure, Soviet PoWs on the other hand were murdered by the Nazis and hidden under Stalin if not sent to Siberia for treason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even when some scholars have attempted to calculate the total number of dead in the Holocaust, they have been castigated as "Holocaust Deniers" if they document X-2 million instead of X million dead. If you mention the numbers of Polish, Russian, or Gypsy victims, you are also a "Denier". If you note that the Japanese caused the deaths directly or indirectly of several times the numbers of Chinese dead during the war, you are also a "Denier".
That depends a lot on context. I haven't seen many folks getting upset at people bringing up the victims of other genocides and democides or quibbling about wether it's five million or over six, except when they try to use those numbers to criticize reaction to the Holocaust itself. These are the people who say things like the Jews control the media this is why we hear about the few million of them who died and not the bigger number of non-Jews - perferable of the speaker's favourite ethnicity.

I've seen examples of people being attacked for publishing figures which are less than 6 million, regardless of their ideology or lack of it, & people attacked for correcting the false claim (which I've often heard) that "the Nazis killed six million people" with reminders that as well as the six million (give or take a million or so) Jews killed, the Nazis also killed several million other civilians. One reaction I've encountered to the reminder that not only Jews were killed by the Nazis is an accusation of anti-semitism. I don't recall ever hearing this from a Jew, but I've heard it from American gentiles. But then, I was once accused (also by an American gentile) "anti-semitic hate speech", & "repeating Arab lies", when I quoted an official publication of the Israeli state statistical office, giving official Israeli estimates of Arab & Jewish populations in Palestine (as it was then called, & was called in that publication) in the last years of Turkish rule & under the British mandate.

 

Never underestimate the stupidity & bigotry out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that if you get reductive enough you can start saying things like "how many Jews died just because there was an apocalyptic war going on," but it's pretty different than civilian deaths in E. European countries et al because killing Jews was intentional German policy vs. a side effect of the war.

Nazi policy was incoherent. Killing some categories of non-Jews was deliberate policy. Among the various plans that came & went, some of which started to be put into effect (though scrappily), were plans to reduce the population between Germany & the Urals drastically, to create room for a massive expansion of the German population. Depending on which plan, this could involve the killing of 100 million Slavs, Balts, etc. The expulsion of huge numbers of Poles from territories annexed to the Reich was part of the vaguely sketched out (in numerous contradictory versions) plan for a Greater German Reich. Many of those expelled died, as the lands they were expelled into couldn't support them. This was intended. Deaths from illness & outright starvation as a result of stripping some occupied territories of food, to maintain German food supplies, were also intended. They were seen as desirable by the Nazi leadership & their ideological theorists, part of the incoherent, self-contradictory master plan, which could, at the same time, envisage clearing vast tracts of land of their inhabitants & re-populating them with a self-reliant population of egalitarian German peasants, a hyper-modern industrial state with autobahns & high-speed railways linking the Atlantic to the Urals, a new junker class lording it over Slavic subjects in the very places that had been depopulated, moving all the scattered ethnic Germans of everywhere from Voivodina to the Volga to the newly expanded Reich to re-populate the areas cleared of Poles (a lot of this was done: Baltic & Bessarabian Germans were moved en masse), leaving those very same Germans in place as nuclei of the to-be-expanded German populations of lands not yet formally within the Reich but which would be one day, & sending settlers from Germany to settle parts of the east which had never before seen a German. Some poor buggers were shipped back east to the very same places they'd been shipped west from, just in time to face the fury of the returning Red Army.

 

Now, try to fit all that into the neat narrative of the Nazis exterminating Jews on ideological grounds & other deaths being collateral damage in a war fought with particular savagery. Doesn't work, does it?

 

What is missing from most discussion is the realisation that the Jews were just the first step. Originally, the idea wasn't to kill them all, but remove them from Germany. That turned into killing them when it was decided that removal was impractical. The same applied to the Slavs, though with more nuances. There was an idea that some of them were really Aryan, slavified descendants of ancient Europeans of the same type as Germans, & could be assimilated, but this was a contentious area. Look at what happened to Poles, for example. Some German administrators turned to the idea of assimilation with relief, & gave out certificates of Germanness en masse, even to those who didn't want them, despite the personal advantages that went with them under German rule. Those administrators usually saw the whole thing as a sham. Some called every industrial worker 'German', for example, being practically minded. Others resisted the assimilation idea. The proportion of Poles in territories annexed to Germany suddenly turned into Germans thus varied enormously, & entirely due to different local policies.

 

But what of those who were not to be assimilated? Again, incoherence in policy. According to when, where, & who was in charge locally, they were to be expelled further east, prevented from breeding so they would eventually die out, turned into slaves, or murdered en masse - or some combination of any or all of these.

 

THAT was the Holocaust Nazi dreamers wanted, & started trying to implement. A ghastly nightmare in which half of Europe would be a killing ground, with entire peoples doomed to extinction, some biological, some cultural, & most a combination of the two, in which, if it had been implemented in its entirety, the poor bloody Jews would just be a footnote, swamped by those former peoples the Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, etc.

 

Now, do you see why I think that it's wrong to focus too much on what the Nazis did to the Jews? They had the immense misfortune to be first on the Nazi list, partly because of Hitler's personal hatreds, partly for purely practical reasons (being a minority almost everywhere, & a local majority only in very tightly defined areas, i.e. particular towns & villages, & suffering from sever prejudice against them, they were easy victims). That made them the greatest sufferers from Nazi persecution in terms of the proportion of their population who were killed, followed by the Roma. For that, they deserve special sympathy. But the myth that they were the only people targeted is just that, a myth. They were the most intensely & efficiently targeted, but if time & circumstances had allowed, other peoples were meant to suffer much the same fate. This would not have been a side effect of the war: it was the purpose of the war.

 

When one thinks about that, it's a vision of something even more terrible than what actually happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I saw the thread I wondered 'How?' Reading the posts clarified that; the Nazi's ideal endgame is bone-chilling. I think S.M. Stirling had that in mind when he penned his Draka science-fiction series.

Edited by shep854
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, swerve, thank you.

 

For an excellent discussion of the effects of the two "Tectonic Plates" of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union rubbing against each other in Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and the 3 Baltic states, have a look at

 

Snyder, Timothy. Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin. Basic Books, New York, 2010. ISBN 978-0-465-00239-9

 

Some of these areas were occupied 3 times; each occupation unleashing a new wave of deportation and slaughter.

 

Ironically enough, due to the slave labour programme, there were more Jews within the borders of the Reich in 1945 than there were in 1939!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read Mein Kampf, but in it, isn't Hitler surprisingly clear about his intention sof eliminating certain ethnicities?

 

I have read parts of the Soviet Constitution of 1936 and it is full of glowing guarantees of freedom that I don't think anyone saw at that time. At least Hitler was more sincere about his intentions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...