[Repeat to Fade]

On the other hand, it probably served as a useful learning experience for the regime. The Holocaust, unlike T4, would be a better kept secret which would make opposition unlikely.

But the point here is that it wasn't a secret. It was impossible to hide.

[Smilin' Dave]

Secrecy is a relative thing though. The relatives of the victims of T4 couldn't help but notice that people were going into German facilities and soon after being reported dead. The death camps on the other hand were located outside Germany. People knew there were camps in the east, they probably didn't have much idea of what was happening there though. The camp guards wouldn't have been keen to boast of their work after all. There was no expectation that the inmates would come back, so why would people notice they didn't come back? Slave labourers, who might be seen in Germany or at least heard of, might have actually served to dispell any questions people had about what happened in the East.

[Repeat to Fade]

The camp guards wouldn't have been keen to boast of their work after all.

Care to say why?

And there was word getting back, that is why the Jewish population lived in fear of the camps, it's why at the end of 1942 the allies knew and condemned the exterminations.

[Smilin' Dave]

Care to say why?

For a start, even your average soldier tends not to boast of killing people. Alcoholism and depression were widely reported amongst the guards. Few guards would have been absolute sadists, and even sadists know that their particular view isn't accepted by most. People they do boast to might be a closed circle, controlling the release of information.

And there was word getting back, that is why the Jewish population lived in fear of the camps, it's why at the end of 1942 the allies knew and condemned the exterminations.

Did they know specifically about the death camps though? People knew there were camps and that they were hellish places... but did they know about camps intended only for mass murder?

[Repeat to Fade]

For a start, even your average soldier tends not to boast of killing people.

Only when doing so is seen as being bad. Killing Jews wasn't as taboo back then as it is now.

Did they know specifically about the death camps though?

It would appear so.

People knew there were camps and that they were hellish places... but did they know about camps intended only for mass murder?

Even if they didn't, in fact even if the gas chambers didn't actually exist would not reduce the evil.

[Smilin' Dave]

Only when doing so is seen as being bad. Killing Jews wasn't as taboo back then as it is now.

I would like see evidence of this. Even Hitler never gave a public speech about killing the Jews, he was always quite vague on the topic. The majority are ordinary people, and ordinary people are naturally uncomfortable with murder.

It would appear so.

Did the Allies have any definite proof of death camps prior to Rudolf Vrba's report in 1944?

Even if they didn't, in fact even if the gas chambers didn't actually exist would not reduce the evil.

Irrelevant. People over look minor evils every day (who many people do you know who would turn a blind eye to police brutality?), it doesn't have any bearing on whether they really comprehended it or not.

[Repeat to Fade]

The majority are ordinary people, and ordinary people are naturally uncomfortable with murder.

Even after the war about a third of Germans were far from condemning the holocaust, in fact they still agreed with the idea.

They were classed as vermin that had to be removed.

Did the Allies have any definite proof of death camps prior to Rudolf Vrba's report in 1944?

They had enough survivors stories to form a decent picture, leading of course to the 1942 report.

it doesn't have any bearing on whether they really comprehended it or not.

Of course it does. Think of it this way. The Germans ignoring or supporting the holocaust was obviously bad. But would supporting extermination though labour or just slavery be any less so?

[Smilin' Dave]

Even after the war about a third of Germans were far from condemning the holocaust, in fact they still agreed with the idea.

Can I see the source for this?

They had enough survivors stories to form a decent picture, leading of course to the 1942 report.

I figure that you're referring to the Grojanowski report (the full text of which I've yet to find). But that report pre-dates reports of gas chambers, only the gas vans which were comparitively small scale. The other point that might be considered is how the report was disseminated, which might have delayed it somewhat. Given the Polish government-in-exile was on the outer by around 1943, the Allies might have had misgivings there too.
http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/micr ... 206317.pdf

To show how the source of information could impact on its reception:

The U.S. State Department also delayed publicizing reports of genocide. In August 1942, the State Department received a cable revealing Nazi plans for the murder of Europe's Jews. However, the report, sent by Gerhart Riegner (the World Jewish Congress [WJC] representative in Geneva) was not passed on to its intended recipient, American Jewish leader and WJC president Stephen Wise. The State Department asked Wise, who had almost simultaneously received the report via British channels, to refrain from announcing it.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10005182

Of course it does. Think of it this way. The Germans ignoring or supporting the holocaust was obviously bad. But would supporting extermination though labour or just slavery be any less so?

But the question in the OP isn't 'why did they ignore evil', but "How much did the Germans know?".

[Repeat to Fade]

Can I see the source for this?

Not online from what I can see though the figure is referred to in the book Postwar by Tony Judt.

I figure that you're referring to the Grojanowski report

The December 1942 condemnation of the extermination of the jews, not sure if that's the same thing.

[William_H_Dougherty]

Only when doing so is seen as being bad. Killing Jews wasn't as taboo back then as it is now.

Errr... Actually amongst the general population it would have been seen as a bad thing, that is why they had the pretense of relocation.

Even some (well, a paltry few) of the Nazi functionaries who attended Wannsee were uncomfortable with the idea, at least as far as we can tell. It seems that even amongst ardent Nazis there was a moral difference between turning people into slaves and murdering them.

I'll also note, that one of the defining features of a fascistic regime is that it operates above the law. The holocaust is a perfect example of this, there was never a law passed that repealed murder. While Jews had their citizenship stripped, the murder laws still technically applied to them.

Even outside the borders of the so-called Greater German State, one of the reasons they classified things like the Einsatzgruppen as anti-partisan groups was to hide what they were doing from the Army (they did a poor job considering the Army participated in several massacres), the domestic german authorities (which were initially not completely taken over by the SS until much later), and of course the general genman public.

Even if they didn't, in fact even if the gas chambers didn't actually exist would not reduce the evil.

That is a very important part, not knowing the exact details of the holocaust is not a defense for not taking action; even if all they knew was that their neighbours were being enslaved and worked to death (as happened in the general concentration camps), that is a big enough evil and the silence of the german people is shocking.

- WHD

[Repeat to Fade]

Errr... Actually amongst the general population it would have been seen as a bad thing

Hardly since years later a third of Germans would still agree with the idea.

The Jews were characterised as vermin worthy of extermination and so it happened.

They couldn't, didn't and didn't need to hide it. The fact that they didn't publicise it doesn't mean the population wasn't aware and in support of it, it also doesn't support the idea that it was in anyway secret.

that is a big enough evil and the silence of the german people is shocking.

Then why after the war did we seemingly absolve them of this guilt and allow the myth to be perpetuated that they were innocent unknowing bystanders?

[William_H_Dougherty]

Hardly since years later a third of Germans would still agree with the idea.

Seriosuly, what poll is this based on? 30% today?

They couldn't, didn't and didn't need to hide it. The fact that they didn't publicise it doesn't mean the population wasn't aware and in support of it, it also doesn't support the idea that it was in anyway secret.

I'm sorry, Repeat to Fade, but what you are saying just isn't accurate. The SS and SD definately wanted the specifics of the final solution kept secret. They even had had propaganda videos showing "model" concentration camps to dispell growing rumours by 1944.

To say that they didn't bother hiding the holocaust is inaccurate.

You make it sound like the Reich Chancellry issued a Press Release.

Then why after the war did we seemingly absolve them of this guilt and allow the myth to be perpetuated that they were innocent unknowing bystanders?

Well, there are two questions here; #1. to what extent do you hold an entire people responsible for the actions of their leadership class (even if we say everyone who voted for the Nazis knew about and supported for the holocaust, you are left with less than 50% of the voting and general population)? and #2. to what extent do you hold a country responsible for the actions of the generations that came before them?

Now, whatever you think of the above, I think neither really factored in. The Allies and Soviets (belatedly) decided to prop up a de-Nazified Germany, clearly emphasizing a difference between the average "German", the Nazis, and the military leadership in the very final stages of the war (March and April 1945). They both sought to destroy the military and political leadership, but win over the German public.

The real reason for this is that both Allies and Soviets by this point were becoming paranoid about each other and thought that very soon they'd be fighting a war. Germany became the frontline of this propaganda war, with the Allies being no different from the Nazis to the Soviets and the Soviets being no different from the Nazis to the Allies.

You win a war by winning people to your cause, absolving them of guilt and convincing them that they were oppressed and they are about to be again.

Really, if you want to see a much more obscene version of this, look at Italy. While Italy had a much more violent and widespread resistence to the fascists, the fact is that any history worth anything knows that Mussolini was extremely popular, and Italians looked the other way when he brutalized Libya and Ethiopia. IT was only when Allied bombers appeared overhead and the Italian miltiary machine (if it can even be called that) collapsed that his popularity started tanking.

Yet if you read Italian History these days, much more so in Italy, Mussolini's rise to power is portrayed as something opposed by the majority of Italians, who are portrayed as the ones to topple him. EVEN THOUGH it was the King of Italy and disgruntled fascists who toppled him because of the success of Commonwealth and later Allied troops in humiliating Italy's armies.

Now it doesn't take a genius to imagine why Italian politicians and the general population wanted this; they wanted to rewrite history so they were a) on the winning side and b) not responsible for precipitating the deaths of millions. The question is, why did we the allies allow them to get away with this? SIMPLE. Italy was, moreso than any other NATO member, on the verge of democratically becoming a Soviet State. So we were quite willing to look the other way when they started spouting this nonsense as long as the nonsense binded them to NATO as opposed to the Comintern.

- WHD

[Repeat to Fade]

Seriosuly, what poll is this based on? 30% today

The name and author of the book has already been given.

They even had had propaganda videos showing "model" concentration camps to dispell growing rumours by 1944.

To appease the red cross and a rather vain attempted to water down so called allied propaganda.

I'm going to guess you have a copy of Anne Frank's diary. Read Oct 1942.

To say that they didn't bother hiding the holocaust is inaccurate.

Which is why the built big camps near populated towns, used the public rail way system, massacred people in the street and disappeared millions? The Germans weren't blind, deaf or retarded like you imply, they knew fine well what was being done.



That scene was very close to the town of Bergen, less than an hours walk. And you expect us to believe they thought it was what exactly?

You make it sound like the Reich Chancellry issued a Press Release.

"If international-finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed once more in plunging the nations into yet another world war, the consequences will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation (vernichtung) of the Jewish race in Europe."

to what extent do you hold an entire people responsible for the actions of their leadership class

The leadership class? The plan required the input of far more than a few at the top.

(even if we say everyone who voted for the Nazis knew about and supported for the holocaust, you are left with less than 50% of the voting and general population)

That is a very poor way to judge it.

to what extent do you hold a country responsible for the actions of the generations that came before them?

I didn't say anything close to that. It would only be fair to seek the generation so obviously responsible.

[cicero91]

no one of the germans had access to those camps, so they did not come up with the idea tu suppose there camps for extermination...

[Repeat to Fade]

so they did not come up with the idea tu suppose there camps for extermination...

What do you imagine they thought they were there for? With the stench of rotting and charring flesh surrounding the area, the piles of bodies, the trains being fully laden in but not outbound I doubt it had the appearance of a holiday camp.

That's forgetting that Hitler himself stated this was an aim, required alot of man power to achieve and was know about by even more. Even if you never saw the inside of a camp it was hard not understand what it was there for.

[William_H_Dougherty]

That's forgetting that Hitler himself stated this was an aim, required alot of man power to achieve and was know about by even more. Even if you never saw the inside of a camp it was hard not understand what it was there for.

I'm not sure you are thinking about this rationally.

Regardless, there is a whole host of academic research on this issue, much of it led by former German Jews hell bent on understanding why "otherwise" good people looked the other way when they were victimized.

The end result of this is:

#1. People can perform amazing mental gynastics and forget information that is far too threatening to their self conceptualization.
#2. People can even help the State victimize people if they led to believe that some higher authority is responsible for it.
#3. If the actual perpetrators of said crimes do so in such a way that no one person is responsible, rather a collection of people who only see small parts of the whole.

I don't buy your argument because I am aware of the trouble to which the SS and SD went to take advantage of the above. There is a reason they invented the gas chamber and it is not to do entirely with efficiency. The first crack at it, the Einsatzgruppen raised too many moral questions amongst the criminals (I won't call them soldiers) who carried out the crimes and it left a bloody trail that the military would find out about and complain to the OKW and Reich Chancellry about.

The whole reason they didn't just shoot 6 million people in the back of the head was because even the psychopaths in the SS and SD couldn't shoot women and children again and again with getting "demoralized" and that the nazi leadership feared too many people, especially in the army, which was not yet entirely nazified, where finding out about it.

So in essense, sorry, secrecy was blatantly part of the modus operandi of the SS, SD, and Gestapo.

- WHD

[Repeat to Fade]

Your 3 reasons don't absolve them of any blame at all.

There is a reason they invented the gas chamber and it is not to do entirely with efficiency

Not entirely? So you're willing to admit it had alot to do with it?

who carried out the crimes and it left a bloody trail that the military would find out about

Like they weren't involved in the wholesale massacre of Jews anyway?

The whole reason they didn't just shoot 6 million people in the back of the head

Not because it was a waste of bullets and a rather clumsy and inefficient way to carry out genocide?

even the psychopaths in the SS and SD couldn't shoot women and children again and again with getting "demoralized"

But were apparently okay with massacring them in ghettos, starving, working to death and gassing the rest?

where finding out about it.

The Brits knew, the Dutch knew, even Anne Frank holed up in an attic know of it. That was a secret?

[William_H_Dougherty]

Your 3 reasons don't absolve them of any blame at all.

I'm not sure you are being rational. When did I say anybody should be absolved of blame? I think you are having a different conversation with me than I am having with you.

Not entirely? So you're willing to admit it had alot to do with it?

That would be what my statement implied.

Like they weren't involved in the wholesale massacre of Jews anyway?

You've completely missed the point. The military was MOST responsible for the early stages of the holocaust, when the SS and SD tried to get units of the military to assist with the "anti-partisan" campaign of the Einsatzgruppen.

Some units participated without comment, others had major reservations. Regardless, the Officer Corps (not fully nazified at this point) found out about it and many high ranking German Generals were appalled, including the most powerful military commander in occupied poland in 1939, General Johannes Blaskowitz, who was dismissed when he complained directly to the OKW and tried to set up Court Martials of soldiers who had murdered.

How did the architects of the final solution respond? The took away Poland from the military (set up a "civilian" government under Hans Frank) and invested the eventual final solution with the SS, which was a very secretive organization that civilians and the military only hesitantly critiqued because usually they ended up in a concentration camp if they did.

But were apparently okay with massacring them in ghettos, starving, working to death and gassing the rest?

Yes. The point you are missing is that the soldier who shoots someone, even a "hated enemy", feels responsible for that death. The evilness of the holocaust was setting up a system whereby most of the people who could have done something about it didn't feel they were responsible for it.

The Brits knew, the Dutch knew, even Anne Frank holed up in an attic know of it. That was a secret?

Anne Frank knew about the death camps. It has been a while since I read Anne Frank. Please point to the chapter where she talks about gas chambers.

- WHD

[Repeat to Fade]

Anne Frank knew about the death camps. It has been a while since I read Anne Frank. Please point to the chapter where she talks about gas chambers.

In October 1942 she talks of BBC radio reporting of exterminations through gas and remarks it would be a gentle way to go.

The point you are missing is that the soldier who shoots someone, even a "hated enemy", feels responsible for that death.

Yet the massacred hundreds of thousands on the streets.

[William_H_Dougherty]

In October 1942 she talks of BBC radio reporting of exterminations through gas and remarks it would be a gentle way to go.

That is an answer to my question, thank you. That could be referring to the Einsatzgruppen's mobile gas vans, but lets say that is information leaked from the death camps.

NOW. Your logical inference here is that the average German Citizen, who could be tried for treason and sent to said camps for listen to foreign radio stations, knows of this aswell?

I don't think you quite understand the level of paranoia the Nazi Regime created amongst the citizenry. People were afraid that that if they mentioned anything anti-State their friends, neighbours, and children could report them to the Gestapo.

So even if you are one of the few germans listening to allied radio broadcasts, you have to wonder if they considered it accurate or propaganda, and if they did consider it accurate, don't assume they went around spreading this information to all that would lend an ear.

Yet the massacred hundreds of thousands on the streets.

Your understanding is not in keeping with record, and the decades of sociologic and social psychologic research on the matter, much of which was conducted by survivors of the holocaust or their offspring.

There is no further point to this conversation as the only disagreement we are having is the degree to which Germans knew about the extermination program and the degree to which the Nazi authorities attempted to hide these atrocities from the German general public.

We actually have no difference of opinion on the guilt of the average german citizen. Failing to do anything when your neighbours are enslaved and brutalized is sufficient enough for a condemnation.

- WHD