The Korherr report

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 25870
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Korherr report

Post by Nessie » Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:58 pm

been-there wrote:........
Like the word "arrival," the terms "transported east," "evacuated," "resettled," and "sent to Poland" are all phrases which mean "killed," according to the Holocaust cryptographers. This principle, applied to Nazi documents dealing with the Jews, can make just about any word mean "murdered." All you need is the Holocaust document decoder ring. Those who wield this wondrous ring can discover new meaning even in documents that have already been decrypted and translated. Even better, with this magical device one can find any meaning desired.

......
Just as with Wannsee I do not agree with this idea of coded language. It clearly shows a planned ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Jews under Nazi control which developed as time went by and circumstances changed. It involved slave labour, forced migration to ghettos and concentration camps and a high mortality rate.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Bernard
Posts: 3462
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: The Korherr report

Post by Bernard » Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:37 pm

The hoot about been-there is that he wants to take Korherr's little report out of context. So what is the context? Well, we have major documentation that the surviving victims of the Warsaw Ghetto hellhole were sent to Treblinka in overcrowded freight cars without water or ventilation - leaving one to consider the slight possibility that the Nazi authorities didn't give a f*ck about the well being of these individuals, who, according to Herr Suchomel, were often DOA at their sifting event. We have the commandant, and all of his German and Ukrainian underlings, without one exception, and all 60 odd Jewish survivors, all agreeing that Jews sent to Treblinka were gassed.

We also have the testimony of R Hoess, claiming that he was sent to Treblinka to learn the extermination system in order to set up a similar facility in Auschwitz. We have Eichmann interviewed in Argentina claiming that he "delivered the Jews to the butcher." We have Gerstein and Pfannensteil testifying that they both saw a gassing in Belzec on Aug 19, 1942. We have Baron von Otter claiming that he had recieved a passioned plea to tell the world about Nazi Jewish genocide within a week of Gerstein's experience.

We have the information that the entire Rienhardt staff had been culled from the staff of the T-4 euthanasia program, and that these SS had perfected a system of using deception to gas groups of individuals in disguised showers.

We have a Goebbels diary entry affirming that Jews are being exterminated in the East, and that ,"not much remains" of them due to a "terrible judgement" that they "fully deserve."

We have the Polish Underground Army representative, in the role of station master at Treblinka, testifying that transports went into Treblinka but individuals did not come out.

We have Eric Fuchs testifying that he installed a gasoline motor to gas Jews at Sobibor, and also testifying that he worked on installation projects at Treblinka and Belzec where he witnessed gassings.

We have railroad documents proving incoming transports, but no such records of out going trains.

We have testimony from local Polish farmers about the burning fires, screams and shots heard at Reinhardt camps.

We have testimony of Paul Blobel and other operation 1005 staff about the Himmler order to cremate and eradicate traces of Nazi exterminationm victims.

And we have the Korherr report, the Hoefle telegram, and now, David Cole's astute observation that the stats of those sifted through the camps do not show up among other stats of those living in ghettoes and camps.

We also have the incriminating order for Korherr to change "special treatment" - a well known euphemism for murder according to Eichmann - to "sifted through the camps."

been-there's evidence is that Korherr claimed he was told that "special treatment" meant being sent to Lublin (even though there is no evidence of this happening), and that the Korherr Report did not feature explicit references to gas chambers and genocide.

My question is always the same. Why are we arguing with been-there? Is it possible to convince been-there, or any hallucinating deluded sufferer, that his reality aim't? This is all a laughable waste of time, and it appears that the top shelf revs, themselves, are falling like dominoes. Irving, Weber, Cole.....who will be next?

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 25870
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Korherr report

Post by Nessie » Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:56 pm

I presume "Final Solution" is agreed to be the removal of all Jews from occupied Nazi territory?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Duke Umeroffen
Posts: 5781
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:11 pm
Contact:

Re: The Korherr report

Post by Duke Umeroffen » Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:46 pm

Gor Blimey Nessie, you should have a look at the Wannsee thread before you ask questions like that. ;-)
Viking; North Utsire; South Utsire; Forties; Cromarty; ; Firth; Tyne; Dogger. Fisher; German Bight; Humber; Thames *; Dover;

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8122
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Korherr report

Post by been-there » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:24 am

After the war Korherr appeared as sometimes a witness and sometimes a defendant in court proceedings. It has been stated that in such a courtroom scenario he claimed that the totals in his report were incorrect because of inflated claims contained in the Einsatzgruppen reports.

Anybody have any detail on that, or references for further reading?

been-there wrote:
Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:53 pm
Long version:
http://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/korh ... r-lang.php

Short version:
http://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/korh ... r-kurz.php

Transcriptions of Himmler’s letter to Korherr of 10th April 1943 and other accompanying documents:
http://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/korherr/index.php

The report was assembled by Korherr on the order of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler.
The purpose of the report was to estimate the change in the number of Jews in Nazi-controlled territory from 1933 to the end of 1942.
Korherr subdivided his statistics into several categories:
Deaths over Births,
Emigration,
Evacuations
, and
Other.

There was no listing for "Killed in Death Camps" or anything like it.
The number that appeared in the intercept and also in Korherr's report is listed under the heading "Transport of Jews from the Eastern Provinces to the Russian East: Processed through the Camps in the Government-General," which falls under the "evacuations" category.

Because the number of deaths for Jews at Lublin, as of the end of 1942, is recorded separately in Korherr's report as 14,348, it is obvious that "arrivals" means something other than "murdered" in the context of the January, 1943 intercept, because the figure in it is over ten thousand higher than the number listed as dead for Lublin (Majdanek) by Korherr in his report. In light of the Korherr report, therefore, the decoder ring "solution" of the January 11, 1943, is an arrant fraud.

Though it is clear from the context of his report that Korherr didn't consider "evacuated" to mean "killed," today's guardians of "Truth and Memory" reject the obvious. Korherr's report was a secret document created for Himmler, who certainly would have known what the report was about, because he had commissioned it. Yet we are told that it contains code words to hide the fact the Jews were being murdered en masse -- despite the report's explicit statement that the evacuated Jews were to be considered a reduction in the population of Europe's Jews for purposes of the report only.

Like the word "arrival," the terms "transported east," "evacuated," "resettled," and "sent to Poland" are all phrases which mean "killed," according to the Holocaust cryptographers. This principle, applied to Nazi documents dealing with the Jews, can make just about any word mean "murdered." All you need is the Holocaust document decoder ring. Those who wield this wondrous ring can discover new meaning even in documents that have already been decrypted and translated. Even better, with this magical device one can find any meaning desired.

The decoder ring is the theological opposite of the scientific razor. It allows one to add a layer of complexity so that evidence can be manipulated to fit the theory. No longer does a document have to mean what it says. For dogmatists, this makes the decoder ring much more useful than the razor, for Occam's Razor enjoins inflexible simplicity, while the ring promises infinite possibilities and complexity.

The conclusion to this conundrum is rather simple: since there are two choices of how to interpret Holocaust documents, which to select depends on one's philosophical outlook.

If the answer has already decided upon, apply the ring: then "arrival" means murdered; and "evacuated" means murdered; "resettled" means murdered as well, as does "transported." This is convenient when restating dogmas known a priori.

Conversely, if the answer has yet to be determined, apply the razor. The documents mean what they say: The Jews were assembled and transported east by the Nazis where the Jews were put into ghettoes deep inside occupied Soviet territory.

Which to use is a matter of taste. Revisionist historians employ Occam's razor; the defenders of "Truth and Memory" use their Holocaust decoder rings, which allow the evidence to "converge" wherever, and however, their dogmas desire.
-- John Wier
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 25870
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Korherr report

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:50 am

"About the author
John Weir is a computer programer/analyst who lives with his wife and three children in a suburb of Kansas City. Born in Missouri in 1958, he received a B. S. degree in computer science and technology from the University of Missouri in Kansas City."

There is definitely a connection between the denier lack of education in history and the conclusions they try and draw. Weir has not understood that the reason why "arrivals", "transports" etc refer to people who were killed is because of other evidence. Evidence which I doubt very much he has any knowledge of at all.

If he knew about witnesses such as Stefan Kucharek and Piotr Ferenc, he would understand why most of the 1,274,166 arrivals are believed dead. Add their testimony to those inside the camp, the documents and the physical findings at the camp. Now, does he have any evidence from witnesses, documents or anything else to show 1,274,166 were actually resettled in the Russian east? No he does not. So why does he believe that is what happened?

I believe people were killed at the camps because there is evidence that happened and because there is no evidence that they were taken, in daily transports of thousands at a time, to anywhere else. Occams Razor is being used in lieu of evidence in yet another denier tactic to avoid dealing with they believe in something they cannot provide any evidence for. It is too incredible to have such a massive movement of people without them leaving any trace.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8122
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: The Korherr report

Post by been-there » Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm

Image
Image

The Korherr Report is a report by Richard Korherr, statistician and chief inspector of the statistical bureau of the SS during World War II, on Jewish populations trends until January 1943.

The report, titled DIE ENDLÖSUNG DER EUROPÄISCHEN JUDENFRAGE (The final solution to the European Jewish question), states emigrations and evacuations of Jews but makes no mention of exterminations or gassings.

Holocaust revisionists argue that the Korherr Report, made by the reputedly best statistician in Germany, is evidence supporting Holocaust revisionism.
The politically correct view is that Korherr used "code words" to hide the Holocaust, but revisionists have criticized this since the report were intended for Hitler’s and Himmler’s eyes only and this was also rejected by Korherr who in the postwar period stated he had had no knowledge of a supposed ongoing extermination of Jews.

Another example of criticisms of the supposed use of "code words" is that both "evacuation" and "special treatment" (German: "Sonderbehandlung") in the report are supposed to be "code words" for "extermination" with this argued to be redundant. Revisionists have instead argued that these two words refer to different kinds of deportations.

Non-revisionists have cited a letter in which Himmler (or rather a member of his staff) requested revisions of a draft of the report, including that the phrase "special treatment" not be used in one place, and seen this as an admission of guilt and attempted cover-up, while revisionists have instead argued that this was done to clarify an unclear phrase.

That 'evacuate' is a "code word" for 'extermination' is argued to be disproven by the word in some cases clearly referring to no-killings, such as the phrase "Evacuation of Jews from Baden and the Palatinate to France" referring to transportation to the concentration camp in Gurs in the French Pyrenees, with Gurs not being one of the alleged "extermination camps".

Another example is the phrase "Evacuation of Jews from the Reich area and the Protectorate to Theresienstadt" with Theresienstadt also not being one of the alleged "extermination camps".

The revisionists Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues, and Carlo Mattogno concluded:
"The conclusion we may draw from the analysis of the Korherr report is that the “special treatment of Jews” stood only for the deportation of western Jews (those from the Altreich with Sudetenland, Ostmark and Protectorate) and of the eastern Jews (those from Ostgebiete with Bialystok and General Government with Lemberg) to the East, i.e. beyond the confines of the Greater German Reich. The Jews deported within these confines, in particular the roughly (121,428+8,500=) 130,000 Jews sent to Auschwitz, were not subjected to “special treatment”. Neither were the 69,084 Jews deported from the Altreich, Ostmark, Protectorate, and Slovakia to Nisko and the Lublin district formally subjected to it. We say formally, because they acquired the status of “specially treated” (sonderbehandelt) gradually as they were transited from the Polish ghettos through the various camps. This is also true for the 18,004 Jews deported to Theresienstadt and then from that ghetto to Treblinka. In practice there was a double accounting system: one for the Jews evacuated from individual countries, and one for the Jews who were transited through the above camps and who were counted independently of their origin."
Argued exaggerated German deportation number
The correctness of the report has been questioned by some Holocaust revisionists. The revisionist Germar Rudolf thus writes that
Korherr states: “Between 1937 and early 1943 the number of Jews in Europe had decreased by approximately 4 million, due partly to emigration, partly to the excess of deaths over births among the Jews of Central and western Europe, and partly to evacuations, particularly from the more densely populated eastern regions, which are counted here as part of the decrease.”
Why does Korherr mention that the evacuations are counted as part of the decrease? That would make sense only if they are not actually gone from Europe but are nevertheless counted statistically as having emigrated. So were they perhaps not dead? S. Challen was puzzled not only by this additional remark and by the absence of even the slightest allusion to the mass murder in these top secret papers intended for Himmler and Hitler only, but also by the fact that the reputedly best statistician in Germany covered up gross errors in his report so elegantly.
In his conclusions, for example, Korherr wrote that the Jewish population losses in Europe from 1933 to 1943 ( some 5 million) were caused approximately 50% by emigration to other continents, but his statistics cite only about 1.5 million emigrants. So roughly 1 million emigrants are missing. This begs the question: why would Germany’s foremost statistician draw conclusions contradicting his own data, and in a secret report intended for Hitler, no less? Furthermore, if one adds Korherr’s individual 1943 figures regarding the Jews scattered throughout the world, one arrives at a total that is only slightly less than the pre-war total; this already rules out any mass extermination. S. Challen therefore went to the trouble of examining Korherr’s claims more closely. He ultimately concludes that Korherr, acting on Himmler’s orders, reduced the emigration statistics by one million and increased the number of Jews evacuated to the East by that same million. And in one of his letters, Himmler writes that this report would serve well as a cover. Challen arrives at the well-founded conclusion that Himmler wanted to keep Hitler from realizing that a large part of the Polish and Russian Jews in the East had gotten away by means of flight and Soviet evacuation measures. On the basis of Korherr’s data, Challen calculated that the Jews lost approximately 1.2 million of their number during World War Two, some 750,000 of them in Germany’s sphere of influence.

Samuel Crowell (Pseudonym of now deceased Professor of History at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania)
The revisionist Samuel Crowell has also criticised aspects of the Korherr Report:
"First, the motive for the report: Himmler wished to present a short report to the Führer showing how the Government General of Poland was now free of Jews; that is the clear import from a comparison of the short report and the longer one. In the same manner, the number of Polish Jews remaining, about 300,000, corresponds precisely to the benchmark that Himmler indicated in July 1942 that he wanted to achieve by the end of the year. In other words, there was a powerful incentive for the numbers in this report to be cooked."
"A second point has to do with the likelihood of double counting, a likelihood increased when we reflect on the fact that since the Höfle Telegram was the source of Point #4, there is no guarantee that its totals would not overlap with other statistical sources."
The argued real and recently discovered Franke-Griksch Report makes no mention of mass killings in the camps, Aktion Reinhardt is explicitly described as a plunder operation, and Jewish deportees from the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising are stated to not have been killed. The Franke-Griksch Report contradicts the claim in the Korherr Report of there being only 20,000 Jews in Lublin in the Government General and states a much higher number. The low number in the Korherr Report may have been false in order to fit with what Himmler wanted in the Korherr Report. Furthermore, the Franke-Griksch Report is argued to fit with statements in the Stroop Report and statements made by Jürgen Stroop in the postwar period on the Jews captured in Warsaw being sent to camps in the Lublin province.
"In 1977, Korherr wrote to Der Spiegel protesting the claim that the 1.274 million in Point #4 referred to Jews who had been killed. He claimed that he had called Himmler’s offices precisely because he did not know the meaning of the phrase “special treatment” (Sonderbehandlung) in this context. He went on, “I received the answer that it referred to Jews who were to be settled in the district of Lublin.” The authentic Franke-Gricksch report confirms this claim."
The Höfle Telegram
The Höfle Telegram repeats one of the deportation numbers stated in the Korherr Report. However, the authenticity of the Höfle Telegram has been questioned. On the other hand, if the Höfle Telegram is authentic, then careful analysis of the numbers, it is argued, creates more problems for the Korherr Report "code word" theory.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Korherr_Report
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 25870
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The Korherr report

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:20 pm

Been-there is doign a bit of catch up to try and improve his knowledge. Hofle is authentic, the actual telegram does not exist, instead it is known from a decode was found in records at Kew.

There is no problem with the code word theory. Plausible deniability was the aim for a Nazi heriarchy stung over T4. They were hardly going to list "Jews murdered" in their communications.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 3735
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.
Contact:

Re: The Korherr report

Post by Huntinger » Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:17 am

Nessie wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:20 pm
They were hardly going to list "Jews murdered" in their communications.
Of course not, especially when there was no intention or incentive to exterminate Jude.
𝕲𝖊𝕾𝖙𝖆𝕻𝖔
𝔊𝔢𝔥𝔢𝔦𝔪𝔢 𝔲𝔫𝔡 𝔖𝔱𝔞𝔞𝔱𝔰𝔭𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔷𝔢𝔦 𝔣𝔲̈𝔯 𝔡𝔢𝔫 𝔖𝔦𝔠𝔥𝔢𝔯𝔥𝔢𝔦𝔱𝔰𝔡𝔦𝔢𝔫𝔰𝔱

User avatar
AirfixGeneral
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Korherr report

Post by AirfixGeneral » Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:23 pm

Huntinger wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:17 am
Nessie wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:20 pm
They were hardly going to list "Jews murdered" in their communications.
Of course not, especially when there was no intention or incentive to exterminate Jude.
the intention was to remove the ju-ju from europes, as documenteds, so to murder thems achieved this perfectlys. to murder thems was the best options cos it meant no ju-ju knocking on hitlers door after the end of war2 asking for their clothes back, which was stolen from thems by the nazis in a joint thievings/murder operation called actions reinhearts . i

if the ju-ju were deaded, then this meant the nazis could keep the troosers and ladies knick-knacks that they stole. But for this to happens the national socilaistas needed to wins the war, but they faileds big times, so they ended up gettings sued by the ju-ju, which is a good things.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], david2923, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests