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

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

Post by Bob »

Special treatment, correspondence regarding transit camp Sobibór
DasPrussian wrote: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.

I have already acknowledged in a past post it has a double meaning, so I haven't ignored the innocent meaning. Stop lying !

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?
- DP again dodged, that his case of "murder" was NO camouflage, Special treatment by hanging is NO camouflage.

- what dodging? Nobody knows, maybe he should read the explanation again and source provided to him for explanation what ST meant in the Korherr report. DP still has no arguments against it, duly noted. Korherr himself stated what ST meant, but DP ignores it as camouflage, as usually when he faces inconvenient things.

- the words had in the context both innocent/criminal meaning, so we can say bye bye to your argumentation, just the presence of the words special treatment is nothing suspicious. You know very well this, yet you are still making fuss about "suspicion".

- for who´s eyes? Not stated, Himmler´s words "for the moment, it can neither be published nor anyone be allowed sight of it" (my emphasis, translation courtesy of Shermer/Grobman) suggests the intention to publish it in the future, hence not made for some narrow circle of those who "know", but planned to be published. Hence the change of wording is logical, others had hardly knowledge of what ST of Jews meant in this context, completely innocent explanation to whcih DP has nothing against. Acc. to DP, this was for those who "knew", afaik historiography has the same opinion (prepared for Himmler, Hitler...), so why the code language? Why there was a distinction between evacuation and special treatment if acc. to DP everything meant the same fate sooner or later - death? DP knows nothing and ignores the issues.
DasPrussian wrote: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.

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 !!
Thanks for confirmation of your usual treatment of inconvenient documents, so do not ask me again to provide you documents you know will be proclaimed beforehand as coded because of usual vague formula "considering the available evidence...this was camouflage language".

Taking as a proof testimonies without evidence to back them up is as reasonable as to take as a proof testimonies to alien abductions or whitchcraft.


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


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

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

Post by Bob »

Auschwitz
DasPrussian wrote:So what's the problem here? Did they end up in Auschwitz or didn't they?
I do not know what is your problem, do you have your glasses or is too hard to understand it from the table?
DasPrussian wrote: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"
DasPrussian does not care to provide source. I do not have diaries for this period as my book ends in July 1941, never mind, Thomas Dalton quotes it:

"The early curfew in Paris has been abolished, but a plethora of Jews remain to be pushed out (abgeschoben) of occupied France to the eastern region. In many cases this is equivalent to a death sentence. The remaining Jews will think hard before stirring up trouble or sabotage against the German troops. Meanwhile General von Stülpnagel can conduct the execution of 100 Jews and communists. That will provide a very plausible and psychologically-adept explanation for the Parisian population, and will not fail to have an effect." (my emphasis)

Thomas Dalton explanation is reasonable, but there is more detailed analysis. MGK commented it (pp. 243ff.) in length when a "scholar" of DasPrussian´s ilk tried to interpreted the passage in the same way, starting with revealing opening comment and later comment: "Harrison falsifies the historical context in which the first deportations of Jews from France happened: he omits to specify where they were directed to and he remains silent about their fate."[...] Harrison falsely presents the quotation from Goebbels’s diary entry of 14 December 1941 as if he referred to a general deportation plan of the Jews from France and not to a single case. The general deportation was in fact ordered many months later." Goebbels´ entry is hence related to isolated case of Jews who were arrested, deported and punished by hard work during the war time after anti-German assassinations and on December 14 their deportation was announced. This matches Goebbels´ entry where he noted, that other Jews will think hard before "stirring up trouble or sabotage against the German troops" which obviously refers precisely to these anti-German actions resulting in punishment (some were released) of certain umber of Jews whose numbers belongs to DP´s category of "peanuts" which should be ignored. But not in this case, in this case even peanuts are suddenly relevant to our confused "scholar". Read the full text from the provided source.

We solved the real history behind this entry, now I want to see source for your version of the entry which allegedly reads: "The deportation of the French Jews equates to a death sentence" or if we follow your previous version "There [Auschwitz] deportation equates to a death sentence" or where he wrote about Auschwitz or where he wrote "death in majority of cases" because i am trying really hard to see any of this in the actual entry. Before accusing you of making up quotes or lying, i will wait for your response, maybe you just copied it from someone believing it is true or you are just a dilettante who without knowledge of the context interpreted the passage in a way convenient for your current argumentation.
DasPrussian wrote: 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.

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
Your answer has been duly noted and explained as nonsensical as your multiple-camouflage purpose of the word "evacuation" including possible fates of deportees tells nothing about the "Jews murdered" which is a purpose you claimed for the section. There is simply no way how to recognize from the word "evacuation" and provided numbers, who is alive, who is not and was murdered, who was mistreated, who was transferred etc. if we follow your silly theory. Is of no surprise you again dodged to answer the question. Your theory is simply an unfounded nonsense full of contradictions with no informative value for those who read it no matter if the reader "knew" or not. The informative value this section has is how many Jews were evacuated and how many went off from the locations, this is in accordance with the purpose of the section, no problem for revisionists, quite simple and clear.

Unable to face the refutation, you are again falsely accusing me and you are limited to usual "where they are? Prove they were resettled", a canard I commented previously as I expected you to try to divert the subject this way: "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." Important is that we can show where they are not (This itself refutes your theory regarding AR camps) since you claim to know where precisely they are but you cannot demonstrate it although you exterminationists have all control and everything you need to be able to demonstrate it once and for all.

Yes, I see how busy you are when you produced your aggressive rant towards others not mentioning your trolling in irrelevant threads in other sections. I see how busy you are when my short questions and points were absurdly stretched to walls of text to which i am "forced" to reply to avoid being accused of dodging. Your fantasies are refuted, so suddenly you are so busy.

I am busy too, yet I tried to see if another oh so sure arrogant aggressive exterminationist is actually able to defend just one single piece of his alleged evidence. The outcome does not surprise me, it was expected, you simply do not even know what is your position as you are making it up in the course of the debate and that results in many nonsenses and contradictions. ;)

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

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

Post by Bob »

General comments
DasPrussian wrote:Peanuts. Stick with the big numbers Bob, as I've already told you.
The fact that Jews were released from Majdanek in thousands is so inconvenient that DP is really ordering me to simply ignore it as if non existent. Stick with the big numbers you say, see above your treatment of Goebbels´entry Mr. Peanuts or should I call you Mr. Double Standard or Mr. Hypocrisy?
DasPrussian wrote: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 !
Thanks for making clear again, that all the alleged suspicion has no basis in historical reality, but that it actually comes from your mental state which is usually called a paranoia. Or you are "old" and "silly" as you said, that´s also possible, thanks for letting us know, good to know I can ignore your suspicions albeit I already accomplished to refute some examples. I lost my count how many times you accused me of "setting traps". Your performance here, wasn´t it some kind of trap?
DasPrussian wrote:So you don't know where they ended up precisely, but you are 100% sure they did end up in the Russian East.
I have no reason to think otherwise, I do not suffer from paranoia nor I suspect everything as "suspicious" when it is not and when we have explanations which are much simpler and innocent. In dubio pro reo.
DasPrussian wrote:
Bob wrote: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 .
A document proving reality of the Iron Curtain, reality of isolation of these areas, reality of selection of documents for the trials? Troll alert. These questions serve merely as dodging of the inconvenient facts mentioned above, facts you are not able to refute since they are real and valid. Instead asking me now to do the research, one should force authorities some 70 years ago to do this research, a logical approach you either do not see or deliberately ignore, and you ignore that no such research took place. And as solved previously, when you are asking for document in favor of revisionists (in reality, the documents are mostly in favor of the revisionists arguments, the problem here is the "camouflage canard" treatment), you are trolling, you know beforehand you are going to specially treat it as "camouflaged".
DasPrussian wrote: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.
Religious excuse is a bullshit (and here, pp. 1209ff.) as you would put it. Why aren´t you suspicious about this bullshit Mr. Suspicious? Is hard to locate ash? Yet your Russians allegedly reported ash mountains, at least you "believe" this contradiction.

Your statement is an admission you do not have mass graves with remains compatible with your theory about extermination and burial of claimed number of people, nor you cannot show any picture of alleged mountains of ash which are now nowhere to be found and nobody bothered to take a picture of your claimed mountains. You simply believe Jews are there, but cannot show them because of bullshit excuse which is convenient when you need, but when it comes to my explanation why are revisionists limited in their research and finding the truth, you simply ignore it since it is inconvenient. Hm.

If you cant prove they ended up in the AR camps, then you might as well go home, DasPrussian. That´s your logic? Fine.

From your approach follows, that Korherr Report is in fact another innocent document, you base your fantasies either on your paranoia or on what allegedly happened at AR camps or Auschwitz and from this follows the Korherr report must be criminal and coded. So do not waste our time with another walls of text and show us the mass graves and remains compatible with your theory about extermination. But wait, you already told us you cannot because remains are hard to be located (mass graves apparently too) or because of religious belief. All what you have is your belief they are there, but you cannot prove it albeit your team could have easily did it during the last 70 years. It also means that you did not tell the truth when proclaimed you can prove it. You can´t. So you should "go home" as you would put it. Bye.

When your theory is incorrect, we know where Jews are not, then that leaves us with the theory that is the only one which can be valid (no other theory is known to me) judging from the available evidence and as explicitly stated in the documents, explanation that Jews were moved to the Russian East and occupied territories. Unfortunately, these territories were isolated for decades etc.

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 »

Both of you could do with reducing the wall of text posts. Nice simple posts with evidence of the blatantly clear language Nazis used about the Jews

"And we say that the war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation of the Jews." A Hitler

"World Jewry will suffer a great catastrophe at the same time as Bolshevism. The Fuhrer once more expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will now go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness." J Goebbels

"In amending my directive of June 20 1944, I request that those people subject to special treatment be sent to a crematorium to be cremated if possible." Nazi memo

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/RESOURCE/ ... CJEWQN.HTM
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.

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

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

Post by Bob »

Some time ago I commented an issue closely related to the problem here, i.e. we do not know everything, new information will come up. Here a discovery related to children allegedly gassed at Chelmno (we are told that they were intended to "Sonderbehandlung"), but most of them were alive two years after their supposed extermination/"sondernehandlung", as told by this article and discovered exchange. As i said, I hope to see more about this, especially from revisionists, we can hardly expect serious treatment from orthodox historians.

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 »

Bob wrote:Some time ago I commented an issue closely related to the problem here, i.e. we do not know everything, new information will come up. Here a discovery related to children allegedly gassed at Chelmno (we are told that they were intended to "Sonderbehandlung"), but most of them were alive two years after their supposed extermination/"sondernehandlung", as told by this article and discovered exchange. As i said, I hope to see more about this, especially from revisionists, we can hardly expect serious treatment from orthodox historians.
Who made that discovery, denier/revisionists or academics?

Have those who made the discovery been prosecuted under German denier laws?
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 »

Bob mate, I've just read your latest mess, and to be honest I have come to the conclusion that you are most probably insane. The debate is pointless if you can't even grasp my answers and fail miserably to supply me with proof of your cranky resettlement theory. You started off ok with the multiple choice about camouflage killing etc. but things soon went a bit strange when you refused to accept my answers as they didn't conform with your cranky little rules.

You appear to be obsessed with Theresiensdat , which I originally informed you wasn't a clear cut answer, and I am right here because as part of the Nazis crafty way of going about the extermination of the Jews, they set this camp up as a propaganda camp. In other words, to camouflage the murder that was being carried out in the AR camps and Auschwitz. This was where they let the Red Cross visit, in order to fool them into believing everything was hunky dory with their very generous 'Jew- relocating' programme. Now because it was a propaganda camp, and could hold approx. 50,000 people I believe, it would have defeated the object to have murdered them all , but unfortunately what happened on a few occasions was that the camp would become too overcrowded, so over the course of the year approx. 30,000 were transported to the AR camps to be murdered. This was also necessary for the Germans to carry out as they were running short of handkerchiefs back in Das Farterland and they therefore needed to rob the Jews of their socks and underwear in order to replenish the diminishing stocks of cotton. Then out of the kindness of their little German hearts, they decided to kill the Jews as they didn't want to see them shiver to death due to severe lack of pantage, and sockage.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say, and ive said this what seems about ten times now (although I may be exaggerating, for effect), is that that makes my original answer correct. But you demanded I change it, because you knew it was correct and you couldn't handle it, it meant you had nothing to pull me up over. So whatever nonsense you ramble on about now about contradiction or whatever, is totally irrelevant, so stop wasting time and just accept I'm correct, because otherwise you're making yourself look very silly indeed.

Anyway I'm only going to spend a few minutes on this post, I haven't got the time to waste. But before I start, I will comment on the Goebbels diary entry that appears to have you jigging around like a homeless tramp who's just found a nub-end in the gutter. Yes, a tramp who can't offer anything to society other than polluting the environment with an unpleasant stench, as he wanders the streets shouting at the passing cars, and mumbling incoherently to anyone unfortunate to cross his path. But at least he now has his nub-end, and to him it's like winning the lottery.

Yes it appears I didn't quote the exact words, although it doesn't take a genius to see the close resemblance to the important part of the entry - ie that jews 'deported to the EAST' will likely DIE. I wonder what these 'saboteurs' had done to be faced with deportation anyhow? Guilty of being in possession of extremely large noses by any chance? were they a bit too partisan looking for the Germans liking ( for 'partisan' read 'innocent woman with child') ? Now even if they weren't transported to Auschwitz, which they probably were anyway, it still leaves the problem to deniers that being transported to the EAST equates to DEATH . So Sunshine, your fucked whichever way you turn !!

Now, the second thing I need to highlight to you before I conclude this nonsense is the 3 parts of my post that you accidently on purpose forgot to respond to. Here they be :

1. My ten suspicions on the Korherr report, which include at least 2 new points not even touched on, being 9 and 10. I wont bother repeating the first 8 as you will only claim they have been dealt with, even though you haven't, not adequately anyway. But my point here is that you appeared to believe that my only suspicion was the lack of destinations, so me listing these other 10 points has just proven you wrong, again.

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 !!


Please address the above points. But pleeeaase...not as badly as the others, esp the 'Special Treatment' part. That one was a fail of the highest magnitude.

2. My 'general' list of evidence regarding extermination at the AR camps

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.


3. My questions on the logistics of your Re-settlement Hoax Theory, which you couldn't answer. Try again, please. You can't blame it on other researchers not doing there job properly, I believe you're the ideal person to carry out this research, ie a conman who talks bollocks, as they are the qualities required to con the public with a load of bollocks.

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?
oops - maybe that was unfair to include the Dutch, they didn't start there holidays till July 43. Still, no doubt you believe the post dec 42 Jews all ended up in Siberia too !

Now, to help steer our debate from the mess you've made it, I'm going to keep my conclusion simple. To end this debate over the meaning of the Korherr report and the evacuations section, whether the AR camps were extermination centres and the Siberian resettlement hoax , I'm going to leave you in the capable hands of Messrs Himmler and Eichmann, just so you can hear what actually came from the horses mouth :

1) Himmler on 'Evacuation' - Posen Speech - 4/10/43

I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the
Jewish people. It is one of those things easily said "The Jewish people are being
exterminated"
. Every part member will tell you, perfectly clear its part of our
plan, were eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter.


2) Eichmann on the Korherr report - Interrogation Jerusalem 1960

He (Korherr) covered the whole extermination process in the East. It came roughly, inc emigration, natural diminution to 4.5 - 5 million.


Hope that doesn't spoil your weekend, Bob.

PS - I haven't bothered to respond to everything you've posted. I just find myself repeating myself as you don't appear to grasp what's going on. Must be something to do with the 'insanity' I touched on earlier. Ciao ;)
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 »

DasPrussian wrote:Bob mate, I've just read your latest mess, and to be honest I have come to the conclusion that you are most probably insane. The debate is pointless if you can't even grasp my answers and fail miserably to supply me with proof of your cranky resettlement theory. You started off ok with the multiple choice about camouflage killing etc. but things soon went a bit strange when you refused to accept my answers as they didn't conform with your cranky little rules.

You appear to be obsessed with Theresiensdat , which I originally informed you wasn't a clear cut answer, and I am right here because as part of the Nazis crafty way of going about the extermination of the Jews, they set this camp up as a propaganda camp. In other words, to camouflage the murder that was being carried out in the AR camps and Auschwitz. This was where they let the Red Cross visit, in order to fool them into believing everything was hunky dory with their very generous 'Jew- relocating' programme. Now because it was a propaganda camp, and could hold approx. 50,000 people I believe, it would have defeated the object to have murdered them all , but unfortunately what happened on a few occasions was that the camp would become too overcrowded, so over the course of the year approx. 30,000 were transported to the AR camps to be murdered. This was also necessary for the Germans to carry out as they were running short of handkerchiefs back in Das Farterland and they therefore needed to rob the Jews of their socks and underwear in order to replenish the diminishing stocks of cotton. Then out of the kindness of their little German hearts, they decided to kill the Jews as they didn't want to see them shiver to death due to severe lack of pantage, and sockage.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say, and ive said this what seems about ten times now (although I may be exaggerating, for effect), is that that makes my original answer correct. But you demanded I change it, because you knew it was correct and you couldn't handle it, it meant you had nothing to pull me up over. So whatever nonsense you ramble on about now about contradiction or whatever, is totally irrelevant, so stop wasting time and just accept I'm correct, because otherwise you're making yourself look very silly indeed.
Are you finished?

Read my previous responses, you are again repeating yourself as you kindly admitted.
DasPrussian wrote:Yes it appears I didn't quote the exact words, although it doesn't take a genius to see the close resemblance to the important part of the entry - ie that jews 'deported to the EAST' will likely DIE. I wonder what these 'saboteurs' had done to be faced with deportation anyhow? Guilty of being in possession of extremely large noses by any chance? were they a bit too partisan looking for the Germans liking ( for 'partisan' read 'innocent woman with child') ? Now even if they weren't transported to Auschwitz, which they probably were anyway, it still leaves the problem to deniers that being transported to the EAST equates to DEATH . So Sunshine, your fucked whichever way you turn !!
Why the camouflage language, you made it up. Goebbels´ entry is related to the case explained above. Your nonsenses are purely your inventions, not an actual entry nor its correct interpretation. Your credibility should be called into question, if you actually had some credibility in the first place. Making up quotes, this is really too much even for me, and you can be sure I saw a lot because you have some serious competitors among exterminationists. You must be completely separated from reality if you really believed you will pass it as Goebbels´words without nobody noticing it. For God´s sake, you even produced two versions of his alleged words, one really does not need to be a genius to see you are making it up.

DP made it up and when refuted, he simply repeats his nonsense again as if nothing has happened.
DasPrussian wrote:That one was a fail of the highest magnitude.
The only fails were your fails amply demonstrated above and dodged by you.
DasPrussian wrote:2. My 'general' list of evidence regarding extermination at the AR camps
I will treat your alleged evidence and claims using your approach, fair.
Now, the second thing I need to highlight to you before I conclude this nonsense is the 3 parts of my post that you accidently on purpose forgot to respond to. Here they be :

1. My ten suspicions on the Korherr report, which include at least 2 new points not even touched on, being 9 and 10. I wont bother repeating the first 8 as you will only claim they have been dealt with, even though you haven't, not adequately anyway. But my point here is that you appeared to believe that my only suspicion was the lack of destinations, so me listing these other 10 points has just proven you wrong, again.

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 !!

Please address the above points. But pleeeaase...not as badly as the others, esp the 'Special Treatment' part. That one was a fail of the highest magnitude.

2. My 'general' list of evidence regarding extermination at the AR camps

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.


3. My questions on the logistics of your Re-settlement Hoax Theory, which you couldn't answer. Try again, please. You can't blame it on other researchers not doing there job properly, I believe you're the ideal person to carry out this research, ie a conman who talks bollocks, as they are the qualities required to con the public with a load of bollocks.

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?
oops - maybe that was unfair to include the Dutch, they didn't start there holidays till July 43. Still, no doubt you believe the post dec 42 Jews all ended up in Siberia too !

Now, to help steer our debate from the mess you've made it, I'm going to keep my conclusion simple. To end this debate over the meaning of the Korherr report and the evacuations section, whether the AR camps were extermination centres and the Siberian resettlement hoax , I'm going to leave you in the capable hands of Messrs Himmler and Eichmann, just so you can hear what actually came from the horses mouth :

1) Himmler on 'Evacuation' - Posen Speech - 4/10/43

I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the
Jewish people. It is one of those things easily said "The Jewish people are being
exterminated". Every part member will tell you, perfectly clear its part of our
plan, were eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter.


2) Eichmann on the Korherr report - Interrogation Jerusalem 1960

He (Korherr) covered the whole extermination process in the East. It came roughly, inc emigration, natural diminution to 4.5 - 5 million.


Hope that doesn't spoil your weekend, Bob.
DasPrussian: "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."

Hence this old debunked stuff (which DP presents like some new never addressed discoveries) is all very interesting, but where are your gas chambers, mass graves and remains of your Jews compatible with your theory and which prove it? Unless you discovered at these locations what is needed to back up your above claims and unless you can share it, your claims are "a load of bollocks" as you would put it when dealing with revisionist.

Your typical unfounded accusations of me will not save your position, but if they will help you to let off some steam, so be it. I understand it, your fail in this thread and on this board was a "fail of the highest magnitude" as you would put it.

No worries, my weekend will be very nice as I do not have to debunk your nonsenses point by point, I´ve dealt with you in a few minutes this time, very efficient approach.

edit - grammar and additional info.

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 »

DasPrussian wrote:.......

1) Himmler on 'Evacuation' - Posen Speech - 4/10/43

I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the
Jewish people. It is one of those things easily said "The Jewish people are being
exterminated"
. Every part member will tell you, perfectly clear its part of our
plan, were eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter.


2) Eichmann on the Korherr report - Interrogation Jerusalem 1960

He (Korherr) covered the whole extermination process in the East. It came roughly, inc emigration, natural diminution to 4.5 - 5 million.


...........
Bob, what does extermination mean?
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: 9363
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

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

Post by been-there »

Bloody hell. Yet more Nessie idiocy. :? :roll:
Er-hem. (cough, cough). The Posen speech wasn't given in the English language. Nor was the Eichmann show-trial conducted in English.
That word therefore wasn't used by either of those two men.
Only a very stupid person would spend a lot of time debating something that they clearly have no ability to properly understand.

SUMMARY FOR IDIOTS:
Himmler never used the word "extermination" in any known speech.
Eichmann also did not use the word during his show-trial in the 'Jewish State of Israel'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This is basic stuff, already discussed many times.

http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... =10#p22234

http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... =30#p22321
In doing my own research of the sources for these speeches I came across a reference to the Nuremburg testimony of Gottlob Berger, SS General, former head of the SS administrative department, Himmler's personal liaison with Rosenberg's Ministry for the Occupied East, and chief of POW affairs toward the end of the war.
Berger had ALSO testified that he had known nothing of any extermination program and also that Himmler had indeed delivered an "interminable" speech at Posen in 1943, to an audience of higher SS leaders which included himself. However, he denied that document 1919-PS was an accurate transcript of the speech.
He said:
"[...] that is not contained in the transcript. I can say with certainty that he did not speak about the Ausrottung of the Jews, because the reason for this meeting was to equalize and adjust these tremendous tensions between the Waffen SS and the Police."
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 9&start=15
This is from A New Compendious German and English Dictionary by William Dwight Whitney, Henry Holt & Co., New York, 1887.
(That is only two years before Hitler was born, and 13 years before Himmler.)

German and English Dictionary translation of ausrotten
Ausrotten and the noun derived from it, Ausrottung, historically have a range of meanings.

The literal meaning of ausrotten is also its primary meaning, "root out."
"Eradicate" is simply a Latin-derived word that also quite literally means "root out."
"Extirpate" likewise is defined as "to pull up by the roots."
"Exterminate" had a meaning in 19th and early 20th century dictionaries that is no longer used: its primary meaning is to place outside (ex) the border (terminus); therefore "exterminate" in older usage need not mean killing.
"Destroy" according to this German-English dictionary was a possible definition of ausrotten but not the most likely.

The Luther Bible has only one instance of the noun Ausrottung, but copious instances of the verb ausrotten. When one compares corresponding passages in the Luther Bible and English Bibles, one finds that where Luther used forms of ausrotten the English expression typically used is "cut off," which means something like cast out or expel. Here are a couple of examples from the Luther Bible with English translation.

Wenn aber ein Männlicher nicht beschnitten wird an seiner Vorhaut, wird er ausgerottet werden aus seinem Volk, weil er meinen Bund gebrochen hat. [Das Erste Buch Mose (Genesis) 17:14, Luther Bible]
But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.[Genesis17:14, New American Standard Bible]

Darum haltet meinen Sabbat, denn er soll euch heilig sein. Wer ihn entheiligt, der soll des Todes sterben. Denn wer eine Arbeit am Sabbat tut, der soll ausgerottet werden aus seinem Volk. [Das Zweite Buch Mose (Exodus) 31.14, Luther Bible]
[size95]Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. [Exodus 31:14, New American Standard Bible][/size]

For use of the noun Ausrottung that was contemporary and part of Himmler's milieu*, one can refer to Mein Kampf. That book contains a number of instances in which Ausrottung obviously does not mean killing, like this:

Mein Kampf, 1944 edition:
Was aber besaß dieses Bündnis für einen Wert, wenn erst das Deutschtum der Habsburgmonarchie ausgerottet worden wäre? (p. 142)

Ralph Mannheim's translation:
But what value did this alliance have, once Germanism had been exterminated in the Habsburg monarchy? (p. 129)

My translation:
What kind of value did this alliance possess once the German population of the Habsburg Monarchy had been eliminated?

While ausrotten in the Luther Bible generally means to expel, Hitler's use of the noun Ausrottung in several instances from Mein Kampf clearly means something like dissolution. He was talking about the assimilation of Austria's ethnic German population as Czechs; there is no indication that the word ausgerottet is supposed to mean that the Habsburg Monarchy intended to kill its ethnic Germans. The important point is that ausrotten and Ausrottung do not necessarily mean killing.

Ausrotten and Ausrottung in Context
This speech has the words Evakuierung (evacuation) and Ausrottung juxtaposed as synonyms.

"Ich meine die Judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes."

Since both words refer to the same event, the assumption that Ausrottung here must mean killing creates a contradiction. The contradiction could be resolved by supposing that Judenevakuierung (evacuation of the Jews) here is a euphemism, but there is no reason to make that leap of interpretation, given that Ausrottung does not have to mean killing.

A closer examination of the text makes it impossible that killing is what is meant, since Himmler says that every party member knows that Ausrottung of the Jews is being done, and that it is in unserem Programm, obviously meaning the party-program of the NSDAP. To construe Ausrottung as mass-murder in this speech is to understand Himmler as saying not only that every party member knew that the Jews were to be killed, but that the intention had been declared by the NSDAP already in February 1920 when the Parteiprogramm der NSDAP was published. Ausrottung does not have to mean killing, and in this speech it clearly does not. The NSDAP's program only says about Jews (point 4) that they are not members of the German nation and may not be German citizens, and consequently (point 5) reside in Germany only as guests and are subject to legislation about foreigners. Therefore a proper translation for Ausrottung here would be exclusion or expulsion.

Caveat (27 February 2011)
What I have presented thus far is an adequate debunking of the interpretation of the Ausrottung-passage that makes it into evidence for the Holocaust. There is no way that Ausrottung in that speech can mean killing, and the purport of the speech in regard to the fate of the Jews really hinges on that.

In the last two sections however I nonetheless broach the question of the authenticity of the recording. I do this for three reasons. First, because in my examinations of other pieces of war-propaganda I have found several examples of multi-layered frauds; for example, there is the fraudulent Conversations with Hitler by Hermann Rauschning, which was used as mere raw material for the U.S. Army's screenwriters to alter and create even more sinister quotes. Second, I find that the speech seems very disjointed in spots, and the possibility that this could be due to tampering provides an explanation. Third, because although there is a typed transcript of this speech supposedly approved by Himmler, which was exhibited at Nuremberg, there is some possibility that the typed transcript could be a fraud, since there have been other Nuremberg documents that according to Dr. Robert Faurisson seem to be suspect, e.g. the Wannsee Protocol, which does not conform to the usual characteristics of an official document of the Third Reich at all.

Rather than err on the side of caution I decided to write my thoughts, based on the possibly inadequate information that I had. When I become a bit more convinced that the transcript is authentic I may eventually remove the last two sections of this article, but fear not, because everything above this caveat is really all that you need.

A Suspiciously Awkward Transition
We are told that what we hear is unedited, but I am not so sure; some of the transitions in this fragment of a speech are extremely awkward.

I found this to be the most awkward transition. Any SS-man who steals for himself will be executed. “Gnadenlos!” — “Without mercy!” Himmler screams. He then says, “We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it,” clearly referring to the need to execute SS-men who behave corruptly, which he had just been discussing, but then he adds unexpectedly, “to kill this (group of) people who would kill us.” It seems to be a mid-sentence change of topic.**

"Wir haben das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht unserem Volk gegenüber das zu tun, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen." (4:36-4:45)

The unwarranted change of tense in that sentence is also a problem. He seems to be talking about two different matters when he says, "We have the moral right...." (present tense) and "We had the duty...." (past tense). The use of the past tense there makes no sense, even in terms of the conventional understanding of the speech, since in this context Himmler is talking about a planned future action toward the Jews, or an ongoing action, but not a past action.

Accepting this recording as unedited, one must suppose that Himmler was such a rambling and incoherent speaker that he forgot what he was saying in mid-sentence and could not keep his verb-tenses consistent, and also used the past tense to refer to a future action.

A More Reasonable Explanation
I think that the recording was probably altered as follows. Himmler said, "We had the duty to our people to do it," in one context (probably about a past execution of corrupt SS-men, or the Night of the Long Knives), and in a different context, "We have the moral right to kill this (group of) people who would kill us," implying that the Jews were getting off easy by merely being deprived of wealth and deported. The former statement thus would have been inserted into the latter to change its significance, making it about a deed actually (already!) committed instead of an observation about how restrained and generous the treatment of the Jews was going to be.

It was completely feasible to edit sound recordings after Germany was defeated in 1945, since magnetic recording tape, which unlike wire recording or phonograph record is easily cut and spliced, had already been invented (by a German) in 1928. According to the U.S. National Archives (cited by The Holocaust History Project) the most common method of recording speeches in the Third Reich was direct recording to phonograph disc. Echos in this recording however indicate that the speech was stored for years on tape.*** Unless there is also an original disc-recording that has the same content as the tape, it means that the recording could have been edited.

Editing a sound-recording to make it seem more incriminating would not be the most outrageous thing that the Allies did in their propaganda during and after the war. (Cf. the U.S. Army's Why We Fight series, featuring undeniably fake Hitler quotes that could have been exposed by anybody who bothered to check, and deliberately misrepresented documentary footage from China.)

It makes perfect sense to suppose that some similar shenanigans were committed in this case, because the content of Himmler's Posen speech of 4 October 1943, as it has been presented to us in this recording, makes no sense, even in relation to itself.
_______________________________________
* I became aware in October 2009, six months after posting the original version of this essay, that part of my argument, about the shifting meaning of ausrotten and Ausrottung, had already been formulated by David Irving during his 1997 libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, and it can be read here.


** Recently (August 2013) I have found that das Volk, which usually refers to a people in the sense of a nation or an ethnic group, is sometimes used (at least in pre-1945 German) to mean some group of people without regard for ethnicity etc. This means that the infinitive-clause, "dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen" ("to kill this group of people who wanted to kill us"), does not necessarily refer to an entire nationality or ethnicity.

*** The Holocaust History Project says: "There is a faint before-and-after echo that can be heard at loud portions of the speech, most notably when Himmler shouts "gnadenlos" ("mercilessly"). This is from the magnetic impressions bleeding through two or three layers of tape on a reel, and indicates that a source for our recording spent some years on tape. Whether that is Himmler's original tape or the National Archives' master tape made in the 1970s is, at this time, unknown." The same writer also admits that it is unknown whether the original medium was magnetic tape or phonograph disc, which means that he cannot say that he has examined the recording in its original medium. That should be very troubling given the fact that the trustworthiness of the recording is in question.

The improbable and the impossible in Himmler's Posen speech
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 22 guests