The debate on the origins of the "Holocaust" centres on essentially two questions:
Was there a master plan on the part of The Führer to launch the "Holocaust"? Intentionalists argue there was such a plan, while functionalists argue there was not. Did the initiative for the "Holocaust" come from above with orders from Adolf Hitler or from below within the ranks of the German bureaucracy? Intentionalists argue the initiative came from above, while functionalists contend it came from lower ranks within the bureaucracy.
What do you think?
Disclaimer: I do not believe in the (((mainstream))) so called "Holocaust" narrative. When referring to "Holocaust" here I mean the internment and forced labor programs for kikes in the Third Reich. Additionally I believe we can all agree that excesses were taken in some cases by individual guards or officers. The question is was the Führer aware of this? Did he order it or was it simply a product of the concept of "working towards the Führer" prevalent in the Third Reich where in Hitler didn't always give express orders and therefore left it up to others to figure out the specifics of how to reach his overall goals or wishes.
Yes hitler had them in the camps during the war because he was planning to deport them to madagascar.
True but the Madagascar plan was pretty well abandoned after the Battle.of Britain as the British merchant fleet was going to he seized and used to perform the evacuations to Madagascar
It wasn't necessarily abandoned, it was going to happen right after the war if the nsdap were to have won.
Well effectively abandoned I supposed I should say for all practical purposes. But yes I do believe they would have carried it out had the Reich been victorious in Europe.
If you dig a bit deeper you will notice many of the prominent intentionalists are (((them)))
While making up a bs story on how they exterminated by attack dogs and hollocoasters.
Just compare British camps in the second Boer war to the german camps and tell me who the genocidal monsters were. Fucking jews bitch about anything.
Indeed. I have noticed that as well. It seems kikes and their brainwashed shabbos goy mainstream historians love to push the narrative that everything that happened including any excesses or murders were all some premeditated diabolical plan by the EBIL Hitler.
Do you believe then that these types of things (ones that did occur and aren't made up) we're simply a product of the bureaucracy of the Reich i.e. functionalism?
Kind of? Try elaborating A bit more.
As in the Third Reichs leadership had nothing to do with initiating the so called "Holocaust" and that the entire initiative came from the lower ranks of the German bureaucracy. Mainstream functionalists use as proof documents from the bureaucracy of the German Government-General of Poland that argued that the population of Poland would have to decrease by 25% to allow the Polish economy to grow and hence the mass deportations and internments etc. were simply a practical answer to the problem. Of course we all know documents can be easily faked but this narrative is in opposition to the intentionalist one that it was all a master plan to genocide Jews so it gets a bit more possible validity in my eyes on those grounds alone.
Some functionalists also believe that the rivalry within the Reich's power structure provided the major driving force behind these events. The so called concept of 'working towards the Führer'. Hitler was known to delegate the same task to multiple people without them being aware of it in order to encourage rivalry and hence motivate people to accomplish goals faster and more efficiently than anyone else who may have been given the same task. Additionally The Führer was also known to not give specific details in some aspects of the state but only made known his general feelings of what should he done and left it to the administrators of the Government to figure out the specifics to achieve those goals
I think it's a fascinating subject that too many remain ignorant of. Most people have the most childish conception of the Holocaust, one that is not even supported by mainstream academic history. Even if we don't refute the Holocaust outright, just exposing people to this debate amongst actual respected historians would go a long way.
Agreed. While I of course don't believe in the homicidal gas chambers etc, I think there is too much evidence to disregard completely that yes, Jews were deported to labor camps and interned in harsh conditions and sometimes worked to death or starved or died of epidemics that broke out due to unsanitary conditions. I am not saying they didn't deserve that because they are on the whole a race of criminals who parasitically sap the lifeblood of nation's, but we can't pretend that nothing at all was ever done to them and it's all made up in it's entirety as some current day National Socialists seem to believe.
You're correct that most normalshits truly believe that they made soap out of kikes and lampshades and just burned them alive in ovens. My own wife when we first got together believed all that shit because that's what she was taught in school. I was too.
Off topic but now that I think about it, how many actual historians browse Zig Forums?
There was no holocaust. Fuck your logical fallacies, and your kike wizardry, jew. You're going to hang for your transgressions against humanity.
Actual historians? I couldn't say though I am sure there are at least a few and I have seen several anons that are very knowledgeable and claim to have degrees in history.
I think more commonly are so called armchair historian, which I would call myself I suppose, I have studied The Führer and the Third Reich for the better part of 15 years. Read whatever I can find from both sides although I myself am a National Socialist so I know to take many historians with a grain of salt. My favorite work is still and will always be 'Hitler's War' by David Irving though I highly recommend all his works, which can all be downloaded for free on his website. The Institute for Historical Review also does some good stuff.
These are the types I referred to. Surely you don't believe that NOTHING happened at all? We aren't talking about factories of death and gas chambers and other obvious lies here
I mean just look at this for example, straight from Wikipedia: >Extreme functionalists such as (((Götz Aly))) believe that the Nazi leadership had nothing to do with initiating the Holocaust and that the entire initiative came from the lower ranks of the German bureaucracy.
Most people have a conception of Adolf Hitler as being some sort of absurd caricature villain. They completely believe that he personally planned and orchestrated the Holocaust, and many other ridiculous myths I won't mention. I think they would be shocked to know that there is in fact no consensus amongst historians that he even knew about what was happening.
Indeed. There really isn't. Even some kike historians argue that there was no diabolical plan, that whatever happened just sort of happened as a product of circumstances and needs of the Reich at any given time
Can you contribute to the thread mate?
SOme kikes admit that it was made up, but no one cares this is how much power they have nowadays.
The first real example of the functionalist argument (before it actually had that name even) was 'Hitler and the genesis of the "final solution": an assessment of David Irving's theses" by Martin Brozat It is a critique of David Irvings account of how the "final solution" happened in Hitler's War (basically that The Führer had no idea about any excesses or harsh treatment that was being done)
Keep in mind this guy said the Holocaust did happen but it is notable that it was the first account of the origins of the Holocaust by a so-called "respected historian" in which responsibility was not assigned completely to The Führer.
Broszat argues that the hatred of the Jews common in the NSDAP had led them to embark on increasingly extreme attempts to expel the Jews of Europe, and after the failure of successive deportation schemes, the lower officials of the Third Reich had started dealing with them via their own methods.
When discussing the Holocaust, jumping into deep end and beginning with "neva happened" is really quite unhelpful. Many people become defensive when something they completely believe to be true is challenged. They will just end up dismissing you as one of those people.
That's the saddest part. Most normalshits who don't even care about history just buy the ZOG and Hollywood movie narrative hook, line, and sinker. They don't even attempt to look into it on their own and if you even question any aspect of it you're "muh ebil natzee scum". The kikes have worked hard to indoctrinate the entire Western world to this line of thinking.
>Disclaimer: I do not believe in the (((mainstream))) so called "Holocaust" narrative Then this is a worthless thread designed for shitposting.
Its like asking if Donald Trump is aware of every "excess" taken by guards in a nigger prison in Alabama. Its retarded.
Not a single jew was ever gassed by any member of the National Socialist party. No order signed by Hitler has ever been discovered ordering the mass extermination of jews via gas chambers. It never happened. Read The Leuchter Report.
Its not real power though. People don't actually give a shit about this trash, its just emotional programming, and that is starting to wear thin as a methodology of control. The Boomers are still susceptible to that, Xers to a lesser extent, but a HUGE segment of the younger generations have been raised in a context that makes them effectively immune to such appeals.
I would disagree. I was referring to deportation, internment, forced labor, epidemics due to unsanitary camps and harsh conditions that caused a large number of deaths
I agree with you on this point, although I believe it came out later that Leuchter did not have the credentials he at first claimed. Regardless I have read the report and believed it didn't happen before even doing so, so it really doesn't matter. I mentioned I was not referring to gas chambers in the OP.
Yes, I have hope for the future due to information contrary to the popular narrative being so readily available online and as these events get further and further into the past they will cease to have the kikes desired effects.
My point stands, this is like asking if Trump is aware of every such thing in every government facility everywhere in the country. It has no bearing. How could Hitler not be aware of the fact that harsh conditions were causing large numbers of deaths when that was the condition in the entire country?
Again, these are somewhat pointless questions. If you're getting down into the nitty gritty of "did hitler know anything of what was going on", you're already head-first down the rabbit hole.
Face it bud: Most people, normalfags, don't follow ideas, they don't follow reason, they follow POWER AND STRENGTH. You aren't to reason them out of this sort of propaganda, because they weren't reasoned into it - an authority told them it was so and they believed it without really caring about it, and now the powers that appear to espouse strength and power promote it as fact and attack anyone who goes against that paradigm. Hence, they go with it.
Strong horse, weak horse, etc etc.
These things occurred before the overall condition in the Reich reached such equally dire conditions. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree in these regards.
That will certainly be a factor, but a greater factor will be the rise of political factions espousing strength and, eventually, power, which dismiss it outright or engage in aggressive revisionism of the standard narrative. Also a factor, but frankly, a large factor IMHO is the consequences of these events having their desired impact - they have created an environment wherein younger people not only don't give a shit, they have no respect for the authorities telling them its so. They don't appear all that powerful or strong - they appear weak and effeminate. Why trust them?
I remember my teachers for history, most of them were men, and now that i think of it, all of them were former military participants. These days, it seems likely you'll be getting these narratives from some kind of soyboy or catlady shilling this shit at you, and it'll be mixed in with discussing homos being normalized and other such tripe, which just cheapens the whole functionality of it as a methodology. The consequences of these narratives being in place are create environs, and individuals derivative therefrom, which eliminate the functional capacity of these narrative to be pushed effectively.
Which things? Be specific and provide some backing to your claims or don't make claims in such vein.
I refuse to agree to that. My point stands unanswered: You are getting into the rationale behind whether or not Hitler knew of the many things happening in these camps, and its the same as asking if Trump is fully aware of every single fucking happenstance event or pattern emergent within these camps, and that's highly unlikely - nor is it really relevant, especially when you aren't providing any evidence of the events you claim transpired to begin with.
If you want to get into such narratives, you're going to have to set a narrative tone to back the discussion, otherwise its just comes off as you coming in and nitpicking some pointless fucking ephemeral question while embracing the overarching standard narrative of the Holohoax itself.
A much better line of inquiry, now that I think on it, would be if the American political figures post-WW2 were aware of the conditions in the German POW internment camps.
The diary of General Patton provides some insight in this capacity suggesting that they certainly were, and that it was a conscious decision in terms of action.
I agree, this absolutely is a good question and those camps we're atrocious. There was one well known Jew who wrote a book later (can't recall the name at the moment) about how he worked in one of these camps and his favorite past time was beating German POWs to death with an axe handle.
(Heil'd) I would argue that the analogy doesn't really work here as the treatment I described seemed to be ubiquitous across most camps and the numbers of deaths were much higher than some isolated prison guard beating the shit out of a nigger in an American prison. I want to make it clear again that I do not endorse the mainstream Holocaust narrative but I also do not simply plug my ears and stomp my feet and say 'nothing ever happened at all' because the historical record just doesn't support this. I simply find the functionalist vs Intentionalist debate is interesting from my position outside looking in, as I certainly don't agree with the main crux of it as a whole. The question in my mind is was The Führer aware of these conditions in these camps. He certainly called for their internment in camps and ghettos and their use as forced labor where many were worked to death (and don't get me wrong, I believe rightfully so) Did he just leave it to his administrators and didn't really give a shit how they were treated and if some died well they deserved it anyway? Or did he specifically know or even ordered their treatment to be done in this fashion? That's all.
I feel debating it with you is probably futile however as you already have your mind made up and that's fine. In fact I concede that I could be totally wrong on all this. It's the question and debate by historians that intrigues me.
Duh, nigger. Who do you think ordered care packages from civilians to be stolen? And why do you think it's illegal to dig a hole in the Rhineland even today?
There was a shitload of POW's handed over to Stalin and some of those guys did 10 years in the Gulag, could you imagine? No that's impossible for us
Holocaust denialism proves the reliance on falsehood of fascists. This in turn proves their unfitness to govern.
Fuck off you Bolshevik kike
Functionalists and Intentionalists both believe the Holohoax happened. It's (((controlled opposition)))
Allowed to post here.
You say this like it was some oddity of Hitler, this is a feature of all effective leaders. When a leader doesn't do this it is called micromanaging and betrays a lack of faith in underlings.
Yes For a pansy Jew maybe Nope. At the end of the war, when all of Germany was starving Yes No. The Germans devoted entirely too many resources to the upkeep of good conditions in these camps even at the end of the war, when they could have treated the inmates like Stalin treated the gulag prisoners.
You are presuming what has never been established, which is that there were 'numbers of deaths' that were not of natural causes, typhus or another illness, or starvation; and that the conditions in the camps were inappropriate. False. The Jews in the camps were worked less than the soldiers in the military or the laborers in the industrial centers.
I feel the same in my country. The holocaust narrative is wearing, also using it as an excuse for worldwide jewery is getting more and more ridiculous and people (normalfags) are starting to notice "Yeah i know the holocaust happened 80 years ago, but why should we be paying reparations or doing Israel's bidding?"
Perhaps you are right, this can be over in a single night if people were to give a shit though.