Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

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: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

Post by Nessie »

We should look at the usage of terms. "Special treatment"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderbehandlung#Usage

"To avoid any misunderstandings, please take note of the following: ...a distinction must be made between those who may be dealt with in the usual way and those who must be given special treatment. The latter case covers subjects who, due to their most objectionable nature, their dangerousness, or their ability to serve as tools of propaganda for the enemy, are suitable for elimination, without respect for persons, by merciless treatment (namely, by execution)" Heydrich 1939

"...due to the grave danger of epidemic, the complete liquidation of Jews from the ghetto in Vitebsk was begun on October 8, 1941. The number of Jews to whom special treatment is to be applied is around 3,000." Eastern front report 1941

"special treatment takes place by hanging." Himmler 1942
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.


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


I was a number
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

Post by I was a number »

3 examples of "murder." :roll:

http://www.cwporter.com/specialaction.htm

http://www.cwporter.com/scbonnairport.htm

http://www.cwporter.com/HINDENBURG.htm

Plus:

KALTENBRUNNER: The contents are not correct, when given the interpretation you are giving to the document. You will see immediately that the tragic expression "special treatment" is given here an absolutely humorous turn. Do you know the meaning of Winzerstube in Godesberg, and of Walsertraum in the Walsertal, and their relation to the term "Sonderbehandlung"? Walsertraum is the smartest and most fashionable Alpine hotel of the whole German

338

12 April 46

Reich, and the Winzerstube is a very famous hotel in Godesberg in which many international meetings were held. Especially qualified and distinguished personalities were accommodated there-I would mention M. Poncet and M. Herriot and many more. They had three times the normal ration for diplomats, which is nine times the ration of the ordinary German during the war. They were daily given a bottle of champagne. They were allowed to correspond freely with their families in France and to receive parcels. These internees were allowed to receive visits on several occasions, their wishes were cared for wherever they were. That is what is meant here by 'special treatment."

I can only state here that it may well be that Muller may have talked about this to me, since I was extremely anxious from the point of view of foreign policy and intelligence that the Reich should now follow my suggestion and treat foreign persons in a more humane manner. It is in this connection that Muller may have spoken to me, but Winzerstube and Godesberg, these two final achievements of this so-called "special treatment," were the places where political internees upon parole were accommodated and received preferential treatment.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-12-46.asp


[Edit: URL tags added to links ~ DC]
___________________________________________________________

:?: Have you found a photo of a Jew in an alleged gas chamber? :?:

Submit it HERE.

___________________________________________________________

Bob
Posts: 3404
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

Post by Bob »

DasPrussian wrote:And according to historiography, millions of Jews were exterminated, most in death camps, and they were recorded as 'evacuations'. So what's it to be Bob? You can't use something that you disagree with to now back up your accusation.

Yes I already told you in my original answer to your multiple choice question ( camouflage killing or literal meaning) that I believe 50% of Theresienstadt Jews were eventually murdered. I also informed you that I believed 30,000 were sent to the AR camps during 1942 and therefore was unsure if they were included twice in the report. REMEMBER ? But due to you dictacting how I should answer, ie you only accepted two answers, I plumped for 'literal meaning'.

Ha Ha - you should have known that your bizarre little rules would come back to haunt you. Why didn't you just settle for my original answers instead of throwing a hissy fit and demanding I answer them in a way only you would accept ???

My suspicions are aroused for several reasons, not just the lack of destination. How many times do I have to tell you that ?

I don't have to tell you what is wrong with this explanation, it tells you at the end, it doesn't refer to the Korherr report.
- because I disagree with historiography regarding the alleged extermination of deportees, i must disagree with everything what historiography claims even if I consider it as true since it is backed up in documents? Unfortunately for you a flawed logic and merely a demonstration of your true agenda. But thanks, to see you angry when just an official historiography show your theory as bollocks, that is priceless. Arguments missing, ok.

- you already told this to us claiming you are not sure, i.e. you don´t know, then you changed your position and dropped your claims about murder. So much for your backed up position and knowledge. There was no break down, just one figure and one evacuation, so do not lie that I dictated something, it was you who was making up stuff how "evacuation" had several meanings at the same time what is nonsensical and I waited for you to pick up one meaning.

- we are left in dark about your alleged "several reasons", what I see is that you made fuss about missing specific destinations. Again no arguments, ok.

- of course it does, Butz addressed your Himmler´s letter regarding Korherr report. Maybe you need new glasses.
DasPrussian wrote:Where did I say I would dismiss such a table as camouflage? On the contrary, what I would do, (if I was a historian) would be to visit these destinations and performed some research . If I discovered nothing to back up the claims, then I would inform you that your list is a load of bollocks.
You do not need to say anything, readers no doubt noted your treatment of Korherr Report and exterminationists´ treatment of such documents is more than known - camouflage - hence when you ask to show you more and more documents you know beforehand you will dismiss them as camouflage, so just a trolling. Another popular way of treatment of such documents is - this was just an exception. Question again dodged, duly noted.
DasPrussian wrote:'We' ?? You mean 'you and your cranky friends' .

Which is where?

Because you don't know.

It is also pure speculation, or bullshit .

The main thing I'm claiming is that the majority of AR Jews in the report are all dead , and it is likely that the other evacuees in the report also shared the same fate. It really is simple.
And this guy previously complained like a child that I allegedly cut short his quotes and comment selected sentences.

First is ad hominem. Yes, I do not know where precisely for the reasons explained, I have no problem to say i do not know contrary to you. Unfortunately for you, I know they were moved to the Russian East as stated in the documents. Existence of the so called Iron Curtain is not a speculation or bullshit, nor is isolation of areas behind the Iron Curtain nor a fact that documents were selected - for instance just a small fraction of documents was selected for Nuremberg. Do some research, this is ridiculous. You are claiming where these Jews are, allegedly buried in precisely known areas known as AR camps, yet, nobody found them so far, hence is very easy to conclude where these Jews aren´t, and that´s what matters. If I cannot show where precisely they ended in the Russian East does not mean that your flawed theory is correct, a common flaw in the exterminationists logic when they are in the corner asking "where they are?" thinking that inability to provide their precise fate automatically turns their theory into truth.
DasPrussian wrote:I haven't studied it in detail, but just took your word for it that it proved they went to Auschwitz, ( which is what I suspected but I didn't say earlier).

I'll need to read what he says in detail if you want to start an argument with me about it. Trouble is, the footballs on tonight so I'd rather watch that.

Ah, at last, confirmation you are aware that 'special treatment' could mean murder. So, how does that effect your interpretation of the fate of AR Jews ?
Note : it might be best if you remind yourself of the fact that about 50 SS confirmed that the AR camps were extermination camps , during several trials in the 50's 60's and 70's. This may also help change your original interpretation of the Korherr report.

Yeah, like the context of the SS confirming the AR camps were extermination centres for Jews, and the context that 'Special Treatment' could mean murder.
Is the penny beginning to drop now ?

And according to you, the interpretation of 'Special Treatment' was what Mattogno wrote , yeah? So tell me, do you think Himmler has made the report more clearer to anyone reading it as to what 'Special Treatment' actually means? after he replaced the original term? Mattognos interpretation included a long winded geographically based criteria. So now according to you, because Himmler replaced the original term, the report is now clearer regarding what ST meant?? .............YEAH RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
- as expected, you have nothing. My word? Interesting, I see in the table that it was Piper, Czech or Klarsfeld who told you that these Jews went to Auschwitz and were selected/registered there.

- here you dodged that special treatment in your case was no camouflage for execution, the context clearly pointed to execution, i.e. the opposite of your camouflage theory, but you simply ignore this contradiction. How does this affect my interpretation? Nothing, as special treatment was used in both contexts, innocent/criminal, conclusion cannot be derived just from presence of these words.

- SS including none other than Himmler, confirmed in the documents Sobibór was a transit camp (let´s wait for DP and his usual "camouflage" treatment). Since this camp was a part of the same operation, we may logically conclude other two camps had the same main purpose. Special treatment "could mean murder", nothing new from you, you repeated the same thing ignoring that special treatment could mean also innocent thing. I myself are using these words often to describe things/actions around me, why Germans should exception is a mystery. Referring to testimonies full of contradictions, impossibilities and not backed up by material evidence is as useful as referring to testimonies to alien abductions and witchcraft.

- yes, contrary to special treatment of Jews, the words "Transport of Jews from the Eastern provinces to the Russian
East....Processed through the camps in the General Government area...Through the camps in the Warthegau:"
(Mattogno´s translation) are really clearer. Correct? Are they clearer?
DasPrussian wrote:How many thousands? enough for me to give a fuck ? I doubt it. Best if we stick with the big numbers, Bob. For obvious reasons !

As I mentioned before , we may have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the word 'evacuation'. If you had read my earlier post I said that I believed if a person was evacuated to a destination with the intent of killing them in the future through whatever means, then that to me is a murderous type of evacuation. The key here is 'intententions', and considering what we all know about the Nazis intentions , then I believe I have every right to believe most of these evacuees to Auschwitz, ended up brown bread. Nowotimean?
- you even did not read the Report otherwise you would not have asked. "Best if...", i.e. according to you inconvenient things should be ignored, duly noted. The case of Lublin/Majdanek is quite interesting, no less than 4,568 released Jews.

- question dodged: - the people were selected and registered at the camp hence not killed. Hence again: Those selected/registered were hence not killed, how is this compatible with your claim that point 5 are evacuations camouflaged as killings?

- this is not about difference of opinion, leaving aside your new inventions and contradictions, then this is about your outrageous nonsense how the word "evacuation" had simultaneously several meanings, even contradictory meanings. You are claiming that evacuation was a term used for various fates of deportees. Here I list your nonsenses so far: camouflage for past killings/murder, camouflage for selection for future killings/murder, proper evacuation, camouflage for mistreatment. If we add other possibilities we know happened, then this was also camouflage for releases, transfers or natural deaths. In the case of Theresienstadt you even said the evacuation was proper evacuation, hence acc. to your flawed logic, these deportees were probably invulnerable or living in the Heaven as their fate was obviously not murder and not even mistreatment nor starvation otherwise you would not have said this evacuation meant proper evacuation, you would have said this was also "camouflage".

- is of no surprise you dodged the question regarding your hypothesis about this messy tricky code language which tells nothing to those who read the report: "How those for which the document was made, were able to recognize who was murdered and who is alive and will be killed someday, somehow in the future, who will be "only" mistreated or who will not be killed and will be released?"

- in one way you complain the report is not clear and suspicious when special treatment words are used, how the report is not clearer even if this term was replaced with proper wording, yet, you yourself are making up unfounded hypothesis about some sort of multi-camouflage term with several different meanings which tell nothing to those who read the report. More you write, more we are dealing with confused amateur producing flaws and contradictions in order to remedy his previous fails.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

Post by Nessie »

The language used is not code, it is not even particularly disguised. It is like many a euphemism. Most people know exactly what is being referred to. Only the truly or wilfully ignorant say they do not know what is meant.

The only people the Nazis fooled are the denier/revisionists.
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
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé »

Here's a helpful list of Nazi euphemisms from Jonathan M Alexander of Burlington County College, whose original article was scrubbed from the college's site, probably for being complete rubbish; fortunately it can still be found with way back machine:

Image

http://web.archive.org/web/201407290823 ... emisms.htm

:roll:
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

I was a number
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

Post by I was a number »

Nessie wrote:The language used is not code, it is not even particularly disguised. It is like many a euphemism. Most people know exactly what is being referred to. Only the truly or wilfully ignorant say they do not know what is meant.

The only people the Nazis fooled are the denier/revisionists.
The only code used is by Nessie. What it means? Who knows or cares at this point.
___________________________________________________________

:?: Have you found a photo of a Jew in an alleged gas chamber? :?:

Submit it HERE.

___________________________________________________________

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29220
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

Post by Nessie »

Clear use of language here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

"Gnadentod", the mercy death of the disabled and mentally ill, complete with signed Hitler Order. Hitler's aim was a pure Fatherland free of the disabled and the Jews, as reported by Goebbels in clear language

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... bbels.html

"With regard to the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep of it. He prophesied that, if they brought about another world war, they would experience their annihilation. The annihilation of Jewry must be the necessary consequence. The question is to be viewed without any sentimentality. We’re not there to have sympathy with the Jews, but only sympathy with our own German people. If the German people has again now sacrificed around 160,000 dead in the eastern campaign, the originators of this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives."
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
DasPrussian
Posts: 3257
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

Post by DasPrussian »

- because I disagree with historiography regarding the alleged extermination of deportees, i must disagree with everything what historiography claims even if I consider it as true since it is backed up in documents? Unfortunately for you a flawed logic and merely a demonstration of your true agenda. But thanks, to see you angry when just an official historiography show your theory as bollocks, that is priceless. Arguments missing, ok.
You can agree or disagree with what you want, Bob. My point here was just to remind you of revisionist hypocrisy when it comes to use of sources. For example you can quote Eichmann in court to back up your camouflage theory, yet most of you will claim he was tortured or drugged when we remind you of his interpretation of certain aspects of the holocaust.

But, it's interesting that you mentioned you would consider something being true in what is recorded in official historiography if it was backed up in documents. I believe this is the first case from your latest post that can be proven to be lies. Considering all the documentation available that proves the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jews , and how that fits in with the context of the AR camps, and therefore the Korherr report, then the only thing you have demonstrated is the opposite.
- you already told this to us claiming you are not sure, i.e. you don´t know, then you changed your position and dropped your claims about murder. So much for your backed up position and knowledge. There was no break down, just one figure and one evacuation, so do not lie that I dictated something, it was you who was making up stuff how "evacuation" had several meanings at the same time what is nonsensical and I waited for you to pick up one meaning.
I only changed my position about Theresienstadt because you refused my original answer. I had to answer in the way you specified else you threatened to throw your toys out the pram. So now you are accusing me of changing my position, yet that is entirely your fault. You didn't like my first answer as it fucked up your little trap, so don't come that shit with me. I only answered in the way you wanted me to just so we could get things moving, so we can get to the big numbers, the numbers that any logically minded individual would concentrate on in order to try and arrive at the truth.

Here are a list of posts made by you moaning like a bitch about my answers ;

fri oct 17 1.05

As I said to you repeatedly, before moving forward, I need to know your position.

Before addressing your assertions, I need to know what you are saying.

before moving forward, I need to know your position. Then will be time for analysis.

I did not ask what can you prove, I asked what is your position.


It is not even time for "proofs", I still do not even know what is your position as the one point is still unanswered, so why are you still in a hurry with "proofs" is a mystery. In last three days I am just trying to get a simple answers from you to just six simple points + evacuations total point

wed oct 15 5.07

Before moving forward, answer the missing points above please.


So are you sure, or not sure? Is the section about murdered Jews or about evacuated Jews?


I am still waiting to see your position, see the points above.


You are still writing something about proofs and proving, but we still did not even arrive to what is your position regarding the report and the section in question.


tue oct 14 11.35

So before moving forward, could you kindly provide replies to these very simple points which represent points in the section in question of Korherr Report, so we can be finally sure about what you are actually telling us?


See what I mean?

Now, if you wanna get sensible about this, then I suggest you revert back to my original answer, and try and pick faults with that. OK?



- we are left in dark about your alleged "several reasons", what I see is that you made fuss about missing specific destinations. Again no arguments, ok.
Let me shine some light on your darkness, Bob, all you had to do was ask nicely .

Here are 10 aspects of the report, not including the absence of destinations, that make me suspicious about it's claims :

1) The term 'evacuation' has a double meaning. Nazis were noted for their camouflage language.

2) The AR evacuees have been proven to have been either gassed, suffocated, or shot or died of mistreatment etc. So to include these under the heading 'evacuations' means suspicion should arise over the other sections true meaning.

3) The section also included the term 'Special Treatment' - again a term with a double meaning that in the main, related to murder.

4) Himmler asked for above term to be removed - so this gives the impression he is trying to camouflage the true meaning of the report.

5) Himmler also states the report will be 'good for camouflage' - this again raises suspicions, camouflage means to hide something, so what is he trying to hide?

6)The destinations of the sections where it is mentioned, are extremely vague in some cases, ie 'The East' and 'the Russian East' - and considering no-one can prove they ended up in the Russian East, and no Nazi has ever claimed this happened, then again must mean the report is a load of old bollocks and is camouflaging murder in the AR camps.

7) There is a note at the bottom that states none of the evacuation figures include Jews in concentration camps or ghettos. This is strange considering 150k looks like they were sent to Auschwitz, which I believe was a concentration camp, unless it was considered they were as good as dead in Auschwitz, as eluded to by Goebbels in his diary entry of 14.12.41 when referring to the French Jews being deported to Auschwitz "There deportation equates to a death sentence" he informs us. Thanks for that Joseph.
But it also raises the question, well if they aren't in ghettos or camps , then where the fuck are they? Theme parks ??? YMCA's ? Just roaming around trying their hardest to look all 'un-partisan' like ??

8) Hopefully this isn't a duplication, but section 5 looks like it relates to Auschwitz deportations. Now we all know what happened there don't we? So again this is very suspicious. It suggests to me that these were evacuated to be murdered, either straight away or at a later date, probably of exhaustion or being gassed, or injected with phenol (?).

9) We now know from Korherr that he enquired over the meaning of Special Treatment, and he was informed that it meant 'Jews settled in Lublin'. Now what the fuck is all that about? There now appears to be a contradiction over their destination (Russian East, remember?) and a contradiction over the meaning of Special Treatment. So again, any logical person would be suspicious over this blatant contradictory information.

10) The note in the report that states that since 1933, European Jewry (10 million)has been reduced by almost half. Again half (2.5 million) has fled to other countries. Now if I have got my maths right, that means out of 5 million Jews, 2.5 million are in other countries either by emigration or 'evacuation'. So, where does that leave the other 2.5 million? Did they all suffer natural deaths? Must have been a severe bout of Typhus in Europe during them years eh? Where was all the Zyklon B when they needed it? Oh yeah, Auschwitz !!

So Bob, feel free to decide whether I have a right to be suspicious.
- of course it does, Butz addressed your Himmler´s letter regarding Korherr report. Maybe you need new glasses.
Sorry Bob, but I've just put my new glasses on and all I can see is the same sentence but bigger. Here is what you posted :

[1]"In a document said to be initialed by Himmler, he wrote shortly that he regarded the “report as general purpose material for later times, and especially for camouflage purposes.” What was to be camouflaged is not indicated in the document but, at his trial, Eichmann testified that after the Stalingrad disaster (January 1943) the German government quickened the pace of the deportations “for camouflage reasons,” i.e., to reassure the German people that everything was OK out there. Himmler specified that the Korherr report was not to be made public “at the moment,” but the camouflage remark could still be interpreted in the sense in which Eichmann suggested (Eichmann’s statement was not in connection with the Korherr report.)" Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Theses & Dissertations Press,
Imprint of Castle Hill Publishers, 2003, p. 146.


See the big letters ? Read it and weep , son. Shall I send these new glasses onto you?

Where did I say I would dismiss such a table as camouflage? On the contrary, what I would do, (if I was a historian) would be to visit these destinations and performed some research . If I discovered nothing to back up the claims, then I would inform you that your list is a load of bollocks.

You do not need to say anything, readers no doubt noted your treatment of Korherr Report and exterminationists´ treatment of such documents is more than known - camouflage - hence when you ask to show you more and more documents you know beforehand you will dismiss them as camouflage, so just a trolling. Another popular way of treatment of such documents is - this was just an exception. Question again dodged, duly noted.
If there is proof there is camouflage involved, then it will be produced and backed up with facts. Its just tough shit if all this coded wordology your Nazi friends used can be sussed out by logically minded historians and researchers. Don't let this fact put you off visiting Siberia and talking with local historians, Bob. I'm sure they can shed some light on a mass evacuation onto their territory in 1942. The stance your adopting smacks of defeatism. Not very advisable if you're gonna indulge in debates , it may end up in you losing credibility, as well as the argument.
And this guy previously complained like a child that I allegedly cut short his quotes and comment selected sentences.


Are you incinuating that I have done the same ? Would you like to demonstrate that please? I may have spliced your paragraph into sections but I didn't omit anything. Blimey, has it got that bad that you are now inventing misdemeanours?
First is ad hominem. Yes, I do not know where precisely for the reasons explained, I have no problem to say i do not know contrary to you. Unfortunately for you, I know they were moved to the Russian East as stated in the documents.
So you don't know where they ended up precisely, but you are 100% sure they did end up in the Russian East. And just because a document riddled with camouflage and contradictions told you so eh? How very professional and logical of you, Bob, you would make a fine historian I'm sure.

You also come to this conclusion even after trials have produced perpetrator and victim and neutral testimonies and NONE of them have even touched on the idea of a Eastern Russian evacuation !!! And even after you being aware ( I presume) of documents that prove the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews, and all the diary entries, the speeches ( ie Himmler at Posen 4/10/43 where he even equated the word evacuation with extermination ), the circumstantial evidence like oaths of secrecy, instructions to destroy documents, giving out of iron crosses ( for operating a transit camp?????), the fact that a good percentage of AR staff worked at euthanasia centres gassing the 'useless' mouths, the rate of pay for AR SS staff being very generous compared to other German soldiers, the sightings of fires, the awful stench of burning and rotting corpses, the Stroop report confirming exterminations occurred at Treblinka, the fact that only a few hundred survived out of 1.5 million and most of them only because they revolted, blah blah blah ????? Yes Bob, you really have looked at the evidence and arrived at a sound, well balanced, logical conclusion. Well done.

Existence of the so called Iron Curtain is not a speculation or bullshit, nor is isolation of areas behind the Iron Curtain nor a fact that documents were selected - for instance just a small fraction of documents was selected for Nuremberg. Do some research, this is ridiculous.


Until you show me such a document that will prove your case, then it is speculation. I think you need to do some research, as I mentioned earlier, an ideal place to start would be going to Vladivostok to hang out with some local historians.
What you also need to research is the following :
1) How did the Jews arrive there ie train? boat? luxury coach? walking?
2) What clothes did they wear? considering the Nazis robbed them of everything they possessed, even their fuckin underpants and socks, what sort of clobber were they given for the harsh Russian climate ?
3) What buildings were constructed for them?
4) What did it cost?
5) What belongings were they allowed to take?
6) How were they fed?
7) Did the Dutch Jews fit in ok with the locals and did they eventually change their names ? 30,000 dutch jews in Siberia all with dutch names must have left their mark there. There must be hundreds if not thousands of Russians with Dutch sounding names, yeah?

Hopefully these few questions will act as a pointer for you to start your research, Bob. Maybe you already have the answers, I'd be interested to find out .



You are claiming where these Jews are, allegedly buried in precisely known areas known as AR camps, yet, nobody found them so far, hence is very easy to conclude where these Jews aren´t, and that´s what matters. If I cannot show where precisely they ended in the Russian East does not mean that your flawed theory is correct, a common flaw in the exterminationists logic when they are in the corner asking "where they are?" thinking that inability to provide their precise fate automatically turns their theory into truth.
Its hard to locate ash isn't it? and we're all aware of the Yids annoying religious beliefs regarding excavation. Mind you, I believe the Russians reported ash mountains at these camps when they performed investigations.

If you cant prove they ended up in the Russian East, then you might as well go home, Bob. And if your theory is incorrect, then that leaves us with the theory that has been proved, with all the evidence.





- as expected, you have nothing. My word? Interesting, I see in the table that it was Piper, Czech or Klarsfeld who told you that these Jews went to Auschwitz and were selected/registered there.
So what's the problem here? Did they end up in Auschwitz or didn't they?

It seems I've disappointed you with this one as it appears you were expecting some kind of second debate on the subject. Maybe it was a little trap you've set but 'me-no-take-da-bait' , or maybe it's just amateurish silly old me getting it all wrong again !


- here you dodged that special treatment in your case was no camouflage for execution, the context clearly pointed to execution, i.e. the opposite of your camouflage theory, but you simply ignore this contradiction. How does this affect my interpretation? Nothing, as special treatment was used in both contexts, innocent/criminal, conclusion cannot be derived just from presence of these words.
You just don't get it do you? As I told you before , please listen, the only thing I have done here is prove that Special Treatment could mean murder. Now why don't you prove to me that Mattogno's ridiculous definition has some element of truth. I asked you before what he based his definition on, but you have dodged the question.
- SS including none other than Himmler, confirmed in the documents Sobibór was a transit camp (let´s wait for DP and his usual "camouflage" treatment).
Considering the available evidence that proves these camps were not transit camps, then we have to conclude that this was camouflage language again. Don't sulk Bob, it's not my fault the nazis indulged in such activity.
Since this camp was a part of the same operation, we may logically conclude other two camps had the same main purpose.


And since when have you used logic to determine anything effecting the plight of European Jewry during WW2 ?

But even if you have, this again is flawed logic. Especially since the Stroop report confirms that exterminations were carried out at Treblinka. Now what would you say if I adopted your style of logic to that ? If exterminations were carried out at Treblinka, then the same happened at the other 2.[/quote]
Special treatment "could mean murder", nothing new from you, you repeated the same thing ignoring that special treatment could mean also innocent thing. I myself are using these words often to describe things/actions around me, why Germans should exception is a mystery. Referring to testimonies full of contradictions, impossibilities and not backed up by material evidence is as useful as referring to testimonies to alien abductions and witchcraft.
I have already acknowledged in a past post it has a double meaning, so I haven't ignored the innocent meaning. Stop lying !

Maybe you need to research these trials more then. I personally cant see any similarities between alien abductions and trials that matter here, ie on German soil in the 60's 70's regarding Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec. Maybe you've been listening too much to someone who knows more about such things like Alien Abduction, like Ernst Zundel , who I believe produced a fine piece of scholarly work on Nazis in UFO's !!
- yes, contrary to special treatment of Jews, the words "Transport of Jews from the Eastern provinces to the Russian
East....Processed through the camps in the General Government area...Through the camps in the Warthegau:"
(Mattogno´s translation) are really clearer. Correct? Are they clearer?
For who's eyes were these words written for? If it was for people in the know, ie higher echelons of Nazi leadership, then wouldn't they also be aware of Mattognos innocent interpretation of Special Treatment? I think yes, so why change the wording?




- you even did not read the Report otherwise you would not have asked. "Best if...", i.e. according to you inconvenient things should be ignored, duly noted. The case of Lublin/Majdanek is quite interesting, no less than 4,568 released Jews.
Peanuts. Stick with the big numbers Bob, as I've already told you.
- question dodged: - the people were selected and registered at the camp hence not killed. Hence again: Those selected/registered were hence not killed, how is this compatible with your claim that point 5 are evacuations camouflaged as killings?
I already answered you, please pay attention - Auschwitz = Death in the majority of cases. Here's what Goebbels had to say ( Again, as I've already informed you earlier)

"14.12.41 - The deportation of the French Jews equates to a death sentence"
- this is not about difference of opinion, leaving aside your new inventions and contradictions, then this is about your outrageous nonsense how the word "evacuation" had simultaneously several meanings, even contradictory meanings. You are claiming that evacuation was a term used for various fates of deportees. Here I list your nonsenses so far: camouflage for past killings/murder, camouflage for selection for future killings/murder, proper evacuation, camouflage for mistreatment. If we add other possibilities we know happened, then this was also camouflage for releases, transfers or natural deaths. In the case of Theresienstadt you even said the evacuation was proper evacuation, hence acc. to your flawed logic, these deportees were probably invulnerable or living in the Heaven as their fate was obviously not murder and not even mistreatment nor starvation otherwise you would not have said this evacuation meant proper evacuation, you would have said this was also "camouflage".
Look, evacuation in the korherr report meant death in the majority of cases. That's my answer. Theresienstadt was not so clear cut, as I originally answered but you wouldn't accept that style of answer, because it fucked your little plan of action up . Now all you've done is concentrated on the small fry numbers to try and claim I've contradicted myself or dared to define death as being a half hour job at AR camps or a slower process at Auschwitz. Again due to your stupid rigid ruling you cant accept that. This is bullshit. you're just trying to add confusion and time wasting pseudo intellectual nonsense to a debate that you are failing to win. Just because you can't prove resettlement in Siberia, (which is the most important part of the debate) don't start introducing all this crap to the table.


- is of no surprise you dodged the question regarding your hypothesis about this messy tricky code language which tells nothing to those who read the report: "How those for which the document was made, were able to recognize who was murdered and who is alive and will be killed someday, somehow in the future, who will be "only" mistreated or who will not be killed and will be released?"
Who was supposed to be reading the report then?
- in one way you complain the report is not clear and suspicious when special treatment words are used, how the report is not clearer even if this term was replaced with proper wording, yet, you yourself are making up unfounded hypothesis about some sort of multi-camouflage term with several different meanings which tell nothing to those who read the report. More you write, more we are dealing with confused amateur producing flaws and contradictions in order to remedy his previous fails.
[/quote][/quote]

1) Evacuations = death ,
2) Theresienstadt - not as clear cut that's why I said 50% death, but you can't handle this answer, probably cos it can be backed up with evidence and that would deprive you of one of your silly accusations of contradiction.
2) Death = either immediate or non-immediate, but it has to be the intention of the one who is dealing it.
3) Yes, I am an amateur, yet I'm the one holding all the evidence and the answers, while you, the 'professional' is dealing in speculation and irrelevant claims of contradiction as a way of trying to make up for your failure to produce the evidence and proof of the main aspect to this debate.

I had a sense there was something not quite right about your methods of debating, Bob. And I previously mentioned alarm bells ringing early doors. I was right. Summing up so far all you've done is indulge in a straw man style debate where you either invent perceived 'misdemenours' by me , regarding the 'minor' elements of the subject and then proceed to perform your little victory dances, yet when it comes to the important and most crucial aspect of this debate ie proving the resettlement of 1.5 million AR Jews, or even mentioning the 630,000 'Russian jews' and where they ended up, you've got fuck all to bring to the table .

Now I've spent the last few days responding to your posts, and it's beginning to take up a lot of time, and I'm a busy man. Trouble is you post so much bullshit and nonsense that I feel I have to comment on all of it , as I don't believe anyone should go around spouting off such bizarre and nonsensical comments without them being made aware of how ridiculous they sound. So I suggest instead of going on and on about my non existent contradictions or responding to my 'forced' answers, and arguing the toss if a slow death should count the same as 20 minute gassing , you should now answer the questions i raised in this post, and then move on to the crucial part of this debate - ie proving that the largest portion of Jews in the korherr report were actually evacuated to Eastern Russia. Agreed? .............Oh shit, soz, you've already tried that haven't you? And FAILED !!! Ha Ha ! Goodnight :lol: :lol:
All I want for Christmas is a Dukla Prague away kit

Bob
Posts: 3404
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

Post by Bob »

Your every next comment is longer and longer and longer and 90% of it are repetitions. It was a real pain to read your mess and obfuscations and prepare some friendly version of my response for readers.

Theresienstadt:

1)As for your Theresienstadt - proper evacuation serving as camouflage of non-proper evacuations - theory, we can finish it off:

- is it correct your "camouflage" purpose is false as acc. to historiography and documents, people sent there were also sent to other camps including AR camps?

- is it a nonsense to claim, that when I disagree with historiography regarding the extermination, I must disagree with it regarding the documented deportations to AR camps from Theresienstadt which show your theory as false?

- is it correct, that providing just one single specific destination for one point (as you told us) in the section where destinations are missing for other points (as you told us) actually raises suspicious about other points and hence does the opposite of "camouflage" and you are a living proof of this opposite effect?

- when you said, that in this case of evacuation was a "proper evacuation" and not a "camouflage" for deaths by various ways or mistreatment like in the case of Auschwitz, does it means these Theresienstadt deportees were magically invulnerable, not starving and not even mistreated and their fate was not death sooner or later like in your Auschwitz case?

- if the purpose of Theresienstadt was to help with camouflage of the section by introduction of "proper evacuations" in order to "proving to any future reader[...]that the 'evacuations' were actually 'evacuations'" as you told us, but your theory is false, then it means there was no attempt to help to camouflage something by introduction of proper evacuations, correct? They did the opposite of your theory, they introduced another "camouflaged killings", correct?
DasPrussian wrote:I only changed my position about Theresienstadt because you refused my original answer. I had to answer in the way you specified else you threatened to throw your toys out the pram. So now you are accusing me of changing my position, yet that is entirely your fault. You didn't like my first answer as it fucked up your little trap, so don't come that shit with me. I only answered in the way you wanted me to just so we could get things moving, so we can get to the big numbers, the numbers that any logically minded individual would concentrate on in order to try and arrive at the truth.

See what I mean?
I did not refuse your answer, I could not accept it since you claimed that the term evacuation had more meanings at the same time related to different figures, i.e. for some deportees you claimed "literal meaning" as they were maybe alive, but for some people "camouflaged killings", but there was only one evacuation and one number, hence your invention was simply not acceptable, you cannot have it both ways, the word is either camouflage or not. You chose literal meaning, that was your decision, not mine. You could choose camouflage meaning, but you did not. But don´t cry, this would not have meant any advantage of course. ;)

Yes, I know what you mean, you was not sure, i.e. you did not know what to choose, if a literal meaning of the term evacuation or camouflage meaning. It took you some time, but you obviously made up your silly theory about the - proper evacuation serving as camouflage of non-proper evacuations - purpose of Theresienstadt, hence you dropped your previous claims about extermination thinking this will be better for your position. I was even generous to offer you time to educate yourself about the subject to make up your mind, all what was needed was to shout. You came up with literal meaning of the evacuation related to Theresienstadt. That you dropped the camouflage meaning in favor of literal meaning thinking that it will be better to argue this way, that´s your problem, do not blame me that your fantasies are false, I only expose them, I do not create your fantasies.

We can see the same patter regarding people deported to Auschwitz, you knew nothing about it so you choose camouflaged killings for the point 5. When it turned out that tens thousands of these people were acc. to documents and historiography selected and registered at Auschwitz, and hence alive, you started with the same inventions how "evacuation" meant partly this, partly this or partly this etc. to remedy your previous fail.
DasPrussian wrote:Now, if you wanna get sensible about this, then I suggest you revert back to my original answer, and try and pick faults with that. OK?
When your attempt and argumentation you considered correct failed, you want to revert back to argumentation you dropped in favor of the latter and you want to forget everything you said as if non-existent? Oops, but this is easy to understand.

Bob
Posts: 3404
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Cole (Again) on Treblinka and the "Reinhardt" Camps

Post by Bob »

Himmler´s letter of April 9, 1943
DasPrussian wrote:Sorry Bob, but I've just put my new glasses on and all I can see is the same sentence but bigger. Here is what you posted :

[1]"In a document said to be initialed by Himmler, he wrote shortly that he regarded the “report as general purpose material for later times, and especially for camouflage purposes.” What was to be camouflaged is not indicated in the document but, at his trial, Eichmann testified that after the Stalingrad disaster (January 1943) the German government quickened the pace of the deportations “for camouflage reasons,” i.e., to reassure the German people that everything was OK out there. Himmler specified that the Korherr report was not to be made public “at the moment,” but the camouflage remark could still be interpreted in the sense in which Eichmann suggested (Eichmann’s statement was not in connection with the Korherr report.)" Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Theses & Dissertations Press,
Imprint of Castle Hill Publishers, 2003, p. 146.


See the big letters ? Read it and weep , son. Shall I send these new glasses onto you?
So you do not need new glasses, you "only" have a comprehension reading issues as the quote from Eichmann served merely as hint for the Butz´s explanation and to provide context which may be what Himmler had in mind when writing about camouflage, that´s all. With or without Eichmann´s quote, Butz´s hypothesis would have been still an explanation waiting for your counter arguments, but you have none as usual. Correct?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests