General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

[LemmyCaution]

"The Good old Days" - in general
I find this a sad book in some ways. It dates from 1988 . . .

It is indeed a sad book, but not for the reasons you try having. More to the point, the Taübner verdict is independent of the backgrounds of the editors, the nature of the preface, etc. Your continued attempts at well-poisoning - without any basis you basically write off and more or less slander the editors - are obvious.

The Taubner verdict - sources
I am told that the original is "probably" in Berlin. I'm not sure if there is any point pursuing the matter further at our level. No-one seems to have put a copy of the German original online. Apparently Taubner was also investigated in the 1950s in West Germany and there may be further holdings related to that.

You’ve been asked a number of times whether you accept the Taübner document as authentic. Yet you continue to cavil and fudge. “I am told” and “seem” and “online” and “apparently” are not responsive to the question I asked you:

do you agree that the SS court's judgment is genuine?

Will you give an answer to this question? If not, do you have reasons that you can state for doubts about the document’s authenticity?

Presumably then he would have had a sense of the scope of his authority and the applicable law. Despite this, it is stated that he "resolved to 'get rid of' 20,000 Jews if possible" (196). How, based on the above legal framework, could he have thought he had authority to do this? - presumably from some order not included in the verdict. The authors do not seem to indicate what this is. . . . Again, it's not clear how the perception of his having authority to do this arose. . . .

But the judgment states - and you quote:

The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated [vernichtet] and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which have been set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.

Again, your musing strikes me as little more than well-poisoning via speculation. The SS court recognized that killing of Jews was a duty of the Kommandos established to kill Jews, but also that individuals might act on their own authority or in violation of guidelines. Surely someone doing such a thing - exceeding or violating a rule or law - is something you’ve heard happening in the past?

I find it hard to believe that you really don’t grasp that anti-Semitic and anti-“Asiatic” prejudices might motivate some individuals to engage in atrocities beyond orders. I suggest you re-read the long quotation I posted from Morgen - which describes another case of such individual action. Not only is the argument nearly self-evident, but Morgen detailed why and what should be done, from a legal standpoint about such individual excesses, as they were conceived:

In addition, there is among our men a widespread mental attitude to the effect that the eastern region, as an area for future German immigration, is to be freed up for the Germans through the extirpation (Ausrottung) and annihilation (Vernichtung) of the native population, and that the population is therefore to be tolerated as a currently necessary evil and treated as such.

Given this situation and this mental attitude, transgressions and excesses in the use of bodily force are quite understandable. . . . Combatting this with penal provision is pointless. . . .

To make the rather myopic arguments you make here, you have to exclude and ignore not only context you should know but what’s already been posted during this very discussion.

The court thus decides on its own authority not to punish three killing actions and gives two reasons. It offers no justification for the first, that the Jews "have to be exterminated". This would be common knowledge at most only in the sense that Hitler used the term, in which it meant "deprived of power", not necessarily killed.

Except that the judgment makes killing the Jews, if not synonymous with, then a normalized part of their extermination. I will defer to German speakers here for the umpteenth go-round on vernichtet but point out that your reading tortures the sense of the judgment so that the sentences themselves cry out for mercy. We readers certainly do! The judgment exonerates Taübner, in your view, for killing Jews “to deprive them of power,” and yet you want to exclude killing from the policy of deprivation of power. Mind boggling.

Nor does it attempt to justify the statement that none of the Jews were any great loss. Indeed, the inference from someone's death being no great loss, to someone else having the right to kill them is obviously suspect.

Only if you wish to mangle what’s said beyond recognition.

If the Einsatzgruppen were meant, these had other responsibilities; if "vernichten" had the reduced meaning I have suggested, it is not clear who is being referred to.

The Einsatzgruppen and their Kommandos had a main responsibility, judging from their reports, of destroying Jews and rendering occupied territory free of Jews.

It is not clear why Taubner would show these to people.

Others did so as well. Trophy collecting, via photographic images, is not hard to understand when you take into account the views of the “enemy” and of Jews among the occupation forces. We might want to have a parallel discussion about film images in the East. The “problem” was such that German officials issued orders that ordinary men knock it off.

Your both/and circling here, offering up a scrumptious word salad, where you can't seem to make up your mind about anything, shows the weak foundation on which you're commenting about this case.

Perhaps it is like jihadists today showing videos of beheadings to shock or desensitize, but it still reads strangely. You would expect him to fear his wife's disapproval. Descriptions of German women rejoicing in atrocities are a common feature of propaganda. Equally, war can give scope to psychopathic personalities and perhaps Taubner or his wife were instances of this. However, the main point at issue is the legal framework and how it was applied.

You might want to read more about perpetrators and German society during the war. Reports back home about what was being done in the East - including mixtures of braggadocio and horror - are hardly unheard of. Even Victor Klemperer, isolated in a Jew’s house, had such reports reach him - so that he noted them in his diary.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Sorry, this is a mistake on my part. The Mayer book was reviewed by Benjamin B. Ferencz, who was a former prosecutor at Nuremberg, not written by someone in that capacity.

I missed this in my first reaction to your long post. Again, why did you leap to such a silly assumption?

 

[EtienneSC]

Ivanesca makes some relevant points about methods of inquiry. Hence, it might be worthwhile to clarify - and perhaps change - my own method. I had initially conceived my own approach as owing something to skepticism, in which there is a suspension of judgment in order to explore possibilities and inquire further information. However, it occurs to me that I have diverged from one text that embodies skeptical method, namely Descartes' Discourse on Method (1637). Descartes makes it clear that he accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church in practical matters of faith and is merely engaging in speculation with a view to placing knowledge on firmer foundations. I however am not clear that I accept the fact of the holocaust, as a foundational moral belief of the post WW2 world, but rather place it in doubt. I can see that this may lead to moral confusion by some and condemnation by others. So much for the "word salad".

[snip]

This is correct. I am considering both the possibility that there is more to the document than meets the eye and the possibility/probability that it is genuine. These cannot both be true. Your view is that the former logical possibilty does not need to be considered. My experience is that considering it may throw up new facts. If it is genuine, we would end up knowing why it is, for example.

[snip].

I do not see how I have slandered the "real scholars". I am taking the time to look at their work. What you call an insinuation on my part seems to be simply imagination on yours. I have not accused the authors of making anything up. I have raised the question of the origins of the document and whether supporting documentation exists. In the course of this, I found out that there was further legal action against Taubner in the 1950s. Reading the document itself indicates the existence of three further documents mentioned in it (the civil and military Codes and the Decree). We have yet to examine these. This illustrates the phenomenon whereby asking questions can throw up new evidence - a feature of real skepticism.

Incidentally, one of these scholars has much the same qualifications as Dr Reuss, the chaplain on pages 141-43 of the book, who is no-one to admire. You seem to be having it both ways yourself, both admiring those with qualifications and accepting that those who possess them are quite likely to be complicit in war crimes, sadistic experiments and the like.

[snip] Nazi heroes were antisemites who hated Jews. Their campaign in the east and the constant propaganda against the Jews legitimized violence against them. Common sense.

You appeal above to scholarly authority, now you appeal to "common sense". These are legitimate appeals, but not skeptical ones. There are obvious gaps between hating someone, wanting to kill them and thinking you have the legal right to kill them.

That is the justification. The court's verdict establishes that exterminating, i.e. Killing [snip] was the standard operating procedure. Which is why the next thing the court says is "none of the Jews killed was any great loss".

My point was that the court offers as justification for not proceeding against Taubner for the three killing actions the fact that that the Jews "have to be exterminated". The question then is how the court came to this view. Are they setting a precedent on their own authority? Were they told this in writing - if so, does the document still exist? Are you saying that "constant propaganda" was the ground of their decision?

Well, being laughed into something is not the skeptical way - really it's another version of the appeal to common sense. I have provided one and can provide plenty more examples of the range of uses of the words concerned, which include both killing and deprive of power.

[snip]The charges against Taubner were insubordination and acting in an "un German" manner. [snip] the Nazis imagined themselves to be proper gentlemen, and that murder had to be done in an orderly manner. The issue is not that Taubner killed, but that he overstepped his bounds.

You'd think that the use of the word "Killing" in relation to a sentence with the word "Exterminated" would make things absolutely clear. But that's deniers for you.

There is an element of anti-German prejudice here. Would you say the same about RAF Bomber Command?

There are plenty of photographs of atrocities taken by German soldiers, all of them can be traced, and none of them were forged or staged because there was no motive or reason to stage them. There are also official orders from German generals intended to counter the growing trend of "atrocity tourism". It is always interesting to hear how ignorant Deniers are of the history they question, as well as average human behavior. But, facts are facts. [snip]

Some at least were faked and not all can be traced, as shown by Udo Walendy's Forged War Crimes Defame the German Nation. I am indeed ignorant of much of this history, I can't deny that.

I have come across evidence of orders not to photograph official procedures (which would include reprisal and other killings) in Terry et al's book. Thus far we agree.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Some at least were faked and not all can be traced, as shown by Udo Walendy's Forged War Crimes Defame the German Nation.

A list of proven fakes, please, so that we are not discussing at the level of meaningless generalities.

 

[EtienneSC]

I missed this in my first reaction to your long post. Again, why did you leap to such a silly assumption?

I misread the opening quotes from Benjamin Ferencz on the USHMM site, which someone had linked to here, thinking I could use it to introduce Laternser. Silly, as you say. Incidentally, I have ordered a cheapish copy of the Mayer book that I found online. I will reply to your other post later. This is new material to me and I may have to change my position as I learn more facts.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I am considering both the possibility that there is more to the document than meets the eye and the possibility/probability that it is genuine. These cannot both be true. Your view is that the former logical possibilty does not need to be considered. My experience is that considering it may throw up new facts. If it is genuine, we would end up knowing why it is, for example.

What on earth does this mean? Other than that you're still trying to slip doubt into the discussion where grounds for doubt are lacking? All that you've demonstrated so far is the limits of your knowledge. Again, what evidence do you have for the judgment's being inauthentic, aside from your struggles comprehending it?

I have not accused the authors of making anything up. I have raised the question of the origins of the document and whether supporting documentation exists.

Which has naught to do with these authors, as the document is cited elsewhere, too.

My point was that the court offers as justification for not proceeding against Taubner for the three killing actions the fact that that the Jews "have to be exterminated". The question then is how the court came to this view. Are they setting a precedent on their own authority? Were they told this in writing - if so, does the document still exist? Are you saying that "constant propaganda" was the ground of their decision?

A legal framework and orientation of the SS in which these courts operated and discussed earlier in the thread as well as explicitly and in detail in works like those of Majerand Pauer-Studer and Velleman - as well as in less detail in many other works. Further, the well-known and widely discussed basic orders for Barbarossa encapsulate some of this framework, as do things like the testimony of the EG leaders at Nuremberg, etc.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I misread the opening quotes from Benjamin Ferencz on the USHMM site, which someone had linked to here, thinking I could use it to introduce Laternser. Silly, as you say.

Or perhaps coming from biases you pretend not to have.

This is new material to me and I may have to change my position as I learn more facts.

I would hope so.

 

[Ivanesca]

This is correct. I am considering both the possibility that there is more to the document than meets the eye and the possibility/probability that it is genuine.

Forgery would imply an intent to falsely incriminate. If it's not incriminating, as you are desperately trying to prove, then it's not a forgery. If you insist that it's not incriminating, then you have to accept that it's genuine because the "victors" of your fantasies would not have wasted the time and effort to "manufacture" evidence that did not make your heroes look like the murdering cowards that they are. If you insist that it's a forgery, then you have to accept that it's incriminating, and it was "made" that way by your boogeymen. Your claims - that it is both not incriminating and forged - are mutually exclusive and contradictory.

It's not a forgery, by the way. That has been absolutely ruled out, no matter how often you refuse to accept it. And it is incriminating, your attempts to the contrary notwithstanding. Deal with it.

I have not accused the authors of making anything up. I have raised the question of the origins of the document and whether supporting documentation exists.

In other words, you're questioning the fact that the document or supporting documentation exists purely on the basis of your fantasies, even though the authors made a very clear reference to where they found it, . That sure sounds like "making up" to me, and to everyone else.

Incidentally, one of these scholars has much the same qualifications as Dr Reuss, the chaplain on pages 141-43 of the book, who is no-one to admire. You seem to be having it both ways yourself, both admiring those with qualifications and accepting that those who possess them are quite likely to be complicit in war crimes, sadistic experiments and the like.

[snip]he seems to be insinuating that I'm appealing to authority - i.e. "admiring those with 'qualifications'" (whatever those may be). I honestly don't care about any "qualifications" - As far as I know, these researchers have actually studied the archival material and have built their case around it. That's all that matters. As opposed to the likes of EtienneSC, who not only has not studied the archival material, but doesn't even know the basics about the history he's trying to deny.

[snip]

You appeal above to scholarly authority, now you appeal to "common sense". These are legitimate appeals, but not skeptical ones. There are obvious gaps between hating someone, wanting to kill them and thinking you have the legal right to kill them.

How about, the ones being in power hating them and authoring a policy that makes it legal to kill them?

By the way, I'm neither appealing to "scholarly authority" or "common sense". I'm appealing to the evidence and the bleeding obvious reality.

My point was that the court offers as justification for not proceeding against Taubner for the three killing actions the fact that that the Jews "have to be exterminated". The question then is how the court came to this view. Are they setting a precedent on their own authority? Were they told this in writing - if so, does the document still exist? Are you saying that "constant propaganda" was the ground of their decision?

And you keep missing the point. The point is that the court "came" to the view that "the Jews have to be exterminated" because it was standard operating procedure directed from the top. It doesn't get any more clear than the reference to special commandos being the ones to carry out killing actions. No matter how you try to dance around it, that's what the verdict proves.

There is an element of anti-German prejudice here.

There's an element of dodging, missing the point, and dare I say, Insanity here. This doesn't address anything I wrote.

Some at least were faked and not all can be traced, as shown by Udo Walendy's Forged War Crimes Defame the German Nation. I am indeed ignorant of much of this history, I can't deny that.

No. None were faked. Walendy lied: it's very well known that he doctored the very famous photo of burning bodies to make the bodies seem like "spaghetti". The original photos do not have the features Walendy invented. Your citing him raises serious questions about your credibility, assuming that you had any to begin with. A few may have been incorrectly labelled, but this in of itself does not prove that they were "faked".

 

[Ivanesca]

the holocaust, as a foundational moral belief of the post WW2 world

Lol, nope. The last seven decades would indicate that the Cold war, and not the Holocaust, was the "foundational moral belief" of the post ww2 world. It was after all the Cold War that made the US intervene in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, and support the Mujahideen against the Russians in Afghanistan. The Cold War was also the justification for the space and arms races, and not to mention the USA's support of very dubious people in Latin America and Asia. It's also the reason why the US had an embargo against Cuba until very recently, why relations between the US and Russia are tense, and why "Communist" has a very negative stigma in pretty much every Western or Western aligned Nation.

It's really strange for EtienneSC to say that the Holocaust was "the foundational belief of the post WW2 world". The victors certainly didn't seem to think so: Both the CIA and the American space program were staffed by former Nazis heavily protected by the US government. Same thing with the West German government. That would indicate the opposite: the "post WW2 world" simply didn't care. And because they didn't care, they didn't "fake" any of it: All of the incriminating evidence is 100% genuine, because the events they describe happened. The entire premise of Holocaust Denial is false.

Deniers have a strange tunnel vision with regards to the Holocaust. They're so obsessed with either validating their hatred of the Jews or their blind worship of Nazi Germany, that they always fail to observe the surrounding historical context that both Shaped the Holocaust and how the world reacted to it. Not only do they fail to grasp how the convergence of evidence works; how pieces of evidence need to be viewed together to get the whole picture, but they also fail to grasp how things change and how events can cause other events. Both are visible in EtienneSC's inane attempts to "neutralize" the Taubner verdict - he assesses sentences in isolation instead of following the complete flow of ideas, and ignores the broader German policy of Genocide, which was the reason for the SS court to say what they did - that the Jews "Had to Be exterminated".

 

[Ivanesca]

I'm sorry, this statement is just so ridiculous that it constantly deserves to be called out.

the holocaust, as a foundational moral belief of the post WW2 world

The Vatican, in addition to the US Government, seem to agree with EtienneSC. They agreed so much that they helped Former Nazis escape justice by facilitating in their travel to Latin America and other places, and even protested against attempts to put them on trial. The Reason? Some little silly thing called the Cold War where the Vatican and most Western Governments wanted to make use of their "valuable" experience and insights against the Russians. There's no better proof of the Holocaust being a "foundational moral belief of the post WW2 world" than the Vatican (another "foundational moral belief") protecting the perpetrators of the Holocaust and burying their crimes, for the sake of their political agenda.

 

[Degeneve]

Descartes makes it clear that he accepts the teachings of the Catholic Church in practical matters of faith and is merely engaging in speculation with a view to placing knowledge on firmer foundations. I however am not clear that I accept the fact of the holocaust, as a foundational moral belief of the post WW2 world, but rather place it in doubt.

This is not a matter of "belief" - being "moral" or not - but simply a matter of acknowledging the reality of historical facts which have been proven beyond any doubt.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Lol, nope. The last seven decades would indicate that the Cold war, and not the Holocaust, was the "foundational moral belief" of the post ww2 world. It was after all the Cold War that made the US intervene in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, and support the Mujahideen against the Russians in Afghanistan. The Cold War was also the justification for the space and arms races, and not to mention the USA's support of very dubious people in Latin America and Asia. It's also the reason why the US had an embargo against Cuba until very recently, why relations between the US and Russia are tense, and why "Communist" has a very negative stigma in pretty much every Western or Western aligned Nation.

It's really strange for EtienneSC to say that the Holocaust was "the foundational belief of the post WW2 world". The victors certainly didn't seem to think so: Both the CIA and the American space program were staffed by former Nazis heavily protected by the US government. Same thing with the West German government. That would indicate the opposite: the "post WW2 world" simply didn't care. And because they didn't care, they didn't "fake" any of it: All of the incriminating evidence is 100% genuine, because the events they describe happened. The entire premise of Holocaust Denial is false.

Deniers have a strange tunnel vision with regards to the Holocaust. They're so obsessed with either validating their hatred of the Jews or their blind worship of Nazi Germany, that they always fail to observe the surrounding historical context that both Shaped the Holocaust and how the world reacted to it. Not only do they fail to grasp how the convergence of evidence works; how pieces of evidence need to be viewed together to get the whole picture, but they also fail to grasp how things change and how events can cause other events. Both are visible in EtienneSC's inane attempts to "neutralize" the Taubner verdict - he assesses sentences in isolation instead of following the complete flow of ideas, and ignores the broader German policy of Genocide, which was the reason for the SS court to say what they did - that the Jews "Had to Be exterminated".

So much right with what you say - and wrong with what Etienne SC tries putting across.

First, this discussion is not about foundational moral beliefs of the postwar era, though Etienne SC may want it to be. It's about what the evidence shows German special law to be with regard to "enemy" and suspect populations, as defined by the authorities of the Third Reich, and with regard to the occupied East. I should add that Etienne SC now asks for SS judges' decisions/reasoning similar to that in the Taübner case. He ignores posts made in this very discussion on precisely this issue - and he ignores references to studies of precisely this and similar issues - so that he can tart up some unique problem he wants to find in the Taünber case. It won't work.

Second, if we open up a new discussion, different to what's being examined here, a discussion of postwar ideology and self-conception, as you say it was the Cold War, and I'd add the vision and practice of US preeminence and dominance in world affairs, that shaped these. Challenges of the Communist bloc, the non-aligned bloc, anti-colonial and national liberation movements, global economic structures, etc. My personal experience reinforces "book learning" on this subject. By the 1950s, western governments, and institutions like the church, as you say, were moving on. The fate of men convicted of heinous crimes committed during the war (increasingly light sentences, early releases, clemency - sponsored by the victors) underscores this process of moving on and looking in a direction other than what Etienne SC believes. Coming of age in the '60s, and leaving off my graduate studies in the late '70s, in history, I cannot recall a single course in which the Holocaust was a focus; in fact, I can remember very few readings that directly dealt with the Holocaust even in courses on modern Germany and Europe. By contrast, courses dealing with the Cold War, the so-called Third World, Soviet history and Stalinism, the theory of totalitarianism - focusing on the USSR, etc were numerous. I took it upon myself to study the Holocaust for various personal reasons, but not until the '80s. The material was fresh to me, as in the decades prior I'd had little formal investigation of the Holocaust. My educational experience reflects exactly the dynamics you say.

Third, it is a bad, not a good thing, that a confrontation with the Third Reich played less rather than more of a role in the shaping of postwar thinking in the West. A missed opportunity. Perhaps, with a stronger and more universally shared commitment to the rule of law, universality of rights, anti-racism, and international norms, including human rights and the conduct of international conflicts, western powers - I am thinking of the US - would have been more inhibited to pursue counter-insurgencies using tactics echoing those of Nazi anti-partisan warfare, would not have so readily from the '50s to the present supported governments that violate human rights, and would have viewed minority populations as well as non-western people as entitled to basic rights, opportunities, and protections. Perhaps the left in the '60s and '70s would not have been so quick to adopt tactics which stepped outside the framework of the law and peaceful resolution of conflicts. Perhaps people in the West, had they come to terms with the negative consequences of demonizing, separating, and de-legitimizing groups of people, would be less inclined even today to turn to nativist and racist solutions when they face difficult times. I won't go on. But the idea that the West should not have absorbed some lessons and developed aspects of moral thinking from the sorry history of National Socialism and its rule in Germany is rather strange to me.

 

[Hans]

Lol, nope. The last seven decades would indicate that the Cold war, and not the Holocaust, was the "foundational moral belief" of the post ww2 world. It was after all the Cold War that made the US intervene in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, and support the Mujahideen against the Russians in Afghanistan. The Cold War was also the justification for the space and arms races, and not to mention the USA's support of very dubious people in Latin America and Asia. It's also the reason why the US had an embargo against Cuba until very recently, why relations between the US and Russia are tense, and why "Communist" has a very negative stigma in pretty much every Western or Western aligned Nation.

It's really strange for EtienneSC to say that the Holocaust was "the foundational belief of the post WW2 world". The victors certainly didn't seem to think so: Both the CIA and the American space program were staffed by former Nazis heavily protected by the US government. Same thing with the West German government. That would indicate the opposite: the "post WW2 world" simply didn't care. And because they didn't care, they didn't "fake" any of it: All of the incriminating evidence is 100% genuine, because the events they describe happened. The entire premise of Holocaust Denial is false.

Deniers have a strange tunnel vision with regards to the Holocaust. They're so obsessed with either validating their hatred of the Jews or their blind worship of Nazi Germany, that they always fail to observe the surrounding historical context that both Shaped the Holocaust and how the world reacted to it. Not only do they fail to grasp how the convergence of evidence works; how pieces of evidence need to be viewed together to get the whole picture, but they also fail to grasp how things change and how events can cause other events. Both are visible in EtienneSC's inane attempts to "neutralize" the Taubner verdict - he assesses sentences in isolation instead of following the complete flow of ideas, and ignores the broader German policy of Genocide, which was the reason for the SS court to say what they did - that the Jews "Had to Be exterminated".

Excellent summary

 

[Agatha]

Please remember to be civil and polite, and to concentrate on the arguments being made rather than the poster making them.

A quick rule of thumb: if you are talking to each other, be civil and polite lest you breach rule 0. If you are talking about each other, you are almost certainly breaching rule 12, so don't do it.

By all means address each other directly as long as you do it politely, but do not denigrate other posters no matter how much you disagree with them - challenge their arguments only.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[EtienneSC]

[...] You’ve been asked a number of times whether you accept the Taübner document as authentic. Yet you continue to cavil and fudge. “I am told” and “seem” and “online” and “apparently” are not responsive to the question I asked you:
Will you give an answer to this question? If not, do you have reasons that you can state for doubts about the document’s authenticity?

They are responses, just not the ones you want. As you can see by the energy I have put into interpreting it, I suspect that it is genuine. I have some residual doubts for the following reasons: a) Wilhelm Staeglich and others have pointed out the general difficulty in accessing original documents on this subject; b) parts of the document go against legal norms, particularly in countenancing extra-judicial killings. This is out of character for someone with the legal training the judge in the case, Reinecke, describes in his Nuremberg testimony, which predated the NS era. In particular, the verdict is radically inconsistent with Reinecke's testimony at Nuremberg, when he is asked:

PELTZMANN: [...] I have to ask you: Did the Waffen-SS commit crimes against the civilian population in the occupied territories and at the front, and were these crimes committed systematically and in violation of international agreements, in violation of the penal law existing in the countries concerned, and in violation of the general principles of penal law of all civilized nations?
REINECKE: No, there can be no question of that. [...] the courts in every theater of war and during the entire duration of the war passed sentences for murder, looting, man-slaughter, assault, rape, ill-treatment, and also for killing prisoners of war; and in trying such cases the race or nationality of the person concerned had no influence whatever.

So if that reply is false, we have two lawyers (Morgen being the other) lying under oath at Nuremberg. d) it's not part of a series, but extracted from a personnel file (see below); e) it is clearly a significant document, others are accessible online, why not this; f) no material confirmation of the killings has been sought, despite approximate locations being given; and g) in principle, throwing up doubts tends to produce new documents that neither side in a debate has foreseen, increasing the documentary evidence under consideration and thus improving the chances of getting at the truth in the widest context. (Initially I was swayed by the indecisive discussion on CODOH, but we have now got beyond this.)

With regard to g), it turns out that there is a history of the SS and Police Court in a chapter by Christopher Theel of the collection Nazi Ideology and Ethics (Ed. Bialas. Cambridge Scholars, 2014, 343). It emerges that Himmler decreed that the head of the SS court could not be a lawyer (344-45). This would help explain the neglect of legal norms in the Taubner verdict, but it seems to be contradicted by the Reinecke testimony (see below). Puzzling. The SS Court is said to have destroyed its records at the end of the war (346). Theel says that the Taubner verdict survives as part of his personnel file, not as part as a series (346n13). He states that it "may have been an extreme exception" (346). The destruction of records contrasts with the Wehrmacht war crimes bureau that De Zayas studied. Neither courts had independent jurisdiction according to law (347).

The head of the court's legal office and judge in the Taubner case (The Good Old Days, 286), Günther Reinecke, testified at Nuremberg (note the link). Incidentally, it contains an interesting remark about Aktion Reinhard:

Aktion Reinhard was divided into four parts: (a) resettlement, (b) use of labor, (c) use of materials, (d) seizure of hidden values and real estate.

It's remarkable what happens when the defense springs to life. There were further investigations into Taubner in the 1950/60s and an appeal decision not to prosecute him in 1970. I would have found none of this out if I had not raised the initial doubt.

On the other hand, there is independent evidence of the verdict being given from the later pardon. I wonder what happened to Reinecke when the Taubner verdict was discovered?

Frankly, I was on the point of conceding the argument, but reading Reinecke's words in his Nuremberg testimony makes me uncertain again. Were both statements really given by the same man? I am out of energy for this and will return to your other points later. I suggest that you might read Reinecke's Nuremberg testimony (links above) as background.

 

[LemmyCaution]

They are responses, just not the ones you want.

I don't wish for any particular response except one that is direct and that answers the question.

. . . I suspect that it is genuine. I have some residual doubts for the following reasons: a) Wilhelm Staeglich and others have pointed out the general difficulty in accessing original documents on this subject;

Yet a number of scholars have accessed the original copy of this document and noted the archival location where it is kept. That Staeglich has difficulties with this is perhaps not a problem with the document itself. Did Staeglich have difficulty referencing this particular document? What original documents has he had trouble accessing? I myself have not read where scholars complain about such difficulties. This ground is unpersuasive.

b) parts of the document go against legal norms, particularly in countenancing extra-judicial killings.

Which legal norms? (see below)

Actually, this is the whole point, isn't it? Trying to agree the legal norms in force in the Third Reich. To use an assumption about the norms to decide their character is also far from persuasive. I've adduced other examples to illustrate the norms - that is an evidence-based, rather than assumption-based approach.

You must forgive me for not swallowing Reinecke's demurrals here whole when 1) they are at variance with a great deal of other evidence, including the implications of his cross-examination testimony, and 2) they are clearly intended to exculpate the SS and its leaders - he even makes curious statements like "no connection whatever existed" between the SS and the SD. Reinecke's testimony specifically contradicts what I've explained we know about Morgen's investigations. I've quoted at length from Morgen in a wartime opinion that flies in the face of Reinicke's testimony and is "in character" with the Täubner judgment. Morgen's other investigations, which I've also described, are similar. There's no anomaly or mystery here. On many points, Reinecke corroborated Morgen, but on some - as noted here - they diverged. Pelckmann's attempt to use Reinecke to somehow separate out the Waffen-SS from the SS apparatus and distance it from crimes committed in the East didn't go so well at Nuremberg, IIRC, and we now know that the Waffen-SS was party to the criminal actions in the occupied East, contra Reinicke's testimony.

This is out of character for someone with the legal training the judge in the case, Reinecke, describes in his Nuremberg testimony, which predated the NS era. In particular, the verdict is radically inconsistent with Reinecke's testimony at Nuremberg, when he is asked:

But Reinicke also gave the following reply when Biddle asked him later about murder in the camps:

"REINECKE: We discovered through our investigations that in the camps there was to some extent a regular system of killing which was in use.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And as a result of discovering that there was a regular system of killing you thought there must be an order to that effect, although you never found it, is that right?

REINECKE: Yes, Your Lordship. The fact that an order from above was in existence became known to us at the end of 1944."

Reinicke's struggles with the question he was asked about Höss were interesting, to say the least.

You really should read what Pauer-Studer and Velleman have to say about the legal approach and philosophy of the SS judges. Also, their discussion of Morgen's knowledge vs his testimonies.

e) it is clearly a significant document, others are accessible online, why not this;

If you have a suspicion, confirm it and tell us about it. Many documents related to the Holocaust and other historical topics are not online.

f) no material confirmation of the killings has been sought, despite approximate locations being given;

So what? The court said that the killings themselves were not of interest.

g) in principle, throwing up doubts tends to produce new documents that neither side in a debate has foreseen, increasing the documentary evidence under consideration and thus improving the chances of getting at the truth in the widest context. (Initially I was swayed by the indecisive discussion on CODOH, but we have now got beyond this.)

But you've failed to do any such thing with all these groundless doubts in this case. There are many documents and much research on the general issues you circle around that you're not familiar with and which would help clarify what you write.

With regard to g), it turns out that there is a history of the SS and Police Court in a chapter by Christopher Theel of the collection Nazi Ideology and Ethics (Ed. Bialas. Cambridge Scholars, 2014, 343). It emerges that Himmler decreed that the head of the SS court could not be a lawyer (344-45). This would help explain the neglect of legal norms in the Taubner verdict, but it seems to be contradicted by the Reinecke testimony (see below). Puzzling. The SS Court is said to have destroyed its records at the end of the war (346). Theel says that the Taubner verdict survives as part of his personnel file, not as part as a series (346n13). He states that it "may have been an extreme exception" (346). The destruction of records contrasts with the Wehrmacht war crimes bureau that De Zayas studied. Neither courts had independent jurisdiction according to law (347).

The Google Books link in your post leads me to pages not available, so I can't comment on them. I fail to see how inclusion of the judgment in Taübner's personnel file casts doubt on its authenticity - it rather tends to confirm it.

Pauer-Studer and Velleman (pp 18-19) address the backgrounds of SS judges. They were to be SS leaders, not "over-aged and senile" jurists (quoting the SS judiciary chief on this) and to exemplify SS spirit, not Wiemar "lawyerliness." Pauer-Studer and Velleman say that despite this ethos, most SS judges were legal professionals and had been so before the war. Reinicke testified in this vein at Nuremberg. Where you find a mystery and puzzlement, Pauer-Studer and Velleman find an easily grasped tension - between the law in which many of these men were trained and the SS approach which they were expected also to embody.

By the way, in your doubting, who do you think forged the judgment and why?

The head of the court's legal office and judge in the Taubner case (The Good Old Days, 286), Günther Reinecke, testified at Nuremberg (note the link). Incidentally, it contains an interesting remark about Aktion Reinhard:

Here Reinecke again diverges from Morgen, who was more forthcoming at the IMT and in other forums, within the framework which Jeffk and I have previously discussed.

It's remarkable what happens when the defense springs to life. There were further investigations into Taubner in the 1950/60s and an appeal decision not to prosecute him in 1970. I would have found none of this out if I had not raised the initial doubt.

But you could have. Without such a scattershot approach. Simple curiosity combined with your proceeding on the basis of evidence and scholarship would have sufficed. You could, for example, have read the article by Yehoshua R. Büchler, "'Unworthy Behavior' The Case of SS Officer Max Täubner, HGS, 17 (2003), which briefly discusses the postwar legal proceedings. (I haven't read it in eons and will re-read it in the next few days.)

Frankly, I was on the point of conceding the argument, but reading Reinecke's words in his Nuremberg testimony makes me uncertain again. Were both statements really given by the same man? I am out of energy for this and will return to your other points later. I suggest that you might read Reinecke's Nuremberg testimony (links above) as background.

I am well familiar with his testimony as well as with commentary on it - although it's been some time since I re-read it, true. Recall the context: Morgen ran into determined opposition from Pohl and others on account of his investigations, which took the "old" legal aspect rather too seriously for the SS; he requested a transfer in October 1944 - in writing to Reinecke; already the SS judiciary chief Breithaupt had requested Himmler suspend Morgen and that Morgen be under his close supervision; Himmler directed Morgen to take a vacation and that he was "not allowed to involve himself in juridical questions" at the time; and a strong counter-attack against Morgen led by Pohl took place when Koch finally went on trial. During this period, Morgen was investigating Eichmann, looking into Höss's activities, and bringing charges against Gräbner of the Gestapo regarding crimes at Auschwitz.

 

[EtienneSC]

This is a stop gap response to some points made above.

Post WW2 Ideology
I was too specific above in talking of the role of the holocaust immediately post-WW2. The Charter of the United Nations (first words, October 1945, i.e. before the IMT) only refers to "the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind".The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Preamble, December 1948, i.e. after the IMT) refers to "barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind", but neither refers specifically to the holocaust or indicates explicitly what is meant. My general point is that the radical right (defeated Germany, Italy,) was not represented among the sponsoring powers. International law thus leans towards egalitarianism more than it would if this were not the case.

Konrad Morgen
Morgen is obviously connected to Reinecke through their related roles in the SS and testimony at the IMT. I will look out Konrad Morgen: Conscience of a Nazi Judge, though this will take me some time. As I've hinted, money affects my priorities here as much as purely intellectual considerations.

Reinecke and the Taubner verdict - authenticity
I see that there is a brief biography of Reinecke here. He lived from 1908-72 and continued as a lawyer in Munich after the war. He was the author of a thesis on medieval law - unusual for someone with such a warped conscience. He was also brave enough to pursue Hitler's personal lawyer, Hans Frank, for corruption. The google link to Nazi Ideology and Ethics is here.

Reinecke's testimony on 6 August 1946, which I quoted above, is inconsistent with the existence of a general order to kill Jews in the East ("no question of that"), albeit one not given to Taubner. (The matter of the camps was discussed separately the next day.) However, it seems he changed his mind. Reinecke was investigated over the Taubner verdict on several occasions, being struck off as a lawyer in 1961, but then appealing (I'm not sure with what result - the free bit of the Theel book excludes page 361). His reported replies in Theel are inconsistent with his 1946 testimony as he seems to admit the authenticity of the verdict and attribute the words "The Jews have to be destroyed" (Theel's translation) to Himmler. (Theel also recommends the Büchner article you refer to, which I don't have access to.)

As for my admittedly unsubstantiated initial theory about the verdict, it is clear that Reinecke was a powerful witness for the defense, so there would be a clear motive for any interested party (the Ritchie boys, OSS) to attack his reputation. It is claimed that there was spoliation of evidence by the SS, who are said to have destroyed their court records. The other side could have responded by fabrication. The current state of evidence is that this did not happen and Reinecke lied under oath in 1946, going on to defend the verdict in 1961. Whether or how he explained his change of heart I do not know.

On the destruction of court records by the SS, it is normal to publish decisions in order to promulgate new legal norms. Is there no independent evidence of the SS court decisions other than post war testimony and the Taubner verdict that survived by chance in a personnel file?

Taubner verdict - content
On reflection, I think the natural meaning of the verdict is that Reinecke believed killing is authorized, i.e. included in the scope of vernichten in this case, given that actual killing is described. The precise legal scope of this order may be put in doubt, as it apparently does not exist in writing. As Reinecke was subject to investigation. his own opinion on what was meant and its scope may thus survive. If so, that would supersede our speculations. I do not exclude the possibility of plea bargaining or the like affecting his testimony in the 1960s.

It looks like I'm getting the worst of the argument here, right?

 

[LemmyCaution]

My general point is that the radical right (defeated Germany, Italy,) was not represented among the sponsoring powers. International law thus leans towards egalitarianism more than it would if this were not the case.

You think it would have been preferable for international law after WWII to have been shaped in part by its chief violator? I don't.

You do realize that a German state didn't exist immediately after the war - due to the apocalyptic, suicidal obstinacy of the Nazis which caused the utter demolition of the Third Reich as well as great harm to the German people ("There is no central Government or authority in Germany capable of accepting responsibility for the maintenance of order, the administration of the country and compliance with the requirements of the victorious Powers" - 5 June 1945 declaration of the Allies recognizing the situation). So in actuality you would have the Nazis making international law? You lament that the Nazis and the Fascists did not have a voice in making major decisions about international law after the war - do you also prefer that the Ustaše, Arrow Cross and other such parties had been part of this process? Are there are other criminal organizations you would have liked see join the process?

This backup position is rather strange: you now write about "international law" when previously you wrote specifically about the Holocaust as the "foundation moral" belief of the postwar period. Is your point that the moral underpinnings of international law required representation from genocidal and criminal parties? That's what it sounds like.

Morgen is obviously connected to Reinecke through their related roles in the SS and testimony at the IMT.

A bit more on this, for which you will not need Pauer-Studer & Velleman's book: You wrote:

In particular, the verdict is radically inconsistent with Reinecke's testimony at Nuremberg, when he is asked:

So if that reply is false, we have two lawyers (Morgen being the other) lying under oath at Nuremberg.

Indeed, it's likely that Reinicke and Morgen

- lied under oath (fanciful descriptions of the KL system and SS "morality"/ethos; also as Nick Terry pointed out IIRC false statements about the the Auschwitz guard contingent, see Długoborski & Piper, Auschwitz 1940-1945 vol 1, pp 300-337, e.g.)

- obfuscated and trimmed their testimony (confusing and less than forthcoming testimony about the SS and its relations to party and state authorities, a description of the Einsatzgruppen that omits the SD component), and/or

- didn't remember crucial points accurately (Morgen's Wirth testimony?, Monowitz extermination camp).

However, more to the point of the discussion, we also have Morgen testifying to the abnormal legal condition of the Reich, which prevented his filing charges, he claimed, in cases of murder of which he became aware:

HERR PELCKMANN: Thank you. Now, Witness, under normal circumstances what would you have had to do after you had learned of all these terrible things?

MORGEN: Under normal circumstances I would have had to have Kriminalkommissar Wirth and Commander Hoess arrested and charged with murder.

HERR PELCKMANN: Did you do that?

MORGEN: No.

HERR PELCKMANN: Why not?

MORGEN: The answer is already entailed in the question. The circumstances prevailing in Germany during the war were no longer normal in the sense of State legal guarantees. Besides, the following must be considered: I was not simply a judge, but I was a judge of military penal justice. No court-martial in the world could bring the Supreme Commander, let alone the head of the State, to court.

HERR PELCKMANN: Please do not discuss problems of law, but tell us why you did not do what you realized you should have done?

MORGEN: I beg your pardon; I was saying that it was not possible for me as Obersturmbannfuehrer to arrest Hitler, who, as I saw it, was the instigator of these orders.

That is precisely what we've been discussing: the legal situation in Germany before and during the war, both special law and special application of the law. The Täubner verdict is radically consistent with special law and the special ethos of the SS as described by Morgen here and what can be understood from the somewhat tortuous testimony of Morgen and Reinicke.

Reinecke and the Taubner verdict - authenticity . . . Reinecke's testimony on 6 August 1946, which I quoted above, is inconsistent with the existence of a general order to kill Jews in the East ("no question of that"), albeit one not given to Taubner. (The matter of the camps was discussed separately the next day.)

Although Reinecke testified on his second day, as we've seen, that he believed such an order was given. As noted above, there are many problems with Reinecke's (and Morgen's) testimony; taking isolated snippets out of context won't help you make sense of it.

However, it seems he changed his mind. Reinecke was investigated over the Taubner verdict on several occasions, being struck off as a lawyer in 1961, but then appealing (I'm not sure with what result - the free bit of the Theel book excludes page 361). His reported replies in Theel are inconsistent with his 1946 testimony as he seems to admit the authenticity of the verdict and attribute the words "The Jews have to be destroyed" (Theel's translation) to Himmler. (Theel also recommends the Büchner article you refer to, which I don't have access to.)

You're still not clear about your view of the authenticity of the verdict although you seem to be edging toward having to accept it but still not wanting it to be authentic. Generally, when multiple scholars cite a document, with an archival location, and as you note when also one of its author refers to it, unless there is a reason to doubt it, I don't see why you wouldn't accept it.

In Nazi Ideology and Ethics, edited by Wolfgang Bialas, Lothar Fritze, p 346, Theel’s essay references the destruction of records, giving two sources for the conclusion that “the SS judges . . . .were smarter than those in the Army, Nacy and Air Force and destroyed their files at the end of the war.”

Taubner verdict - content
On reflection, I think the natural meaning of the verdict is that Reinecke believed killing is authorized, i.e. included in the scope of vernichten in this case, given that actual killing is described.

Indeed.

The precise legal scope of this order may be put in doubt, as it apparently does not exist in writing. As Reinecke was subject to investigation.

Again, this judgment doesn't exist in isolation. I hate to have to say this, but, for example, Pauer-Studer & Velleman discuss wartime documents and postwar testimony to understand what Morgen, their subject, understood about murder in the KLs. There are also voluminous records of conditions and activities in the KLs, which show the IMT testimony to be dishonest, as well as evidence for the approved mass murder of the Jews. (Not going to list it here LOL but without taking into account such things as 14f13, the Final Solution, the murder of Red Army prisoners pursuant to a number of different orders, and widely practiced killings of troublesome and "useless" prisoners in the camps the IMT testimony isn't really understandable.)

It looks like I'm getting the worst of the argument here, right?

Sadly, I would say so. To be fair, you were dealt a weak hand.

I am working on something else these days but will re-read to the Büchner article soon.

 

[zooterkin]

My general point is that the radical right (defeated Germany, Italy,) was not represented among the sponsoring powers. International law thus leans towards egalitarianism more than it would if this were not the case.

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

It's akin to demanding that Dylann Roof be involved in revising murder law . . .