Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

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).
PrudentRegret
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

Post by PrudentRegret »

Huntinger wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:25 am
Nessie wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:40 pm
I have already shown you a timeline which proves that is wrong. Operation Barbarossa started 6 months before any of the AR camps at Chelmno, Sobibor, Belzec and TII began operations. Prior to Barbarossa, there was no camp in the locations that those camps were built. By the time they were built, the border with the SU was over 100km to the east and it was the war front.
Most only know of some camps reported and only a few; it is shown that AR is an operation and not camps; at each of the locations wrongly called AR camps there was a strong customs presence. Being caught up on lack of knowledge of the real situation gives no one right to make assumptions. Prior to Barbarossa each of these alleged camps were on the GG border with the Soviets, after Barbarossa only Belzec stopped being a border of the GG; the GG still had a customs presence in its own right. This would explain why Belzec had no customers in the Höfle report as it was no longer a boundary camp.

The assumption that there were no evictions prior to Barbarossa goes against what both Korherr and Höfle implied.
Is there anywhere these camps are actually referred to as AR camps, or is that merely a label that has been created by motivated historians?

It seems that the “Globocnik camps” or the “Wirth camps” would be a more accurate label.

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 8172
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

Post by Huntinger »

PrudentRegret wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:32 am
Is there anywhere these camps are actually referred to as AR camps, or is that merely a label that has been created by motivated historians?

It seems that the “Globocnik camps” or the “Wirth camps” would be a more accurate label.
The use of AR to refer to these camps ( they think they know about) is common but not evidence based; it is a mere assumption and label it would appear. This is why I refer to it as an initiative due to it appearing in the Höfle telegram.
It seems to be a leap of bad faith from the Höfle telegram to mass extermination.

Die soziale Heimatpartei
𝖀𝖒𝖆𝖗𝖒𝖊 𝖉𝖆𝖘 𝕷𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖓, 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙 𝖆𝖚𝖘𝖇𝖊𝖚𝖙𝖊𝖓.
Amt IV

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29922
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

Post by Nessie »

PrudentRegret wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:32 am
Huntinger wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:25 am
Nessie wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:40 pm
I have already shown you a timeline which proves that is wrong. Operation Barbarossa started 6 months before any of the AR camps at Chelmno, Sobibor, Belzec and TII began operations. Prior to Barbarossa, there was no camp in the locations that those camps were built. By the time they were built, the border with the SU was over 100km to the east and it was the war front.
Most only know of some camps reported and only a few; it is shown that AR is an operation and not camps; at each of the locations wrongly called AR camps there was a strong customs presence. Being caught up on lack of knowledge of the real situation gives no one right to make assumptions. Prior to Barbarossa each of these alleged camps were on the GG border with the Soviets, after Barbarossa only Belzec stopped being a border of the GG; the GG still had a customs presence in its own right. This would explain why Belzec had no customers in the Höfle report as it was no longer a boundary camp.

The assumption that there were no evictions prior to Barbarossa goes against what both Korherr and Höfle implied.
Is there anywhere these camps are actually referred to as AR camps, or is that merely a label that has been created by motivated historians?

It seems that the “Globocnik camps” or the “Wirth camps” would be a more accurate label.
It is the Hofle telegram that specifically refers to the AR camps at Belzec, Sobibor, TII and Majdanek. The most notable features of the death camps at Sobibor, Belzec, TII and Chelmno are;

1 - their small size for the number of transports they took.
2 - that they received huge transports on a regular basis as ghettos were being cleared.
3 - they were all razed to the ground, there are no records left from the camps themselves and large areas of cremated remains have been found at the sites. Local Poles all report months of cremations from inside the camps prior to closure.
4 - there are no records anywhere else to show large transports from the camps
5 - all the witnesses who worked at the camps, both Nazi and Jewish agree they were death camps, none have tried to claim any other purpose.
6 - Polish rail workers and local people noted the large transports of people into the camps and that the transports back out were either empty or contained personal property such as clothing.

Chelmno varies in that it did not have station inside the camp and used gas vans, so the bodies were buried then cremated in a nearby forest.
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.

PrudentRegret
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

Post by PrudentRegret »

Nessie wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:55 am
PrudentRegret wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:32 am
Huntinger wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:25 am
Nessie wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:40 pm
I have already shown you a timeline which proves that is wrong. Operation Barbarossa started 6 months before any of the AR camps at Chelmno, Sobibor, Belzec and TII began operations. Prior to Barbarossa, there was no camp in the locations that those camps were built. By the time they were built, the border with the SU was over 100km to the east and it was the war front.
Most only know of some camps reported and only a few; it is shown that AR is an operation and not camps; at each of the locations wrongly called AR camps there was a strong customs presence. Being caught up on lack of knowledge of the real situation gives no one right to make assumptions. Prior to Barbarossa each of these alleged camps were on the GG border with the Soviets, after Barbarossa only Belzec stopped being a border of the GG; the GG still had a customs presence in its own right. This would explain why Belzec had no customers in the Höfle report as it was no longer a boundary camp.

The assumption that there were no evictions prior to Barbarossa goes against what both Korherr and Höfle implied.
Is there anywhere these camps are actually referred to as AR camps, or is that merely a label that has been created by motivated historians?

It seems that the “Globocnik camps” or the “Wirth camps” would be a more accurate label.
It is the Hofle telegram that specifically refers to the AR camps at Belzec, Sobibor, TII and Majdanek. The most notable features of the death camps at Sobibor, Belzec, TII and Chelmno are;

Those camps are specifically not referred to as "Reinhardt" camps. The telegram was sent from the Einsatz Reinhardt office in Lublin, but the telegram does not refer to these camps as "Reinhardt" camps and I do not know of any source that refers to these camps as "Reinhardt" camps.

The vandalizers translated "Einsatz Reinhart" as "Operation Reinhard" to advance this impression, but that is clearly false as "Einsatz Reinhardt" refers to an office in Lublin, not to any camps.

Do you have any document which specifies that these camps are "Reinhardt" camps? It seems to be another fiction that has been invented by historians to advance their political agenda.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29922
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

Post by Nessie »

PrudentRegret wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:47 pm
Nessie wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:55 am
PrudentRegret wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:32 am
Huntinger wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:25 am
Nessie wrote:
Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:40 pm
I have already shown you a timeline which proves that is wrong. Operation Barbarossa started 6 months before any of the AR camps at Chelmno, Sobibor, Belzec and TII began operations. Prior to Barbarossa, there was no camp in the locations that those camps were built. By the time they were built, the border with the SU was over 100km to the east and it was the war front.
Most only know of some camps reported and only a few; it is shown that AR is an operation and not camps; at each of the locations wrongly called AR camps there was a strong customs presence. Being caught up on lack of knowledge of the real situation gives no one right to make assumptions. Prior to Barbarossa each of these alleged camps were on the GG border with the Soviets, after Barbarossa only Belzec stopped being a border of the GG; the GG still had a customs presence in its own right. This would explain why Belzec had no customers in the Höfle report as it was no longer a boundary camp.

The assumption that there were no evictions prior to Barbarossa goes against what both Korherr and Höfle implied.
Is there anywhere these camps are actually referred to as AR camps, or is that merely a label that has been created by motivated historians?

It seems that the “Globocnik camps” or the “Wirth camps” would be a more accurate label.
It is the Hofle telegram that specifically refers to the AR camps at Belzec, Sobibor, TII and Majdanek. The most notable features of the death camps at Sobibor, Belzec, TII and Chelmno are;

Those camps are specifically not referred to as "Reinhardt" camps. The telegram was sent from the Einsatz Reinhardt office in Lublin, but the telegram does not refer to these camps as "Reinhardt" camps and I do not know of any source that refers to these camps as "Reinhardt" camps.

The vandalizers translated "Einsatz Reinhart" as "Operation Reinhard" to advance this impression, but that is clearly false as "Einsatz Reinhardt" refers to an office in Lublin, not to any camps.

Do you have any document which specifies that these camps are "Reinhardt" camps? It seems to be another fiction that has been invented by historians to advance their political agenda.
The telegram here;

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/edu ... -telegram/

"State secret! To the commander of the Security Police, for the attention of SS Obersturmbannfuhrer HEIM, KRAKAU. Re: 14-day report operation REINHARD. Reference: radio telegram from there
Recorded arrivals until December 42, L 12761, B 0, S 515, T 10335, totalling 23611. Situation 31 December 42, L 24733, B 434508, S 101370, T 71355, totalling 1274166. SS and police leader of Lublin, HOFLE, Sturmbannfuhrer"

Those camps are part of AR and up to the end of Dec 1942, they received 1.274 million people. From witnesses and transport records as ghettos were being cleared, the camps which huge numbers of people were being sent to were Belzec, Sobibor and TII. It is quite reasonable, from their role in AR, to call those camps AR camps.
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.

PrudentRegret
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

Post by PrudentRegret »

"Globocnik's camps" would be a more accurate description then, like I said.

AR was in effect in Auschwitz. Is Auschwitz an AR camp? Why not?

Historians prefer to call them AR camps because it advances the false understanding of what Aktion Reinhardt was. They don't have the evidence to support it, so they mistranslate "Reinhardt" to "Reinhard" in documents and they call them the "Reinhard camps" even though that designation does not appear in any documents.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29922
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

Post by Nessie »

PrudentRegret wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:05 pm
"Globocnik's camps" would be a more accurate description then, like I said.
The telegram is about Operation Reinhard. It was for Franz Heim. It references mass arrivals at specific camps. Globocnik was clear that AR was about so called resettlement, as well as the mass theft from the Jews.
AR was in effect in Auschwitz. Is Auschwitz an AR camp? Why not?
A-B had gas chambers for those not needed to work, which were expanded to take mass clearances of Jews from Hungary and the last of the ghettos in 1944. AR had been officially wound up by the end of 1943.

The Final Solution was not just one policy with one directive as how it was to be achieved. AR was part of the Nazi policy for the Jews.
Historians prefer to call them AR camps because it advances the false understanding of what Aktion Reinhardt was. They don't have the evidence to support it, so they mistranslate "Reinhardt" to "Reinhard" in documents and they call them the "Reinhard camps" even though that designation does not appear in any documents.
Historians don't cherry-pick parts of AR like you do.
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.

PrudentRegret
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

Post by PrudentRegret »

I agree that AR was a Nazi policy for the Jews. It was an economic policy for the processing of sequestered Jewish property named after Fritz Reinhardt of the Reich Ministry of Finance.

But my question to you is, why is Asuchwitz not considered a "Reinhardt Camp" given that we know from documents that Aktion Reinhardt was a policy in effect in Auschwitz? You did not answer that question.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29922
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

Post by Nessie »

PrudentRegret wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:51 pm
I agree that AR was a Nazi policy for the Jews. It was an economic policy for the processing of sequestered Jewish property named after Fritz Reinhardt of the Reich Ministry of Finance.
It was not just about the mass theft of Jewish property, it was also about deportation of the Jews. You know that Globocnik summarised AR to Himmler in his 1944 report;

https://phdn.org/archives/www.mazal.org ... 57-000.htm

A - deportation
B - use for labour
C - seizure of property
D - seizure of other assets

You try to ignore A and B, in particular A, since those people were supposedly being resettled, having had the gold removed from their teeth and without any underwear.
But my question to you is, why is Asuchwitz not considered a "Reinhardt Camp" given that we know from documents that Aktion Reinhardt was a policy in effect in Auschwitz? You did not answer that question.
I did answer, A-B was not one of the death camps specifically set up for AR and it in effect took over AR duties after the death camps had been closed and AR ended. The theft of Jewish property and the supposed resettlement of Jews was not the preserve of AR. It happened all over Nazi occupied Europe.
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.

PrudentRegret
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Aktion Reinhardt was named after Fritz Reinhardt- not Reinhard Heydrich

Post by PrudentRegret »

Nessie wrote:
Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:04 pm
I did answer, A-B was not one of the death camps specifically set up for AR...
So which documents establish that Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor were "specifically set up for AR"?

For you to say "specifically set up for AR" you need to provide evidence that specifies this policy, Aktion Reinhardt, is the reason those camps were established. There is no evidence that these camps were "specifically set up for AR". That is a historical supposition that has been woven into terminology in referencing these camps but there's no support for it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Nessie and 19 guests