What was the deal with Heinrich Himmler?

General Karl Wolff:
>"Why are you depressed, chief?"

Heinrich Himmler:
>"I am doing something of which the messiah of the coming 2000 years must never learn".

What did he mean by this? Also, do you think Hitler knew about the Holocaust or do you think Himmler carried it out behind his back?

Himmler in a speech to SS generals:
>"I know a lot of you understand why we are killing the Jews but a lot of you don't quite understand why we're also killing the women and children. I'm doing this. I've taken this decision myself, because it would be wrong to leave coming generations to deal with this problem all over again".

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RmtuCzKy83U
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
youtube.com/watch?v=1R5QXbMk_nc
icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/history-holocauste-020205.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>do you think Hitler knew about the Holocaust or do you think Himmler carried it out behind his back?
Hitler surely knew.
The other people knew the Jews were being killed but most of them didn't know the specifics

There's literally 0 proof that Hitler was aware of it. You're just making an assumption based on your racism against nazis

The holocaust is a meme

>You're just making an assumption based on your racism against nazis
Oy vey!

B-but muh six gorillion!

No it's not. 300.000 people died at Auschwitz and some of them were even gassed, but they weren't gassed in the gas chambers that the Poles built in 1948, they were gassed in 2 other much smaller buildings.

1.24 million Jews died at the hands of Heinrich Himmler.

Never say never friend

The most jews died After the Burgers arrived because they gave them a lot to eat and the jews havent eaten normal in a long time so they died because they eat to much

We just have to wait a few years, then we will give the jews an real holocaust

He was fucking insane. What else could it be? The dude talked like he snorted mercury. He was useful though, so he had a place in the NSDAP.

off to jail you go, Heinz

>this thread

>The holohoax is a lie! No jews ever died! The concentration camps were comfortable spa resorts to temporarily displace the jewish population, but the nazis had no ill intent!

>Hitler was trying to exterminate the jews for a reason! Look at the world now! The jews are behind everything! He should have won so there would be no jew menace!

Which is it Sup Forums?

White House and red house.

Two tiny shacks where Jews who were legitimately unable to work were taken to be gassed. The rest died of typhus.

He did it all by himself.
He personally gassed 6 gorillion lampshades, burned them in his pipe and hid the ashes in the ashtray of his Volkswagen.
Nobody can deny this.

the first one and the second half of the second one

Some were definitely shot and beaten to death

daily reminder hitler was right

youtube.com/watch?v=RmtuCzKy83U

Concentration Camps were really no different from Stalins Gulags. People worked until the died, starved until they died, and grew sick unil they died. This is, funny enough, mostly the American and British fault. They were so good at cutting train lines with bombers that they cut off the camps logistics and caused many Jews to die as a result. There is no evidence of gas chambers and ovens. The camps were a device of containment and slow killing to cull their numbers and make the them more controllable to act as slaves when Germany won. Some died from gun execution, experiments, and beatings. The idea of the "Death Camp" and "6 million Jew died" is what Sup Forums disagreed with. Only about a million died and only half were Germany's fault.

Now this I believe. I bet that's how the whole "66 billion gassed" meme got started.

Oh, okay, so I guess there's nothing wrong with being kept at a camp for slave labor, fed scraps from whatever is left of the food supply of a country that is being bombed to shit (for a war they started), and then gassed to death after being overworked to slave labor.

The very fact that people died of typhus showed condition in the camps were terrible, people just don't die of typhus in large numbers if they were, you know, not kept in crowded slave labor camps were conditions were horrible.

He was a nazi extremist that doesn't represent the majority of nazis. Nazism is the ideology of piece and real nazism hasn't even been tried yet, just listen to Strasser.

I suspect Himmler would have been an /r9k/ regular if alive in current times.

this

Typhus outbreaks have been common in all POW camps just because of the nature of many people living close together. It's not that the conditions of the Nazi camps were especially bad. In fact, there was no indication from the Red Cross that they were (the Soviets wouldn't even allow them into their camps). The delousing procedures, such as the use of the infamous Zyklon B, were meant to curb these incidents.

So you're saying that Nazi guards died in similar proportion to the death rates of prisoners, because unless the prisoners were deliberately starved and food wasn't shared equally, that would be exactly the case. in that case you would need to show that or else your entire post is bullshit.

>Germany can't even ship food throughout its territories
>Germany is a great country able to fight off several major industrial powers at once

Pick one and only one.

they were very different
Almost all the deaths in the german camps were towards the end of the war

No red cross or anyone else were allowed into the USSR to inspect russia camps.

How many hundreds of thousands of allied POW's who were "liberated" by the soviets rotted there till death?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces
>Allied bombing raids had destroyed thousands of farm buildings, and rendered food processing facilities inoperable.[4][5] Lack of farm machinery, spare parts, and fertilizer caused an almost total disruption of agriculture when the war was over
>In addition, the destroyed German transportation infrastructure created additional logistical nightmares, with railroad lines, bridges, canals and terminals left in ruins.[7] The turnaround time for railroad wagons was five times higher than the prewar average.[7][8] Of the 15,600 German locomotives, 38.6% were no longer operating and 31% were damaged.[7] Only 1,000 of the 13,000 kilometers of track in the British zone were operable.[7] Urban centers often had to be supplied with horse-drawn carriages and wheeled carts.[4]

Germany couldn't even feed its own population or soldiers.

Himmler is hilarious. Weird little chicken farmer who looked like an accountant and who organized mass murder with all the fussy exactitude that he'd be doing the books for a MacDonald's franchise. Add to that his bizarre occult notions (he was the Dunning-Kruger poster boy in that he never let an expert opinion get in the way of his fantasies), and his non-stop attempts at the end of the war to get someone, ANYONE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD to take him seriously as a possible successor to Hitler, which literally lasted until ten seconds before he bit down on the cyanide capsule, and you've got yourself a legitimately fun character.

pic related are Union POWs from the Civil War. The disruption of supply lines when there's an invasion is par for the course. That's the nature of war, especially when you're losing.

>comparing shipment of food in a pre-industrial area many, many times larger than Germany
>to Germany in 1945

Nevertheless the very fact they chose not to end the war while people were starving makes them directly responsible for those deaths. If a leader cares about the prisoners welfare they would stop a war (that they are already losing) that's making things bad for everyone. Not surrendering is basically letting them starve.

I guess the communists in China and Russia were not responsible for the famines in China and Ukraine either, by Sup Forums's twisted logic.

>chose not to end the war
>oh hey guys lets call quits it was all a joke lol

The greatest tragedy of the 3rd Reich was not, as Sup Forums thinks, the fact that they lost but the fact that the noble spirit of the German people was squandered the way it was.

The blue-pilled dismiss the beauty of the dream of the 3rd Reich because it cannot be separated from it's evil.
The red-pilled dismiss the evil of the 3rd Reich because it cannot be separated from it's beauty.
The enlightened weep because both paths are correct in their own way, and it could not be otherwise. The strong shall trample upon the weak, and evolutionary strength has little relation to human conceptions of strength or virtue.

I wish the virtuous hopes and dreams of the innocents of Germany could have come true.

When did leaders ever care about their peoples, let alone prisoners welfare?
Any leader?

>Russia rampaging through Eastern Europe after Kursk
>second font in Italy
>third font opened in France in 1944
>as you literally said, infrastructure completely in ruins due to Allied bombing

>let's continue the war cause only good things can happen from here lol

Mao and Stalin killed 0 people, got it.

didn't he think he was the reincarnation of some ancient king or something ? i know he believed a lot of that supernatural nazi bullshit

>Mao and Stalin killed 0 people, got it.

braindead much???

you cant just end total war dumbass especially when you are losing what retard would accept that proposal? the allies wanted war and they wanted the spoils theres 0 chance they would have accepted a ww1 style surrender
this. if only anglo warmongers didnt get hard at the thought of europe burning

You sound exactly like delusional Commies you know?
>My perfect version of X ideology hasn't even been tried yet.

>Nazis weren't responsible for deaths of civilians in massive camps
>when Nazis put them into the massive camps, and kept them from leaving the massive camps
>and declined to stop the war making things bad for everyone, especially ones in massive camps

braindead much???

Japan did without being invaded on their mainland all the way to their capital.

> you cant just end total war dumbass especially when you are losing what retard would accept that proposal? the allies wanted war and they wanted the spoils theres 0 chance they would have accepted a ww1 style surrender
Then why did all of the people who tried to kill Hitler believe the allies would accept?

Communism have never been tried either, not even close.

because the usa would have had a much more difficult time with a mainland invasion of japan.
ask rudolf hess how that goes

he was the face of "German-inferiority-complex"

>>comparing shipment of food in a pre-industrial area many, many times larger than Germany
>>to Germany in 1945

Industry is irrelevant here when your infrastructure is crippled. That's the point. Also, the American South was an agricultural superpower and probably had a lot more food at their disposal close to the camps. Germany, not so much.

You're also exaggerating the difference in land sizes. German occupied a good chunk of Europe during that time.

>they chose not to end the war while people were starving
I doubt the top ranks knew it was going on. They were kind of busy with trying not to get killed themselves.

Like I've said, this phenomenon is common in wars, even modern ones. It isn't done out of maliciousness.

Camps are always meant to keep prisoners from leaving.
Even the camps in America were meant to stop the inmates from leaving.
Only the were not bombed by Germans.
But german camps were bombed by Americans, making things bad for everyone, especially the ones inside.

Braindead much!!!

>because the usa would have had a much more difficult time with a mainland invasion of japan.

Wow great reason to NOT surrender as Japan, but reason prevailed among them and they did surrender.

There was literally no way out for Germany when the Russians were on their borders. What were they continue the war for? Pride? They killed many more of their civilians for pride by not surrendering?

> this phenomenon is common in wars
>but the top ranks wouldn't know it

Complete contradiction. If they didn't want inmates to suffer they wouldn't have put them into massive camps where this thing is inevitable. But they did anyways, and prevented them from leaving.

They put civilians, most of them not criminals or former enemy soldiers, into camps for slave labor and kept them from leaving for no malicious reason.

Braindead much!!!

it was a joke you autist

Hey look! David Irving is on Sup Forums!

>They put civilians, most of them not criminals

Wow, exactly like the USA.

USA didn't do it and invade another country. If they did, and started losing the war, and still kept people in camps and started starving them too, I would also criticize the USA of that period.

Saying the enemy did crimes doesn't absolve you of your own.

>THIS POSTER IS A WOMEN

Why do you think war is nice and neat? You really think that a country is going to share its food and medicine equally with its captives if they have low supply? Are you really this stupid? Do you honestly think they have a duty to captives more so than to their own men? Of course not you weak willed weak minded pussy.

Julius Caesar killed the Celts by the millions. City to city, every last man woman and child. That's just how war is. It's the reason Muslims are invading. Because le redpilled cunts like you are piss poor decision makers who should have no say in anything.

Nice selective outrage. Daily reminder that more regular Germans died in the four years after the war than died DURING the war from starvation, mass executions and disease.

You're never going to hear about that, though, because the Soviets and the Americans and French did it, not the ebil Germans.

Every kike who died scraping at the prison yard wall deserved it. They've proved it ever since.

so fine, the third reichs crime was losing and not surrendering
of course not, but apparently making up lies about gas chambers and electric jew killing floors erases allied warcrimes as no ally ever faced the gallows

>from starvation, mass executions and disease.

suicide and botched abortions after being gang raped killed a lot of Nazi girls, too

>Complete contradiction. If they didn't want inmates to suffer they wouldn't have put them into massive camps where this thing is inevitable. But they did anyways, and prevented them from leaving.

Not a contradiction. They may have suspected it was happening (if they thought about it at all) but never received information on it towards the end since everyone was busy with the war effort and trying not to lose. There was nothing they really could have done anyway.

They had to go into camps because they were enemy combatants and potential saboteurs. It's same rationale the Americans used to put Japs into camps.

You're not very military-minded. It's hilarious to me that you think an army would surrender just because of a dodgy infrastructure situation involving prisoners that probably wasn't easily confirmable anyway.

The USA imprisoned Americans of Japanese decent just for that reason.
You invaded my country and Japan.
Long before that you stole a part of Mexico.
I bet it's more comfy to be a neighbor of Germany than of the USA.

>If they did, and started losing the war, and still kept people in camps and started starving them too, I would also criticize the USA of that period.
Did you even take a look at that picture?That were your own people.

So you're saying that the logical thing for Germany to do in 1944, is to continue an unwinable war?

>the West German government estimated the death toll at 2.225 million [123] in the wartime evacuations, forced labor in the Soviet Union as well as the post war expulsions. This figure was to remain unchallenged until the 1990s when some German historians put the actual death toll in the expulsions at 500,000 confirmed deaths listed in a 1965 German Red Cross study.[10][124] The German Historical Museum puts the figure at 600,000 dead; they maintain the figure of 2 million expulsion deaths cannot be supported.[8] However, the position of the German government, the German Federal Agency for Civic Education and the German Red Cross is that the death toll in the expulsions is between 2.0 and 2.5 million civilians.[13][125]

Yeah you're bullshit. Even the 2 million upper estimate is lower than ww2 german casualties.

I'm sure Poland was feeling very comfy when the Germans took their land and slaughtred their people.

>a dodgy infrastructure situation

And millions of angry Russians on the eastern border.

And millions of anglos on the Western border.

And Italy.

Sounds to me you're not very military minded yourself if you think that's a salvageable situation.

Even not going into the military situation, those deaths in the camps are caused by the Nazis' actions. Just because they did it for some "logical" reason (for them), doesn't mean their hands are clean of the consequences. I don't excuse Mao for all the trouble he caused during the Great Leap Forward despite the fact that it was for modernization.

That was three weeks, nothing compared to your 70-years-rape of Palestine.

The Civil War was a shitshow, were you expecting me to say anything else?

not really

>at the hands of
man he must have got bored of killing all those jews himself

>Sounds to me you're not very military minded yourself if you think that's a salvageable situation.
That was Hitler's fault going against his generals' advise. It's also why a number of the higher-ranking members wanted him gone. The timeframe you're talking about though, when everything was hopeless, was very small. Armies don't just quit when the situation doesn't look good. Surrender could mean certain death, while fighting on could mean you have a shot. Military men fight on even when things look gloomy.

>Even not going into the military situation, those deaths in the camps are caused by the Nazis' actions. Just because they did it for some "logical" reason (for them), doesn't mean their hands are clean of the consequences. I don't excuse Mao for all the trouble he caused during the Great Leap Forward despite the fact that it was for modernization.
Both sides committed war crimes. The Nazi war crimes are way overblown, however. And what most people attribute to maliciousness, wasn't in fact intentional.

The Nazis weren't bloodthirsty cartoon villains like Hollywood portrays them. The Soviets were at least as brutal. The stigma attached to Nazis is a load of hype.

>surrendering to Stalin

I'd fight to the death too. Better than living with that aftermath.

>Do you think Hitler knew about the Holocaust?

You sound like Hillary shills tbqf. Always in denial

No, because it was invented after the war, when he was already dead.
Hol up, the police is knocking at my door.
I'm out.

Nahh, killing Jews is always fun! You never get bored!

It doesn't matter what's a good time to surrender or not. They put the civilians in crowded camps and prevented them from leaving, the consequence was many inmates died. Their action had that consequence, it's that simple. You can sugarcoat it with all that "military mindset" stuff but in the end that's the consequence of them rounding up people, so they are responsible.

i agree. hitler did nothing wrong except lose
youtube.com/watch?v=1R5QXbMk_nc

>slave labor of civilians you don't like is okay

Well, good for you, but I'm glad I don't live where you are.

>muricans

It isn't that simple. Intention is important. That's why our legal system differentiates between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder and manslaughter.

The Nazi didn't do anything unprecedented despite propaganda claiming their brutality was unparalleled.

But america, Hitler DID try to end the war not long after they had taken france. He believed the english would accept a generous peace treaty after allowing the english to ferry their troops over the channel from dunkirk.

As we all know, the english never responded to any offers of peace from the third reich.

Okay, fine, according to you, the communists never did anything wrong because they also had good intentions in unifying their country and modernizing them. You don't do that to highly populated agrarian nations without cracking a few million eggs.

Just as long as we're consistent.

Already said that you did that during the war. Literally allowed by the Geneva Treaty and there's nothing special about it. Almost every country did that during the WW2.

Of course you're glad because pretty much every American is so fucking stupid that you fat fucks are barely able to breathe.

You really are thick, aren't you? I've already acknowledged that both sides committed war crimes. My contention is that the Nazis weren't any more brutal than, say, the Soviets were. But because the Nazis lost the war, their crimes are exaggerated and magnified.

>and then Germany never invaded the USSR afterwards

Where did the US or UK use slave labor? And if they did when did they start doing that before the war as Germany did? Dachau was open in 1933.

You also said that what the Nazis did wasn't malicious and "wasn't in fact intentional". Let's forget about the fact that rounding up people for slave labor isn't "malicious", according to you, but sounds to me like you were saying the Nazis did nothing wrong but all the bad consequences wasn't by their hand.

The starvation in the camps wasn't intentional or malicious. The camps themselves were allowed by the Geneva Convention...

I think I'm about done here. You can't seem to follow a conversation.

The Geneva convention allows the rounding up of large numbers of non-combatant civilians to slave labor camps? If so, you must be a real boot-licker to take that as the ultimate voice of morality.

doesn't change the fact that Hitler did want peace, and the english could've ended the war 3 years earlier if they weren't so stubborn.

The germans did what the US never had the balls to do. They saw the soviets for the threat they were and acted on it, but they didn't succeed.

The Geneva Convention covered how the prisoners were treated in the camps, not who was considered a legitimate prisoner.

Sounds really exploitable and not a firm base for morality and ethics, does it?

In no country anywhere is the rounding up of civilians for badly maintained slave labor camps not "malicious".

>Throw your soldiers into position once there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight.

>Sounds really exploitable and not a firm base for morality and ethics, does it?
Nobody was forced to sign the convention. The Soviets didn't. It was a gentleman's agreement that if you don't mistreat our prisoners, we won't mistreat yours. It was fairly effective in that sense. They were updated after the war though.

>In no country anywhere is the rounding up of civilians for badly maintained slave labor camps not "malicious".
They weren't "badly maintained slave labor camps". They met all the standards of the Red Cross during the war.

They were still slave labor camps, and many people did die in them. Numerous people inside of them were in there against their will.

And the Red Cross? You mean the German Red Cross that was lead by a high position SS member, who chose to commit suicide rather than being captured by the Allies and put on trial? Surely such an organization would be impartial.

...No, I mean the International Red Cross. You know, the one from Geneva, Switzerland, which the agreement is named after?

You really are the stereotypical dumb America, m8. Good luck.

This one time I got a bad stomach virus and couldn't eat for 4 days straight, and then when I was cured I tried to eat a full meal and I got sick all over again. I'd believe this theory.

David Irving is a hero.

You seem to be selectively omitting the fact that their stay in the camp was never meant to be permanent and the intention was to deport them, but inconvenient things like war got in the way.

is that Sam Hyde?

Careful there Hans, don't want Aunt Merkel showing up to your flat.

icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/history-holocauste-020205.htm

>On 29 April 1942, the German Red Cross informed the ICRC that it would not communicate any information on " non-Aryan " detainees, and asked it to refrain from asking questions about them.

>On 23 June 1944, an ICRC delegate, Dr. Maurice Rossel, went to Theresienstadt. His visit was carefully orchestrated. He walked through the ghetto under the escort of SS officers, but he did not have the opportunity to talk with the Jewish people there, nor to get inside the fortress. Two representatives of the Danish government also took part in the visit.

>On 27 September 1944, Dr Rossel went to Auschwitz. There he spoke to the commander of the camp, but he was not authorized to go inside it.

>In the last days of the war, ICRC delegates were able for the first time to go inside the camps at Turckheim, Dachau and Mauthausen. They succeeded in preventing last-minute executions, and negotiated the surrender of the camps on the arrival of the Allied forces. The ICRC delegate at Mauthausen, Louis Haefliger, managed to get an order revoked, thereby preventing the underground aviation factory at Gusen (which was part of the camp) from being blown up, together with the 40,000 or so detainees who were in it.

Yeah, sure, the Red Cross knew everything and approved of it. real nice source you provided.

So they round up people to put in camps, but then they go and invade Russia in 1941 to ensure all their resources would be tied up in war, that makes sense.