On the 65th anniversary of D-Day, is it time to let it go?

[Darth Wong]

It's interesting how Darth Hoth phrased his position on the Nazi atrocities, by talking about "schools of thought" rising or falling as if they are some sort of fashion trend, with nary a smidgen of evidence mentioned. I've noticed this style of writing often when people want to say "I saw a documentary on TV" or "I read a website and completely believed everything it said" but they want to package it in a manner which makes them sound like they've done a lot of research on the subject.

You see it from creationists, UFOlogists, conspiracy theorists, etc: they talk about how you are subscribing to a "school of thought" or a "worldview" which was once strong but is now weak (or so they say). They talk about theories as if they're in some kind of political horse race.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Every society has done horrible things, it's the ones that learn to awknoledge them, and not repeat them that often that's a sign of development. Still the re-writing of the last three hundred years, over the effects of a rose coloured prisim of events of 60-70 years ago. Yes Japan and Nazi Germany along with Stalin were monsters, but the others were not pure as snow, we raped, we looted, and did many bad things, A clockwork orange was inspired by a rape that occured in england by american troops prior to D-Day...

[Darth Hoth]

It's interesting how Darth Hoth phrased his position on the Nazi atrocities, by talking about "schools of thought" rising or falling as if they are some sort of fashion trend, with nary a smidgen of evidence mentioned. I've noticed this style of writing often when people want to say "I saw a documentary on TV" or "I read a website and completely believed everything it said" but they want to package it in a manner which makes them sound like they've done a lot of research on the subject.

You see it from creationists, UFOlogists, conspiracy theorists, etc: they talk about how you are subscribing to a "school of thought" or a "worldview" which was once strong but is now weak (or so they say). They talk about theories as if they're in some kind of political horse race.

It was no fabrication on my part, nor reference to crackpot theories, there are two schools of thought on the Holocaust and the mechanisms behind it: Intentionalists posit that it was planned in great detail from the start and was basically inevitable once Hitler made his deal with von Papen, while Functionalists point to the various contradictory aims of the organs involved and how the plans and methods evolved over time, claiming that the Final Solution was the result of improvisation and, to some extent, pressure from more radical, lower-tier National Socialist leaders (notably the Generalgouvernement administration). Of course, these are the extreme points; there are various theories in between. One Functionalist historian would be Professor Browning, famous for Ordinary Men; I can cite others, if you require it.

While I would not disagree with your overall point, I do believe that there is some amount of exaggeration there. The Intentionalist school in Holocaust studies has generally been discredited; there was no one grand "Master Plan of Evil" for carrying out the Judaeocide that was decided on in 1939, minutely directed and supervised from the highest echelons of command. Rather, the shift to genocidal policy was gradual and relied to a large extent on improvisation. There were also several inherently conflicting aims within its various branches (for example, exploitation vis extermination). The "system" as such was only developed as and when it was needed, and continued to mutate as it went along.

Without getting too deep into the question one would have to say that the Wansee Conference in 42 disproves the idea that there was anything less than a systematic, or at the very least intentional, plan for the elimination of European Jewery. The minutes and Eichmann's later testimony as to the intent behind the words makes it clear that there would be a consistent and near-unversal as possible policy towards the crounding up and disposal of every Jew within the reach of the government. While the methods were not discussed beyond bland statements that Jews who could be put to hard labour would be worked to death and the others eliminated somehow the point was clear.

Pardon, I was unclear. To elaborate, while Nazi Germany eventually developed plans for it, the Holocaust started before there were any such plans, and they were not as all-encompassing, or implemented as consistently, as was noted in Degan's original post. When the Wannsee Conference was held, one million Jews had already been shot in the Occupied East, a more or less improvised solution carried out by execution squads, in response to the perceived "problem" in Poland (after annexation, the Jewish population in German holdings had grown by three million, an intolerable situation for many Nazi radicals). Hundreds of thousands had also already been deliberately, if somewhat ad hoc, starved to death in ghettos in Poland. Wannsee was convened when the Nazi authorities saw that the earlier, haphazard efforts were not functioning properly and required tighter guidance; as such, it was reactive policy, not activist, and implemented after other options (such as sterilisation or the famous "Madagascar Plan") had been deemed infeasible. Even after this decision, the actual system of extermination (camps, gas chambers and all that) evolved gradually, as the executioners became more adept at their job. Wannsee is also interesting in how even then the various groups represented bickered about responsibilities and solutions that would hurt them, in particular, the least, and how the whole thing has such an air of haste-work.

The contradictions continued well after that goal was established, if not as much and on lower levels, due both to conflicts within the SS bureaucracy set to administrate it and between them and other organs (for example, local agencies that wanted to exploit Jews as forced labour, rather than surrender them for extinction). Albert Speer mentions several cases in his memoirs, and although he has shown himself to be unreliable on a number of other counts, those are corroborated elsewhere; given time, I can provide better sources, if required. Additionally, many of the programmes that Degan listed (such as the human experimentation on hypothermia by Doctor Rascher in Dachau) were assuredly not part of Wannsee or any other plan, but initiatives from below.

None of which makes it less horrible; more so, probably, since the responsibility cannot be conveniently retraced to a few upper-tier Nazis alone. But they were not acting according to a set master plan when they started to murder Jews; it, too, was made up as they went along.

[Darth Wong]

It was no fabrication on my part, nor reference to crackpot theories, there are two schools of thought on the Holocaust and the mechanisms behind it: Intentionalists posit that it was planned in great detail from the start and was basically inevitable once Hitler made his deal with von Papen, while Functionalists point to the various contradictory aims of the organs involved and how the plans and methods evolved over time, claiming that the Final Solution was the result of improvisation and, to some extent, pressure from more radical, lower-tier National Socialist leaders (notably the Generalgouvernement administration). Of course, these are the extreme points; there are various theories in between. One Functionalist historian would be Professor Browning, famous for Ordinary Men; I can cite others, if you require it.

You're missing the point, which is that it's incredibly poor argument to describe theories waxing and waning like fashion movements, or to slap labels on their adherents and talk about who's winning. Name-dropping also falls into the same category of "shitty-quality argument".

People who deny any original plan of genocide seem to have many excuses for ignoring Hitler's stated goal of cleansing Germany of all Jews. Sure, you might argue that he might have meant to "merely" force them out of Germany at the point of a gun, but that ignores the real point here, which is that they were to be removed by any means necessary. Since no other country wanted a large influx of millions of Jews and Hitler certainly knew that, it was inevitable that they would have to be exterminated in order to meet this goal. And the goal itself was stated as an absolute, right there at the beginning of it all in Mein Kampf.

[Darth Hoth]

Sources?
Aldrig mer! - Staffan Skott
Gulag och glömskan - Bent Jensen

Well there was a deportation prepared for the Soviet Jews, and given the historical results of those the survival chanses were not too good. Baracks were built in Gulag for them, excuses prepared as to why it was needed "to protect them from the wrath of the population" etc...

Im always amused by the "Glamorous Commie" tag. It reminds me of a charming little scene described in a book about the Gulag where a prisoner recognizes the First Lady of the Soviet Union busy scraping louse eggs from prison overalls with a glas shard.

A fellow Swedish-speaker, I see. Well met, friend!

That said, I would be careful to base my comparison of the European totalitarians on Staffan Skott; while the man is a very good journalist and writes interesting stories of everyday life in past and present-day Russia, his sources on Stalin count Victor Suvorov and R. J. Rummel among them.

Personally, I don't see how the Nazis were more evil than any OTHER country which invaded another one and began enslaving and/or killing the locals with the only difference between Nazis and say, America, is that the Jews were considered more human (read: white) than the Native Americans (though that didn't stop the US from turning away a boat full of Jewish refugees, thereby sending them back to the Nazis.) While I've read Patrick Degan's opinion on the subject, I can't see the connection between "being better at doing something" and "more evil."

Stas dealt with the dishonest comparison. On another issue, I was not aware that the United States had employed a consistent government policy of genocide on American Indians in any way remotely resembling what evolved into the exterminatory apparatus of Second World War Germany. Would you provide evidence for such?

I'm pretty sure that if people like Custer and Chivington had cyanide gas, machineguns and crematoria to work with they would have done exactly what the Nazis did.

Congratulations for missing the point.

My question was whether there was an overall policy of genocide, framed and supported by the United States government, as opposed to individual massacres by individuals. I, at least, have not seen any reliable evidence that this was so.

Stas dealt with the dishonest comparison. On another issue, I was not aware that the United States had employed a consistent government policy of genocide on American Indians in any way remotely resembling what evolved into the exterminatory apparatus of Second World War Germany. Would you provide evidence for such?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. How does the Nazis being better at doing something (in this case, killing people) make them worse with people who happen to use cruder and less organized methods? You made the claim, you back it up.

I see that you did not bother to read my post, then. To give you another opportunity to do so: Was there a United States policy of genocide on the Indians, approximating what the Nazis wielded? Were the reservations death camps for killing the Indians? If there was no organised effort, the entire point is moot, and your comparison is at least as stupid as those of those who equate Hitler with Stalin.

You claimed that the US had a genocide policy comparable to that of Nazi Germany. Kindly present your evidence for this notion.

[Darth Hoth]

You're missing the point, which is that it's incredibly poor argument to describe theories waxing and waning like fashion movements, or to slap labels on their adherents and talk about who's winning. Name-dropping also falls into the same category of "shitty-quality argument".

No, but theories can lose or gain in support as new evidence is uncovered and interpretations are supported, would you not agree? This is not a matter of fashion, but of science progressing and gaining a more nuanced view of history as more research is done.

People who deny any original plan of genocide seem to have many excuses for ignoring Hitler's stated goal of cleansing Germany of all Jews. Sure, you might argue that he might have meant to "merely" force them out of Germany at the point of a gun, but that ignores the real point here, which is that they were to be removed by any means necessary. Since no other country wanted a large influx of millions of Jews and Hitler certainly knew that, it was inevitable that they would have to be exterminated in order to meet this goal. And the goal itself was stated as an absolute, right there at the beginning of it all in Mein Kampf.

I would disagree, and point to the various plans that preceded - and even competed with, prior to and at the Wannsee Conference - the exterminatory Final Solution. These would include sterilisation (which would also "free Germany of Jews", though over a longer time) and forced resettlement in the conquered Lebensraum further East (at first, the Generalgouvernement was used as a "stop-gap", later they envisioned moving them into Russia). And of course, the "Madagascar Plan". Obviously, no country would want millions of Jews, but if they can be forced onto them that is not necessarily a hindrance in Nazi eyes.

Prior to the war, certainly, forced emigration was the preferred policy; there were even strains that wanted to support the Zionist movement, since it would get Jews out of Germany. This, at the least, points against a premeditated "Master Plan" from Mein Kampf onwards of exterminating all European Jews without exception.

[K. A. Pital]

Well there was a deportation prepared for the Soviet Jews, and given the historical results of those the survival chanses were not too good.

The "planned deportation" case was made upon very shaky evidence, which may include direct forgery of documents. No documental proof of either the deportation, or the fact that labour settlements would be perpared for "the Jews" has been found. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary, and the whole "Jewish plot" looked more like another Party purge than any massive deportation. And that's not to say Stalin couldn't deport the Jews - after all, there were many deportations in the USSR. But comparing deportations to complete annihilation is preposterous. All nations in the world during World War II used forced population transfer and deportations, including even the United States of America.

But only Germany didn't just deport nationalities but actively exterminated them, including wholesale destruction of cities and complete genocide of the Jews.

I would believe that the crematoria of Auschwits are quite different from a mere deportation, even a poorly organized one with a high death rate.

Oh, and upon looking into your "sources": an anti-communist journalist - not even a professional historian - who wrote a book "Never Again" and a NATO Cold War "specialist". Maybe you'll cite any real documents which would indicate that, without doubt, the USSR planned a genocide of the several million Jews it had? At leas the concrete statements in the books you cite - preferrably with a page number? Because in actual reality, which is opposed to the fantasy world of conspiracy theories, the USSR saved several million Jews, who fled East and were evacuated, from total extermination. And how many did Germany save? Oh right, I forgot - they were the ones exterminating them. Twisting the arms of facts is not good.

Was it less wrong because it occurred the previous century?

No; the core difference as I noted, is that during the XX century, other nations did not resort to such a demographic doctrine (and stopped the German nation which did), while in the previous centuries, such doctrine of extermination did not exist, and the genocide was a byproduct of the expansion. It doesn't make it less evil, but it makes it more remote.

Was the ancient warfare hideously evil? Yes, with wholesale city slaughter. But it's ancient, and it was common for that era. On the other hand, in the XX century the only wholesale large city extermination plans would be the Siege of Leningrad and the destruction of Pnom Penh.

This, at the least, points against a premeditated "Master Plan" from Mein Kampf onwards of exterminating all European Jews without exception.

From 1927 onwards, maybe not. But as soon as the war got going and the Nazis got the tools for the final solution, they started working out hideous ethnic cleansing plans in great detail - Endlosung and the GPO were developed EVEN AS the Nazis knew that many resources would be spent on their execution; that extermination will turn the populace against them and start a massive insurgency.

Despite all of this, the Nazi government continued the extermination not for a political, but for a demographic goal - even after it became clear that it is detrimental to the war effort.

You don't think that's something peculiar? And that it does tell people of intentions - when your nation is crumbling in a war which is clearly going to be lost, but you are still exterminating people at record tempoes, that doesn't bode too well with rationality or mere "functionality" as you call that theory.

[Darth Hoth]

From 1927 onwards, maybe not. But as soon as the war got going and the Nazis got the tools for the final solution, they started working out hideous ethnic cleansing plans in great detail - Endlosung and the GPO were developed EVEN AS the Nazis knew that many resources would be spent on their execution; that extermination will turn the populace against them and start a massive insurgency.

Despite all of this, the Nazi government continued the extermination not for a political, but for a demographic goal - even after it became clear that it is detrimental to the war effort.

You don't think that's something peculiar? And that it does tell people of intentions - when your nation is crumbling in a war which is clearly going to be lost, but you are still exterminating people at record tempoes, that doesn't bode too well with rationality or mere "functionality" as you call that theory.

I would be wary of conflating the GPO with the Final Solution, which have quite different histories and mechanisms behind them. At that, the GPO was not implemented as general policy, while the Judaeocide eventually was. A Jew extermination would not raise the occupied peoples against them; sad to say, and as has been noted around here before, they were all too frequently to find willing accomplices among them (especially in Eastern Europe and the former "Pale of Settlement, in which anti-Semitism was traditionally very strong). On the other hand, since the practical considerations behind the Wehrmacht-developed "Hunger Plan" would likely eat away any goodwill Ukrainians might have for them anyway, the problem might not have been viewed as that great.

It also illustrates the struggle between the contradictory Nazi government organs; the local administrators certainly did not want Himmler's fanatical settlement ideas on "their turf", since it screwed up their management and needlessly agitated the locals; the reaction over the Zamosc resettlement in Poland would be an example. Or, in short, the Blut und Boden Grand Purge/Colonisation types clashed with the more pragmatic interests.

The Nazi genocide was ideologically motivated, and developed ever more organised and efficient means as it went along. But I would not say that the murder of the Jews was preordained as soon as the war started. Though given a scenario similar to @, it most likely would have come about, if not necessarily in the exact same shape or fashion.

[K. A. Pital]

I would be wary of conflating the GPO with the Final Solution, which have quite different histories and mechanisms behind them.

They were different plans, but the racism of the German leadership was a key instrument to realize both. In fact, the "racial-biological approach" which was promoted and thoroughly installed in ALL institutions of the Nazi state by the Nazi leadership, was the necessary foundation for both plans.

At that, the GPO was not implemented as general policy, while the Judaeocide eventually was.

That is a difference which was diluted by the German failure to conquer the GPO space of operations for a substantial amount of time - actually, they started to executed GPO in Poland - with horrific results, which they held dominion over for 5 years as opposed to the not-full 3 years in the USSR. Not because the nature of GPO and Final Solution was not, in the end, a very similar nature.

On the other hand, since the practical considerations behind the Wehrmacht-developed "Hunger Plan" would likely eat away any goodwill Ukrainians might have for them anyway, the problem might not have been viewed as that great.

I would assume so, but one of the most brutally ravaged places was Belorussia - not a place ravaged for it's agrarian value and not a key element of the Hunger Plan, but clearly and critically an element of GPO. If they thought goodwill in Ukraine would evaporate, why do it in all other regions as well? The insurgency in other slavic regions was likewise truly massive.

But I would not say that the murder of the Jews was preordained as soon as the war started.

I'd say it was. In 1927, maybe not. By 1939 or worse yet, 1941? Certainly it was. Orders to kill all Jews on sight were already given directly in 1941, for example. You can't get any more "exterminatorial" than that -the death camps were just a method of doing these orders more efficiently and actually accomplishing the Judaeocide.

[Shroom Man 777]

What happened to the Jews was already described in Mein Kampf, in which Hitler outlined a whole lot of what he sought out to do as leader of Nazi Germany. Look, those people in charge went out of their way and at the expense of the war effort's resources to gas and oven and microwave every Jew they could get. They wanted to do it really bad. There was no reason for them to do it but they did it anyway, at their own expense. Whatever would've happened, if the war went better for the Germans or if circumstances differed, they would've still done it anyway.

[CmdrWilkens]

The Nazi genocide was ideologically motivated, and developed ever more organised and efficient means as it went along. But I would not say that the murder of the Jews was preordained as soon as the war started. Though given a scenario similar to @, it most likely would have come about, if not necessarily in the exact same shape or fashion.

I highlighted the abvoe because I think it marks the main point of contention between us. The point I was making way above about Wannsee and which I perhaps need to be clearer abotu is that: whether or not it was executed uniformly or evenly or even throughout the whole war the conference itself, the entire concept of Endlosung makes it plain that there was a purposeful government intention to engage in genocide. The MECHANICS of the genocide were occasionally haphazard and the administration fought against practical concerns (Wannsee alone had a huge number of caveats built around keeping WWI vets and certain ministries like Goering's wanting to keep technically skilled Jews alive) but the POLICY itself was a clear and unambiguous in its intent.

Oftentimes in military orders there is something known as "commander's intent" added to the operational directives. The point of such guidance is to let subordinate commanders know what they should accomplish and why they should accomplish it while carrying out there orders. Thus is means or operation becomes impractical for unforseen reasons subordinate officers are aware of what needs to be accomplished at the end of the day. Any bureacracy will inevitably have snags which prevent true continuity in means, methods, and execution and the Jewish genocide was no exception. What none of that changes is there being a clear commander's intent to carry out a complete end to all Jews so far as the government's authority could reach.

[Darth Hoth]

That is a difference which was diluted by the German failure to conquer the GPO space of operations for a substantial amount of time - actually, they started to executed GPO in Poland - with horrific results, which they held dominion over for 5 years as opposed to the not-full 3 years in the USSR. Not because the nature of GPO and Final Solution was not, in the end, a very similar nature.

There is a difference, at that, in that they believed that elements of the Slavic population would remain, and even be integrated in time (as was/would supposedly be the case with Poland), and that the plan was for "clearing land" rather than explicitly exterminating the Slavs. That would be a side-effect, so to speak; with the Jews, it was the other way around (extermination was the first priority, stealing what they owned the second). Exterminating Slavs was not an end in itself, just a means. They are very much the product of the same type of racist views and disregard of human worth, though, as you noted.

What I meant to say was, the GPO was a draft (or rather, several) that did not become actual policy (due both to practical constraints and to Nazi bureaucratic infighting, with various factions being in favour of or against it). We cannot know whether it would eventually have been implemented in full, or what revisions would have been made to it.

I would assume so, but one of the most brutally ravaged places was Belorussia - not a place ravaged for it's agrarian value and not a key element of the Hunger Plan, but clearly and critically an element of GPO. If they thought goodwill in Ukraine would evaporate, why do it in all other regions as well? The insurgency in other slavic regions was likewise truly massive.

Different plan, same mechanisms, I would say. The German army was generally supposed to "live off the land", since they simply did not have the logistics to support it in full; it was a conscious decision, as much from sheer cold ruthlessness and pragmatism as from ideology. As we know from history, foreign armies "living off the land" is not good for those who live on it or work it.

I'd say it was. In 1927, maybe not. By 1939 or worse yet, 1941? Certainly it was. Orders to kill all Jews on sight were already given directly in 1941, for example. You can't get any more "exterminatorial" than that -the death camps were just a method of doing these orders more efficiently and actually accomplishing the Judaeocide.

That is true. By the time of the Einsatzgruppen and the Great Crusade Against Bolshevism, they had obviously reached the point of no return. Arguable, the "starvation winter" for the Polish Jew-ghettos was the real turning point. 1939 I would still say is a little early to be certain.

[Darth Hoth]

The Nazi genocide was ideologically motivated, and developed ever more organised and efficient means as it went along. But I would not say that the murder of the Jews was preordained as soon as the war started. Though given a scenario similar to @, it most likely would have come about, if not necessarily in the exact same shape or fashion.

I highlighted the abvoe because I think it marks the main point of contention between us. The point I was making way above about Wannsee and which I perhaps need to be clearer abotu is that: whether or not it was executed uniformly or evenly or even throughout the whole war the conference itself, the entire concept of Endlosung makes it plain that there was a purposeful government intention to engage in genocide. The MECHANICS of the genocide were occasionally haphazard and the administration fought against practical concerns (Wannsee alone had a huge number of caveats built around keeping WWI vets and certain ministries like Goering's wanting to keep technically skilled Jews alive) but the POLICY itself was a clear and unambiguous in its intent.

I would say that we fairly much agree, then; after Wannsee there had been developed a policy, if not entirely consistent, and a less comprehensive one had been in effect since the war with Russia began. It is the notion that it was all supervised in detail from the top and planned meticulously in advance from the start of the war, or worse, since Hitler first came to power, that I take issue with. I am sorry if this was unclear in my original post.

[K. A. Pital]

The German army was generally supposed to "live off the land", since they simply did not have the logistics to support it in full

I would say it was a myth they did not "have the logistics" - they simply did not plan to provision their Army - the decision to loot Eastern territories and let people die, i.e. Hunger Plan, and also aid in their direct extermination, was taken before Germany invaded the East. So they simply didn't want to plan for provision, they pre-planned the looting. They had the logistics to support their Armies (every industrialized nation can do it, much more Germany a key industrial power in Europe), but they decided against it like you said, for ideological and pragmatic reasons alike.

Arguable, the "starvation winter" for the Polish Jew-ghettos was the real turning point. 1939 I would still say is a little early to be certain.

Hmm... I obviously meant late 1939, when Poland was invaded, and the first iterations of GPO started creeping in. It was also the same year during which Hitler once again publicly proclaimed the "annihilaiton of the Jewish race on Earth", wasn't it?

[Darth Hoth]

Point on the matter of logistics, of course. As for Hitler, yes, he said so, but he said many things. With institutional inertia and without him (that early, at least) pushing heavily for the implementation of a radical solution, it would still be too early to be certain. The possibility was there, but no plans had been finalised or exterminatory actions initiated.

[Darth Wong]

You're missing the point, which is that it's incredibly poor argument to describe theories waxing and waning like fashion movements, or to slap labels on their adherents and talk about who's winning. Name-dropping also falls into the same category of "shitty-quality argument".

No, but theories can lose or gain in support as new evidence is uncovered and interpretations are supported, would you not agree? This is not a matter of fashion, but of science progressing and gaining a more nuanced view of history as more research is done.

So? It's also possible for the authors of two theories to get into shouting matches or a fistfight, but mentioning such things is not a valid method of argument either.

People who deny any original plan of genocide seem to have many excuses for ignoring Hitler's stated goal of cleansing Germany of all Jews. Sure, you might argue that he might have meant to "merely" force them out of Germany at the point of a gun, but that ignores the real point here, which is that they were to be removed by any means necessary. Since no other country wanted a large influx of millions of Jews and Hitler certainly knew that, it was inevitable that they would have to be exterminated in order to meet this goal. And the goal itself was stated as an absolute, right there at the beginning of it all in Mein Kampf.

I would disagree, and point to the various plans that preceded - and even competed with, prior to and at the Wannsee Conference - the exterminatory Final Solution. These would include sterilisation (which would also "free Germany of Jews", though over a longer time) and forced resettlement in the conquered Lebensraum further East (at first, the Generalgouvernement was used as a "stop-gap", later they envisioned moving them into Russia). And of course, the "Madagascar Plan". Obviously, no country would want millions of Jews, but if they can be forced onto them that is not necessarily a hindrance in Nazi eyes.

That does not address my point at all, since Mein Kampf predates all of these things.

Prior to the war, certainly, forced emigration was the preferred policy; there were even strains that wanted to support the Zionist movement, since it would get Jews out of Germany. This, at the least, points against a premeditated "Master Plan" from Mein Kampf onwards of exterminating all European Jews without exception.

Who cares if there were "strains" supporting this or that? For the second time, Hitler himself wanted the Jews gone at any cost, and viewed them as bacteria. Your argument seems to rely on the fact that the entire Nazi hierarchy was not of one unified mind on this from the beginning, which does not have to be the case.

Can you support the idea that Hitler himself would have preferred that the Jews live? If you can't, then you're just handwaving because Hitler was an unquestioned dictator and other peoples' divergent opinions don't mean dick.

One of the central theses of Mein Kampf was Hitler's belief that the Jews are not human beings. Their treatment in the death camps (so analogous to the way we treat livestock) is completely consistent with this. Your assertion that he would prefer they escape unharmed into neighbouring countries is actually incompatible with his stated beliefs on Jews.

[Jade Falcon]

As an aside, I did find what seemed to be a half decent documentary. Despite it's name "Auschwitz, the Nazis and the Final Solution", by Lawrence Rees does not focus solely on Auschwitz and the programme against the Jews post Wannsee conference levels. If anyone is interested in it, its decent viewing.

[Darth Hoth]

I would disagree, and point to the various plans that preceded - and even competed with, prior to and at the Wannsee Conference - the exterminatory Final Solution. These would include sterilisation (which would also "free Germany of Jews", though over a longer time) and forced resettlement in the conquered Lebensraum further East (at first, the Generalgouvernement was used as a "stop-gap", later they envisioned moving them into Russia). And of course, the "Madagascar Plan". Obviously, no country would want millions of Jews, but if they can be forced onto them that is not necessarily a hindrance in Nazi eyes.

That does not address my point at all, since Mein Kampf predates all of these things.

It does address it, as it shows that Hitler at the very least allowed for these various initiatives to be taken as serious alternatives during his reign. If he had had a foolproof, set-in-stone "Master Plan" ever since Mein Kampf was written, why would he do that? That considerable resources were expended on planning and evaluating alternate solutions goes to demonstrate that they were seriously considered.

Who cares if there were "strains" supporting this or that? For the second time, Hitler himself wanted the Jews gone at any cost, and viewed them as bacteria. Your argument seems to rely on the fact that the entire Nazi hierarchy was not of one unified mind on this from the beginning, which does not have to be the case.

Can you support the idea that Hitler himself would have preferred that the Jews live? If you can't, then you're just handwaving because Hitler was an unquestioned dictator and other peoples' divergent opinions don't mean dick.

Hopefully without going into another long discussion, the idea that Hitler was in complete control of his Germany in all its minutiae is at the very least contested. From what I gather, most modern-day historians tend to agree that he took little part in day-to-day rule, instead delegating most authority to his subordinates. The "creative chaos" that stemmed from the consequent infighting between the various agencies then allowed him to keep check on his underlings. On the other hand, this also meant that individual personalities could push their personal agendas and pet policies quite far. Not all of Nazi policy is reducible down to Hitler alone; he is known to have often vacillated on major decisions, only choosing one among several proposals at the figurative last minute.

[K. A. Pital]

However, you agree with Darth Wong's basic point that the main idea was getting rid of the Jews at all costs; and despite the consideration of "alternatives", their financial and logistical infeasibility was already determining the way towards the solution Hitler himself looked as one of the most preferred options.

You don't need an exact master plan for that. It's more like "These are not humans but vermin. Get rid of them" - Hitler says. His underlings then plan various ways to do it. Eventually, by the time Germany conquers most of Europe, Hitler and the underlings come again to discuss possibilities. And they decide upon complete annihilation since it [killing] seemed to be working best so far.

After that again, the directive "ANNIHILATE" goes down to the underlings; they discuss various methods to kill more efficiently, and eventually from various suggesstions the Holocaust machine is created. Basically, you don't need a master plan to annihilate a nation, because your underlings, will work the minutiae out - a "Prime Directive" would be sufficient. Even if the details of the plan dilute the process and change some aspects, they cannot change the "Prime Directve" which is kill the Jews.

1927: "Get rid of the Jews"
1927-1939 - "Brainstorming"
1939-1941 - "Practical evaluation"
1941-1942 - "Externimate the Jews"
1942-1945 - "Extermination"

No need for a master plan, just a main idea. A change in result with such a chain of logic is very unlikely, because "extermination" already wasn't excluded as an option from the start, and was in one of the favourable solutions. Hence, after brainstorming by rather ruthless people and hardcore Nazis as well, it's not surprising the Prime Directive takes a more clear shape as "Exterminate". Again, no master plan exists yet, but all the minutiae for executing the Directive are quickly drafed up by underlings.

[Big Orange]

Trying to view everything in the same context as WWII in recent decades has been very damaging, since the borderline loony Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, had his views of Iraq under Saddam coloured by the very emotive events of WWII, by comparing Saddam to Hitler and his Ba'athist followers to the Nazi Party. While not completely unfounded and Saddam's regime was not about fluffy kittens (although Saddam perhaps had more in common with Stalin) it was not really a rational mindset to have when dealing in complex military matters that could negatively effect millions of people if rash decisions were made (which they were).

The attempted extermination of the Jews in Europe was "only" a pogrom on steroids - past pogroms were more localized and low tech due to the inherent limits of feudal tyrants, but had the same intent of disappearing or reducing Jewish communities, however in 1941 Adolf Hitler was at the head of arguably the most deadliest military machine to sweep Eurasia since Genghis Khan's horsemen and had control over advanced industries that included deadly chemicals, so with nobody getting in the way and millions of Jews under the control of his huge military he could enable the pogrom to end all pogroms.

[Darth Hoth]

However, you agree with Darth Wong's basic point that the main idea was getting rid of the Jews at all costs; and despite the consideration of "alternatives", their financial and logistical infeasibility was already determining the way towards the solution Hitler himself looked as one of the most preferred options.

In effect I would agree with the principle of your reasoning; while there was no set plan, the situation of the war points towards a Judaeocide eventually being concluded to be the "best" solution. It is not that they have no inhibitions towards mass murder; rather, these are overcome gradually as the war progresses, as they tredge the path towards all-out genocide step by step (in a simplified manner, pogroms>ghettos>starvation>Special Troops>Wannsee>gassing). If Germany had been more successful early on, there might be a difference (they will then feel that they can "afford" to be "nicer" to the Jews, the Madagascar Plan might look less infeasible and so be tried somehow, access to grain from abroad will mean less need to starve the Jews and Poles, cutting the destructive chain earlier, and so on), but as I said in an earlier post, in a scenario like @ it grows more likely by the year. By the time of any action against the USSR they would most likely have reached the point of no return.

[Big Orange]

The SS quite seriously contemplated shipping all the Jews under their control to Madagascar and Eichmann even drafted out preliminary plans for a Jewish run civil infrastructure for this prison island, but this was before the Royal Navy irreversibly cemented their control on the oceans. I doubt shipping millions of refugees under duress to some craphole African island would've been pleasant either.

[Darth Hoth]

Obviously not. But then it would be more comparable to, say, the forced Communist deportations in Stalin's USSR than the industrial genocide that has made Germany infamous forevermore.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, definetely, although even the USSR didn't try something so monumentally stupid as trying to ship 6 million people to a remote island on the other side of the world.

Truly Germany would face a massive feat unseen in History - the cumulative number of all Soviet internal deportations 1922-1953, which included wartime deportations, were ~6,000,000 - the same number which Germany would have to deport within the timeframe it alloted for the "solution" of the Jewish "question".

Of course, the Mad. Plan wouldn't probably reverse the outcome of World War II, but having the same moral clout about the victory in it would be harder since other nations most notably USSR and USA, also engaged in mass deportations.

[Jade Falcon]

I think the only reason the truly mass exterminations started post Wannsee conference wasn't due to a lack of a master plan to kill the Jews, it was just sheer capacity. Ever since Hitler came to power in 1933, and indeed before he had plans to get rid of them one way or another. However, post 1939, early programs like sterilisation, small cremations and the pumping of carbon dioxide into converted vans, as well as shootings wasn't sufficient. Apparently the latter two 'distressed' the SS troops after a while. The Wansee conference really seemed to be more about setting up a systematic and mechanised extermination program that could work en masse rather than dribs and drabs.

I have to admit that the Kenneth Branagh film "Conspiracy" was pretty effective at showing how this was done as it was apparently made using the sole surviving copy of the minutes of the meeting.