Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[KDLarsen]

In fact, this article is rated just above Stub, the lowest quality rating on Wiki's scale. It is a Start-Class article, which means:
It also lacks references, according to Wiki guidelines. I had recommended an entire page in a scholar's book (Friedlander) but did see the merit of having Clayton and Dogzilla take baby steps with Wiki, as I thought that the Friedlander might be over their depth. Notice too how Wiki suspiciously calls for the clean-up in a deceptive manner, opening it to all readers and publicly announcing it.

Even better, look at the Talk page for the article, which explains why the article was given that label in the first place. One of the comments points out that the German wikipedia is more accurate, and a quick scan also shows that it has a heck of a lot more citations.

 

[tsig]

First of all, you are the one who keeps using the d-word. If you want to convince people that Nazi Germany had a policy of exterminating all the Jews, you need evidence of that. Not evidence that they were deported.

If you want to ask "where did they all go?" and you want an answer more substantial than "they went the same place the two and half million Auschwitz victims went in 1989" you need to provide evidence they were there to start with. Team holocaust has failed completely in providing an accounting of the Jews in Europe before the war and after the war. How did the Hungarian government define "Jew" for census purposes? How did Poland define "Jew?" How about Russia? When did they conduct the last census of Jewish population before the war? Who conducted it and what was its purpose? Anybody who says there were eleven million Jews in Europe because that's what my Nazi heroes said at Wannsee gets an automatic fail.

Then there's the problem of estimating Jewish population in Europe after the war. Nick tells us that he doesn't know nor does he care when Westerners were first able to inspect Auschwitz. According to Nick, whatever was done by way of museum representations under communism and any ridiculous death toll estimates promoted by the Soviets is relevant only to a dead era. Is it safe for me to assume that none of you know or care when the first independent census of the Jewish population was conducted for the parts of Europe that ended up under Soviet control? So we can assume that any census of the Jewish population conducted by a post war communist government is only relevant to a dead era as well, right? So how do you know how many Jews there were in the Eastern bloc after the war?

See, you simply don't have any meaningful population statistics upon which you can estimate Jewish population losses. So for the moronic "where did they go?" gambit to have any relevance you need to provide an one-to-one accounting of the Jewish population showing us where the Jews who survived went so we know who is missing and who isn't.

I see you've got all the goalpost moves mapped out and if anyone met those ridiculous requirements I'm sure you could make up more as needed.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I see you've got all the goalpost moves mapped out and if anyone met those ridiculous requirements I'm sure you could make up more as needed.

@ Dogzilla,

See, readers are onto how you are dodging specific questions.

To help you understand further why asking where Jews ended up, if 5+ million of them were not killed - and why you really do need to have an answer for this if you are going to wave around ethnic cleansing, resettlement, and removed from Europe - here are some very simple questions that you should try answering for yourself:

- do you seriously doubt that the Jewish population of Warsaw ghetto was about 450,000 as of February 1940?

- do you seriously doubt that the Jewish population of Lodz ghetto was about 160,000 in June 1940?

- do you seriously doubt that the Jewish population of Greater Germany was over 300,000 in May 1939?

- do you know where these figures come from?

- do you know who controlled all these places as of 1939 and 1940 and after?

- can you add in order to see that just among Germany + Lodz + Warsaw + Vilna (from previous posts) we can account for close to 1 million Jews in 1939-1940, before Barbarossa? if you don't like this snapshot, do you want to do the same exercise for June 1941? another time?

(As a reference to give you a sense of the scale we know about from just these 4 places - consider that if every one of the Jews from these places had perished, they would make up nearly 1/5 of the Jewish victims who died in the Holocaust. Note that I haven't bothered to add in Kiev and Riga, to push us above 1 million. These simple questions, in other words, lead you to a large number of Europe's Jews, with good certainty of where they were and none of your faffing about.)

You know by now that if you say you doubt these numbers that I will ask you on what basis you doubt them, other than incredulity - or irrelevant claptrap about European demographics, which you don't really understand . . .

 

[Nick Terry]

First of all, you are the one who keeps using the d-word. If you want to convince people that Nazi Germany had a policy of exterminating all the Jews, you need evidence of that. Not evidence that they were deported.

If you want to ask "where did they all go?" and you want an answer more substantial than "they went the same place the two and half million Auschwitz victims went in 1989" you need to provide evidence they were there to start with. Team holocaust has failed completely in providing an accounting of the Jews in Europe before the war and after the war. How did the Hungarian government define "Jew" for census purposes? How did Poland define "Jew?" How about Russia? When did they conduct the last census of Jewish population before the war? Who conducted it and what was its purpose? Anybody who says there were eleven million Jews in Europe because that's what my Nazi heroes said at Wannsee gets an automatic fail.

Then there's the problem of estimating Jewish population in Europe after the war. Nick tells us that he doesn't know nor does he care when Westerners were first able to inspect Auschwitz. According to Nick, whatever was done by way of museum representations under communism and any ridiculous death toll estimates promoted by the Soviets is relevant only to a dead era. Is it safe for me to assume that none of you know or care when the first independent census of the Jewish population was conducted for the parts of Europe that ended up under Soviet control? So we can assume that any census of the Jewish population conducted by a post war communist government is only relevant to a dead era as well, right? So how do you know how many Jews there were in the Eastern bloc after the war?

See, you simply don't have any meaningful population statistics upon which you can estimate Jewish population losses. So for the moronic "where did they go?" gambit to have any relevance you need to provide an one-to-one accounting of the Jewish population showing us where the Jews who survived went so we know who is missing and who isn't.

I'm afraid you are once again, comparing apples and oranges. Asking 'where did they go' is asking about the destination of documented deportation transports sent to specific sites which all other evidence indicates were extermination camps. You're conflating this with demographics, which is an entirely different matter. You're also muddling up explaining the postwar situation with tracking the whereabouts of deported Jews in 1942-45.

Thus, for example, we have plentiful sources to indicate that there was a sizeable ghetto in Warsaw from 1939-43. We have records of the Judenrat as well as reports written by the German commissar for the ghetto, Auerswald. These document the ghetto's population rather thoroughly. They count the number who died from starvation month by month - both in Judenrat reports and in reports from Auerswald, and also note additions to the ghetto since in 1941-early 1942, quite a large number of smaller communities in the surrounding region were herded into the ghetto. There is also further confirmation in the monthly reports of the district governor, Ludwig Fischer, which include discussion of the ghetto on an ongoing basis. Thus, there is absolutely no doubt that a large number of Jews died in the ghetto, nor any doubt that there were enough to be deported in the Great Deportation of the summer of 1942, which began on July 22, 1942.

That deportation was documented by the Germans themselves as well as by the Judenrat, with the latter counting how many were deported each day, and this indicates that 250,000 were deported from July to September 1942 while 11,000 were transferred to labour camps. The deportation destination is known to be Treblinka from correspondence between Ganzenmueller and Wolff, and from railway schedules.

We also can confirm this from the Hoefle telegram, which documents 713,555 Jews deported to Treblinka in 1942, a number more than large enough to accomodate the 250,000 from Warsaw. The Hoefle telegram is in turn confirmed by the Korherr report, which uses the headline figure of 1.274 million which appears in the Hoefle telegram.

Asking deniers where did they go is asking what happened to the quarter of a million Jews of the Warsaw ghetto who were demonstrably deported to Treblinka in the summer of 1942.

Among many other questions, of course, since we can also ask what happened to the 1.274 million Jews recorded as deported in the Hoefle telegram or what happened to the Jews documented as deported to Auschwitz from 1942-44 who were not registered at Auschwitz. We can further ask what happened to the 152,000 Jews of the Lodz ghetto and the Warthegau who were demonstrably deported to Chelmno in 1942. There are still more we could ask, but those are some of the main ones.

Conventional history can answer all those questions. You, however, evidently cannot.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Asking deniers where did they go is asking what happened to the quarter of a million Jews of the Warsaw ghetto who were demonstrably deported to Treblinka in the summer of 1942.

Among many other questions, of course, since we can also ask what happened to the 1.274 million Jews recorded as deported in the Hoefle telegram or what happened to the Jews documented as deported to Auschwitz from 1942-44 who were not registered at Auschwitz. We can further ask what happened to the 152,000 Jews of the Lodz ghetto and the Warthegau who were demonstrably deported to Chelmno in 1942. There are still more we could ask, but those are some of the main ones.

Conventional history can answer all those questions. You, however, evidently cannot.

Exactly. And if we throw in Vilna and Kiev (where deportation isn't even an issue) and Riga (where deportation worked differently to the way it worked in Warsaw and Lodz), we are right back where we started and where Dogzilla began jumping around and dodging.

With all due respect to Dogzilla's attempt to muddy the waters, with the cases we've mentioned we have the information we need to re-construct where the Jews from these places went - using specific documents like transport records, witness accounts, German reports.

But I am growing weary of saying all this over and over and am about ready to cry out, "Just answer the question!"

 

[Rincewind]

First of all, you are the one who keeps using the d-word. If you want to convince people that Nazi Germany had a policy of exterminating all the Jews, you need evidence of that. Not evidence that they were deported.

Really, Dogzilla?

This is the best you've got?

One of the things I've learnt here is that history tells us that the nazis deported Jews in order to exterminate them.

See - it's so easy to understand....

 

[Dogzilla]

The thing is, Dogzilla, that the Americans really did exterminate Japanese troops in battle. About 1 in 100 Japanese soldiers survived the battle of Iwo Jima. Virtually no quarter was given. This is well known.

Pretty much every example you cite above relates to military men talking of exterminating Japanese forces on the battlefield. The German military used the same language from the 19th Century onwards, because it routinely spoke of 'annihilating' enemy forces.

The difference is you won't find very many statements from US politicians talking of exterminating the Japanese people.

Do pawns of US politicians count? Because we have Winston Churchill musing over the need for an 'absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland.' It's not as good as the governor of the Alaska territory saying it's just a matter when we exterminate the Japanese, but talk about an exterminating attack on the Nazi homeland isn't an urgent call to help the Germans with their cockroach problem.

How many statements do you have from German politicians, as opposed to German military leaders, talking about exterminating the Jewish people?

You also won't find anything as blunt as Himmler speaking at Sonthofen:[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]

It was necessary to resolve another big question. It was the most horrible task and the most awful assignment that any organization could receive: the solution of the Jewish question. I want to say a few words on the matter to this group with complete candor. It's good that we had the hardness to exterminate the Jews in our territory. Don't ask yourselves how difficult it would have been to carry out such an order, even though, as soldiers, I might say you would understand. But thinking critically as German soldiers, you can see that the order was essential. Because we wouldn't have been able to withstand the aerial bombing if we had had the Jews in our cities. I am also convinced we would not have been able to hold the Lemberg front of the Generalgouvernement if the big ghettos in Lemberg, Krakau, Lublin, and Warsaw had still been there. We cleaned out the last one, the big ghetto in Warsaw, in summer 1943. In Warsaw there were 500,000 Jews. I tell you this number confidentially. It took us five weeks of street fighting. Just the same, I want to answer a little question that surely you must have. The question is, of course you had to kill the adult Jews, I understand that, but how could you do the same to the women and children? So I have to tell you something: The children will be grown one day. Do we want to be so improper that we say, no, no, we're too weak to kill children. Our children can deal with them. Our children will fight that one out. But the Jewish hate, small today, will be big tomorrow, and the grown avengers will attack our children and grandchildren, who will then have to deal with them. I am convinced that this will be the case even if Adolf Hitler does not survive. No, we cannot shirk our responsibility to kill all the Jews. That would have been cowardly and therefore we adopted a clear solution to the problem, as difficult as it was.

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Bradley F. Smith and Agnes F. Peterson (eds), Heinrich Himmler. Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945. Frankfurt am Main, 1974, p.203.

Motivating civilized men to kill other human beings is not easy. But it is necessary if civilized men are going to be effective soldiers. Men who grew up learning "Thou Shall Not Kill" need to be reprogrammed to believe that thou shall not kill does not apply to the people they need to kill. Dehumanizing the enemy is necessary to accomplish this. It's an ugly side of war that most people don't like to think about. Here we have Heinrich Himmler talking to fellow soldiers about unpalatable activities necessary in the context of ongoing military operations. He's aware of and acknowledging the psychological strain inherent in these operations and he's trying to maintain morale. The fact that this is how the Nazis dealt with this type of task seventy years ago shows a level of compassion and humanity that some modern armies still have not reached yet.

Hank wasn't talking to civil servants from a non-mililtary branch of government about the civilian extermination program. He was talking to soldiers about need to kill enemies who were responsible for sabotage behind German lines. Unfortunately, the Jews were enemies of the Nazi state. If you were familiar with the Nazi government policy toward the Jews, you would be able to grasp this. Persecution of the Jews started almost immediately after the Nazi seizure of power with the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service in April 1933, which excluded Jewish and "politically unreliable" civil servants from being employed by the state. It continued with the Nuremberg laws in 1935, "aryanization" of Jewish property, etc., etc., etc. Nazi Germany made life increasingly impossible for Jews from 1933 onwards. By the time the war started in 1939 there wasn't a Jew in Europe who welcomed a Nazi occupation. The fact that Jews became enemies of the Third Reich for no other reason than because of the way they were treated by the Third Reich doesn't change the fact that when the Germans invaded eastern Europe, the Jews were their enemies.

Your failure to understand this concept and inability to place something like a pep talk to soldiers in the proper context is, well, a failure.

If you can find us a statement which discusses the killing of Japanese children retrospectively, as something that has happened, then and only then can you have your analogy.

If you can find an example of the Japanese completely disregarding conventional rules of war and civilized society by using women and children as combatants in a barbaric guerrilla warfare operation conducted behind American lines the way the partisans operated behind German lines, then and only then will you have a shot at analogy. If the Americans didn't kill women and children intentionally it's because they didn't need to kill them. Unfortunately the Germans didn't have that luxury.

 

[dafydd]

Really, Dogzilla?

This is the best you've got?

One of the things I've learnt here is that history tells us that the nazis deported Jews in order to exterminate them.

See - it's so easy to understand....

A brain dead mollusc could understand it.

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
... not a one of which documents the Jews as ever having been "evacuated" anywhere after the death camps...


.[/QUOTE]

Which means the so called arrival numbers were inflated. The Jewish people left Europe while the getting was good. And they wouldn't have left a forwarding address.

Which is why the catch/cover all "they were never processed into the camps" was used.


Read my lips. Aside from the liberation there was no after the work/concentration camps.

 

[A'isha]

If you can find an example of the Japanese completely disregarding conventional rules of war and civilized society by using women and children as combatants in a barbaric guerrilla warfare operation conducted behind American lines the way the partisans operated behind German lines, then and only then will you have a shot at analogy. If the Americans didn't kill women and children intentionally it's because they didn't need to kill them. Unfortunately the Germans didn't have that luxury.

In other words, just like tsig said, "The Deniers premise is 'there was no holocaust and the evil, rotten Jews deserved it anyway'."

Read my lips. Aside from the liberation there was no after the work/concentration camps.

I guess technically that's true, since they were murdered in those "work/concentration" camps, and never lived to see an "after".

 

[uke2se]

The Jewish people left Europe while the getting was good. And they wouldn't have left a forwarding address.

Evidence? Find a single Jewish individual that is listed as a holocaust victim but really left Europe.

Otherwise you got nothing.

As per usual.

 

[Pacal]

Do pawns of US politicians count? Because we have Winston Churchill musing over the need for an 'absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland.' It's not as good as the governor of the Alaska territory saying it's just a matter when we exterminate the Japanese, but talk about an exterminating attack on the Nazi homeland isn't an urgent call to help the Germans with their cockroach problem.

How many statements do you have from German politicians, as opposed to German military leaders, talking about exterminating the Jewish people?

Himmler was also a politician and the meeting also had non military people at it.

Motivating civilized men to kill other human beings is not easy. But it is necessary if civilized men are going to be effective soldiers. Men who grew up learning "Thou Shall Not Kill" need to be reprogrammed to believe that thou shall not kill does not apply to the people they need to kill. Dehumanizing the enemy is necessary to accomplish this. It's an ugly side of war that most people don't like to think about. Here we have Heinrich Himmler talking to fellow soldiers about unpalatable activities necessary in the context of ongoing military operations. He's aware of and acknowledging the psychological strain inherent in these operations and he's trying to maintain morale. The fact that this is how the Nazis dealt with this type of task seventy years ago shows a level of compassion and humanity that some modern armies still have not reached yet.

Talk about an utterly absurd interpretation. It is nice to know that Himmler organizer of a bestial concentration camp system and brutal slave labour had a high level of compassion and humanity. (CRAP)

Hank wasn't talking to civil servants from a non-mililtary branch of government about the civilian extermination program. He was talking to soldiers about need to kill enemies who were responsible for sabotage behind German lines. Unfortunately, the Jews were enemies of the Nazi state. If you were familiar with the Nazi government policy toward the Jews, you would be able to grasp this. Persecution of the Jews started almost immediately after the Nazi seizure of power with the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service in April 1933, which excluded Jewish and "politically unreliable" civil servants from being employed by the state. It continued with the Nuremberg laws in 1935, "aryanization" of Jewish property, etc., etc., etc. Nazi Germany made life increasingly impossible for Jews from 1933 onwards. By the time the war started in 1939 there wasn't a Jew in Europe who welcomed a Nazi occupation. The fact that Jews became enemies of the Third Reich for no other reason than because of the way they were treated by the Third Reich doesn't change the fact that when the Germans invaded eastern Europe, the Jews were their enemies.

Your failure to understand this concept and inability to place something like a pep talk to soldiers in the proper context is, well, a failure.

Ah so every Jew was a partisan and fighter, including the old, sick, and very young. Oh and what about the Poles, the Russians etc, every last one of them was an enemy? This justifies excuses locking civilians up in Ghetto's etc? Your inability to discuss the obvious plain meaning of Himmler's words is hilarious, along with conjuring up absurd "explaination".

THe similarity of your opinion with Nazi paranoia about Jews is noted.

If you can find an example of the Japanese completely disregarding conventional rules of war and civilized society by using women and children as combatants in a barbaric guerrilla warfare operation conducted behind American lines the way the partisans operated behind German lines, then and only then will you have a shot at analogy. If the Americans didn't kill women and children intentionally it's because they didn't need to kill them. Unfortunately the Germans didn't have that luxury.

We could talk about the Japanese "Three Alls" campaigns. You know the ones that were "Loot All, Burn All, Kill All", which resulted in the deaths of millions of Chinese civiliians. Which is certainly barbaric.

As for the rest I see you've read the moaning of the German memoir literature, which constantly whines about Partisan atrocities. I suppose it should be mentioned that many of the German anti-Partisan operations were little better than mass murder expeditions in which thousands of civilians were slaughtered under the cloak of anti-partisan operations.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Talk about an utterly absurd interpretation. It is nice to know that Himmler organizer of a bestial concentration camp system and brutal slave labour had a high level of compassion and humanity. (CRAP)


/QUOTE]

Once again the image of the treatment of Babylonian/Egyptian/Roman movie quarry slaves is superimposed over reality by Team Holocaust.
Brutality against workers and quality production to support a war effort ain't never going to happen.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Motivating civilized men to kill other human beings is not easy. . . . Here we have Heinrich Himmler talking to fellow soldiers about unpalatable activities necessary in the context of ongoing military operations. . . . Your failure to understand this concept and inability to place something like a pep talk to soldiers in the proper context is, well, a failure.

Your delightful dreamworld collapses with the simple, twin realizations that Himmler gave this speech, not to soldiers but to generals, in June 1944 and that the past tenses are used to indicate that which has already been done not that which will or should be done:

"It was necessary to resolve another big question. It was the most horrible task and the most awful assignment that any organization could receive: the solution of the Jewish question. I want to say a few words on the matter to this group with complete candor. It's good that we had the hardness to exterminate the Jews in our territory. Don't ask yourselves how difficult it would have been to carry out such an order, even though, as soldiers, I might say you would understand. But thinking critically as German soldiers, you can see that the order was essential. Because we wouldn't have been able to withstand the aerial bombing if we had had the Jews in our cities. I am also convinced we would not have been able to hold the Lemberg front of the Generalgouvernement if the big ghettos in Lemberg, Krakau, Lublin, and Warsaw had still been there. We cleaned out the last one, the big ghetto in Warsaw, in summer 1943. In Warsaw there were 500,000 Jews. I tell you this number confidentially. It took us five weeks of street fighting. Just the same, I want to answer a little question that surely you must have. The question is, of course you had to kill the adult Jews, I understand that, but how could you do the same to the women and children? So I have to tell you something: The children will be grown one day. Do we want to be so improper that we say, no, no, we're too weak to kill children. Our children can deal with them. Our children will fight that one out. But the Jewish hate, small today, will be big tomorrow, and the grown avengers will attack our children and grandchildren, who will then have to deal with them. I am convinced that this will be the case even if Adolf Hitler does not survive. No, we cannot shirk our responsibility to kill all the Jews. That would have been cowardly and therefore we adopted a clear solution to the problem, as difficult as it was."

 

[LemmyCaution]

He was talking to soldiers about need to kill enemies who were responsible for sabotage behind German lines. Unfortunately, the Jews were enemies of the Nazi state. If you were familiar with the Nazi government policy toward the Jews, you would be able to grasp this. Persecution of the Jews started almost immediately after the Nazi seizure of power with the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service in April 1933. . . .

What in the world does the anti-Jewish legislation and persecution of the German Jews in 1933 have to do - other than in an antisemitic fantasy world - with the imaginary Jew sabotaging the German war effort in the east in 1944? I will grant you that the Germans were killing Jews because they believed many untrue things about them. I am not sure what your making this point has to do with the argument you usually make that the killings did not occur.

 

[Nick Terry]

Brutality against workers and quality production to support a war effort ain't never going to happen.

Clayton, approximately how many pieces of evidence would it take to make you realise you are howlingly wrong about this? Or is evidence entirely optional when you make crap up?

 

[Dogzilla]

So essentially Dogzilla is admitting the Germans were engaged in an existential war of extermination against their own unarmed citizens - of Jewish blood?

Got it.

You should read up on the history you pretend to have read. Jews weren't citizens by the time they were being holocausted. And it was hardly an existential war of extermination what with the special classes of Jews who were exempt from extermination.

 

[A'isha]

You should read up on the history you pretend to have read. Jews weren't citizens by the time they were being holocausted. And it was hardly an existential war of extermination what with the special classes of Jews who were exempt from extermination.

You know, as arguments against the historicity of the Holocaust go, this is probably among the dumbest I've ever seen.

 

[Dogzilla]

In fact, this article is rated just above Stub, the lowest quality rating on Wiki's scale. It is a Start-Class article, which means:
It also lacks references, according to Wiki guidelines. I had recommended an entire page in a scholar's book (Friedlander) but did see the merit of having Clayton and Dogzilla take baby steps with Wiki, as I thought that the Friedlander might be over their depth. Notice too how Wiki suspiciously calls for the clean-up in a deceptive manner, opening it to all readers and publicly announcing it.

It's hard to believe Nick would have recommended it. I guess he didn't actually read it beforehand.

 

[Nick Terry]

How many statements do you have from German politicians, as opposed to German military leaders, talking about exterminating the Jewish people?

Since the rest of your post has been utterly decimated by everyone else, I get the scraps.

Actually I have rather a lot of statements from Nazi politicians (I see you're reverting back to conflating 'German' and 'Nazi', btw. It's an obnoxious habit you should lose). Before you ask, the definition of a Nazi politician would be:

1) the Fuehrer, plus the Reichsleiter and Gauleiter = about 70 top Nazis
2) members of the Reichstag, who often took executive jobs in the occupied territories or were SS generals
3) other district leaders and department heads in the civil administrations

Counting just the top Nazis, I would say that some Nazi leader or other is recorded as talking about the extermination of the Jews on average at least once a week through 1941-3, when the bulk of the killing happened. That would include for certain Hitler, Goebbels, Hans Frank, Rosenberg, Himmler, Ley, Streicher, Ribbentrop, as well as less well known figures like Gauleiter Alfred Meyer (Rosenberg's deputy in the Eastern Ministry). If one includes former Gauleiter, then Erich Kube obliged with quite a few more such remarks, but he would also count towards (2), since he remained an MdR. At least a third of the remarks were made in public, the rest behind closed doors or in their diaries.

These remarks are, of course, written up in the history books, so I refer you to those. Peter Longerich dealt with a number in his expert report for the Irving trial; he dealt with more in Davon haben wir nichts gewusst, as did Bernward Doerner in Die Deutschen und der Holocaust. The standard works on Nazi policy by Longerich and Browning contain a bunch more, other historians have found others. It's not like anyone needs to collate 150 statements by top Nazis talking about the extermination of the Jews. Most people get the point after far fewer. You, however, don't seem to have got the point.

So it's probably more interesting to see how many remarks about exterminating the Jews from top Nazi politicians you know about. I'm talking here of remarks that are conventionally understood as talking about the extermination of the Jews. You know, like the Posen speech.

Because it's your job, if you're to sustain your argument, to explain away every single such statement, while avoiding cherrypicking, quote-mining, selective citation or the fallacy of hasty generalisation. Anything less, and your argument will fail. Since you're probably about to start bloviating again on this subject, it would also behove you to remember that asserting opinions without checking the evidence is frowned upon in polite circles. I appreciate this is a tactic widely used by your even more clueless brethren, but deep down you know it won't wash.