Soviet POWs and Jews in the East

[Numar Patru]

Incidentally, I've 5 minutes into this video and have a point to make. Oleg Khlevniuk had access to the presidential archive to write his biography of Stalin.

[Numar Patru]

Incidentally, I've 5 minutes into this video and have a point to make. Oleg Khlevniuk had access to the presidential archive to write his biography of Stalin.

Yes, and the second archive on his list of available archives is GARF, which is the biggest one, AFAIK.

[Numar Patru]

Go to 18:30 in the video. Unless you're able to prove this point wrong, I'm done watching this video. What did you think was so persuasive here, exactly?

Also, let me ask you something: You believe the Holocaust didn't happen as alleged. What do you think was the worst result of that fact?

[Callafangers]

Oof, your responses have devolved into "triggered meltdown" levels. It's tough to watch:

Whatever. You never cite anything specific, so it's clear you're just a bullshitter.

[...]

Blah, blah, blah. You're very boring.

Quite wrong. If anything, Stalin might have used them as a piece of theater -- "Look how terrible Germany treated these Jews and look how well they're doing now!" He didn't do any such thing -- or even mention they were there. This is so fucking stupid, you might as well just take a victory lap because arguing this someone this ill informed is like kicking someone in a wheelchair.

You're assuming Stalin would necessarily have used them in this way, disregarding other plausible motives. Remember: this is a hole in your story, not mine. You need to prove this didn't happen, since you have not proven they are buried under Reinhard camps.

But untrue, again. We have plenty of proof of the Soviets committing atrocities and gleerfully admitting it. They didn't deny mass rape, did they? No, reports were received back in Moscow and the army was told to put an end to it.

You see, we know about other atrocities. You're specially pleading for the case of these Jews, but it's nonsense.

Where are their extensive records of "mass rape"? The geographical spread and overall scale of this matter across multiple nations over many months (and resulting pregnancies) is what led to its awareness. Good luck drawing equivalence to Jews found concentrated within remote locations.

Duh, ok.

Sure, I'll have a look. But you should point out in the meantime what you think are his most important points.

Ironic that you're relying on a Jewish scholar in this case. Don't you hate Jews?

The points are in there, much easier for you to just see it and then share your comments rather than me having to transcribe what he says.

I don't think I ever said I "hate Jews". And to the extent there is any truth to that at all, it would be on a collective measure, not against particular Jews as individuals unless they had individually wronged me.

[Callafangers]

Go to 18:30 in the video. Unless you're able to prove this point wrong, I'm done watching this video. What did you think was so persuasive here, exactly?

Also, let me ask you something: You believe the Holocaust didn't happen as alleged. What do you think was the worst result of that fact?

I already responded to this portion of the video, predicting you'd address it. I said:

Given extensive documentation in general in the Soviet Union, some events are able to be "pieced together" however this is necessarily relative to the means and motivations for concealment. Jews originally contained neatly in concentration/quarantine sites in remote areas near to railways is a fairly easy situation to deal with (whether for deprivation, slaughter, or transport), compared to large-scale geographical persecution as seen in the other examples provided.

As for your other question, are you asking about personal consequences of not believing in the 'Holocaust'? If so, that does not seem relevant here so you will need to clarify the purpose of the question before I can potentially respond.

[Numar Patru]

You need to prove this didn't happen, since you have not proven they are buried under Reinhard camps.

It’s been shown in this very forum that Kola found 21,000 cu m of grave space at Belzec — enough space to hold >200,000 grown clothed men. Take into account the women and children killed, lack of clothes, and conditions under which gassings took place, and there’s room enough for the full victim number. This is a done deal. You freaks don’t get to deny it anymore. Not without making some argument to refute what’s been found other than claiming a hoax.

[Numar Patru]

As for your other question, are you asking about personal consequences of not believing in the 'Holocaust'? If so, that does not seem relevant here so you will need to clarify the purpose of the question before I can potentially respond.

No, my question is what in your opinion is the worst historical outcome of the hoax that is the Holocaust having been foisted upon the world.

[Callafangers]

You need to prove this didn't happen, since you have not proven they are buried under Reinhard camps.

It’s been shown in this very forum that Kola found 21,000 cu m of grave space at Belzec — enough space to hold >200,000 grown clothed men. Take into account the women and children killed, lack of clothes, and conditions under which gassings took place, and there’s room enough for the full victim number. This is a done deal. You freaks don’t get to deny it anymore. Not without making some argument to refute what’s been found other than claiming a hoax.

Oh boy, I'll save this for another thread.

No, my question is what in your opinion is the worst historical outcome of the hoax that is the Holocaust having been foisted upon the world.

Other than the destruction of one of the most remarkable nations ever created, the rape and slaughter of its people (and lack of justice for the victims), the theft by 'reparations', the blatant defamation, and the solidification and advancement of Jewish and Bolshevist world-domination ambitions globally?

Other than that, it really isn't so bad.

[SanityCheck]

*speculations about immaculate cover-ups amount to 'dog ate ALL my homework' excuses, they aren't in fact sources to substantiate the claim.

It is not the revisionists who need to provide an alternative history; blahblahblah

Missing the point, as usual.

Without sources, one cannot write history, only speculation. That means, pseudohistory, requiring unproven conspiracy theories to explain away the absence of evidence. Which is all you're offering above, and elsewhere on the thread.

Your 'narrative' cannot describe
1. how the 'onward transports' left
2. who guarded them as escorts, and which units provided the escorts, since the camp guard forces were too small to provide the routine small escorts on a daily basis for peak 'transits' - several further companies would have been needed for Treblinka and Belzec in the second half of 1942
3. whether they crossed borders into the occupied eastern territories
4. or how camps in Poland held the transitees, if this option is preferred
5. where they went and how they were concentrated or dispersed in different occupation regions
6. or provide any evidence of survival under German occupation
7. how they were housed and in what spaces, whether there were any free spaces and how these competed with POWs, civilian evacuees, labour forces and German/Axis garrisons or bases.
8. who guarded them
9. who administered and oversaw the 'resettlers' or labourers
10. how they were housed
11. how they were fed and at what scales (did Wirtschaftsstab Ost ration scales for Jews apply? Those were half rations)
12. how much heating fuel they received
13. what medical care they had
14. what disciplinary measures and punishments were standard, and how many were executed for real or imaginary sins
15. if any escaped, and if any were recaptured
16. why there were no survivor-witnesses who escaped north, west or south, unlike survivor-witnesses from Poland, including eastern Poland and regions such as Galicia
17. why there are no German witnesses admitting to any of this, even after fleeing to Latin America
18. why the German officials, officers and SS-Police who oversaw these regions, e.g. surviving SSPFs etc, said nothing about any of this at any stage
19. whether the 'resettlers' were sent into the Operationsgebiet under military administration
20. how close they came to the frontline, either in 1942 or in 1943-44
21. whether any were left alive by the time their camps/ghettos/reservations were overrun by Soviet advances, and when
22. why these deportees were treated differently to the Baltic KZs evacuated in the summer of 1944
23. why advancing Soviet forces didn't publicise multiple Belsens or Kloogas depending on how little food the 'resettlers' had received and how many had died
24. how Jewish members of the Red Army might have reacted to encountering deported western and Polish Jews, and why none of the many surviving diaries etc from Jews in the Red Army mention this, but do mention learning about Nazi massacres of Jews in Wilno, Kovno, Berdychiv etc and how few Jews had survived the occupation
25. ditto for non-Jewish diaries and other comparable sources

The list could be extended. Not knowing some of these details is surely 'normal', since not everything is deemed so significant that records of it, or testimonial accounts of xyz, automatically survive.

But your 'narrative' cannot provide direct sources which begin to answer the majority of these component parts, 22 of which relate to the German occupation and German side of the frontline, a few to the moment of encountering the 'resettled' Jews or their remains (if they'd all starved to death or the survivord had been shot in evacuation massacres, hardly unknown phenomena).

So when you skip the German occupation to speculate wildly about what Stalin did and try to justify why none of the 'resettled' Jews have hitherto shown up in Soviet records (GUVPI for POWs, GULag, special settlement colonies), then you're properly in angels on pinheads territory, equipped with nothing more than coulda-woulda-shouldas and 'dog ate ALL my homework' excuses for why there's no evidence.

Your 'narrative' has to jump through so many hoops before one even gets to Soviet rule being reimposed, the glaring absence of sources to support the narrative under German occupation is like trying to hopscotch over the Atlantic ocean.

Once again: without sources, one cannot write history, only speculation.

[Callafangers]

Missing the point, as usual.

Without sources, one cannot write history, only speculation. That means, pseudohistory, requiring unproven conspiracy theories to explain away the absence of evidence. Which is all you're offering above, and elsewhere on the thread.

Your 'narrative' cannot describe
1. how the 'onward transports' left
2. who guarded them as escorts, and which units provided the escorts, since the camp guard forces were too small to provide the routine small escorts on a daily basis for peak 'transits' - several further companies would have been needed for Treblinka and Belzec in the second half of 1942
3. whether they crossed borders into the occupied eastern territories
4. or how camps in Poland held the transitees, if this option is preferred
5. where they went and how they were concentrated or dispersed in different occupation regions
6. or provide any evidence of survival under German occupation
7. how they were housed and in what spaces, whether there were any free spaces and how these competed with POWs, civilian evacuees, labour forces and German/Axis garrisons or bases.
8. who guarded them
9. who administered and oversaw the 'resettlers' or labourers
10. how they were housed
11. how they were fed and at what scales (did Wirtschaftsstab Ost ration scales for Jews apply? Those were half rations)
12. how much heating fuel they received
13. what medical care they had
14. what disciplinary measures and punishments were standard, and how many were executed for real or imaginary sins
15. if any escaped, and if any were recaptured
16. why there were no survivor-witnesses who escaped north, west or south, unlike survivor-witnesses from Poland, including eastern Poland and regions such as Galicia
17. why there are no German witnesses admitting to any of this, even after fleeing to Latin America
18. why the German officials, officers and SS-Police who oversaw these regions, e.g. surviving SSPFs etc, said nothing about any of this at any stage
19. whether the 'resettlers' were sent into the Operationsgebiet under military administration
20. how close they came to the frontline, either in 1942 or in 1943-44
21. whether any were left alive by the time their camps/ghettos/reservations were overrun by Soviet advances, and when
22. why these deportees were treated differently to the Baltic KZs evacuated in the summer of 1944
23. why advancing Soviet forces didn't publicise multiple Belsens or Kloogas depending on how little food the 'resettlers' had received and how many had died
24. how Jewish members of the Red Army might have reacted to encountering deported western and Polish Jews, and why none of the many surviving diaries etc from Jews in the Red Army mention this, but do mention learning about Nazi massacres of Jews in Wilno, Kovno, Berdychiv etc and how few Jews had survived the occupation
25. ditto for non-Jewish diaries and other comparable sources

The list could be extended. Not knowing some of these details is surely 'normal', since not everything is deemed so significant that records of it, or testimonial accounts of xyz, automatically survive.

The irony (and projection) in you telling me I have "missed the point" is unbearable. The point, Nick, is that the circumstances of total conquest and a global propaganda machine coupled with deceptive patterns and total control (and an 'Iron Curtain' to boot) are quite sufficient to challenge the expectation for survival (or creation) of even trace documentation that should normally be expected. You listing documentation that should normally be expected does not change this.

The question of documentation surviving is in addition to the other variables I have pointed out elsewhere (such as academic interest in Reinhard camps and 'resettled' Jews being minimal for decades post-war, for the minimal proportion of Jews likely to survive many years post-war, even if assuming resettlement, etc.).

Nonetheless, just as food-for-thought, here is an admittedly-speculative (yet still rational, logical based on known evidence) response to your Gish gallop, attempting to consider the items more individually:

1. How the 'onward transports' left:
Logistics were chaotic; documentation likely destroyed or lost.
2. Who guarded them as escorts:
Guards could have been drawn from various units amidst the war's disarray, many ending up dead in battle or fearing retribution for admission of involvement.
3. Whether they crossed borders into the occupied eastern territories:
Historical records are unreliable due to war and Soviet manipulation.
4. How camps in Poland held the transitees:
I assume you mean the Reinhard camps? Given that even larger camps like Malkinia (visible outside of Treblinka via air photos, yet poorly understood) lack clarity, its quite reasonable to infer a lack of documentation does not entail a lack of occurrence (that is, holding transitees).
5. Where they went and how they were concentrated or dispersed:
Soviet secrecy and post-war destruction of records (by both Germany and the Soviets) conceal this.
6. Evidence of survival under German occupation:
Lack of evidence does not prove non-existence; Soviet control obscures records.
7. How they were housed:
Temporary housing would align with a resettlement policy, not well-documented due to war conditions. Goebbels' use of the term 'quarantine' (per his diary) gives some insight on the level of isolation and containment of this operation.
8. Who guarded them:
Various SS or even military units could have been involved, not necessarily well-recorded.
9. Who administered and oversaw:
Administration likely shifted as territories changed hands, with records lost or destroyed.
10. How they were housed:
Makeshift or minimal arrangements likely, undocumented due to the fluidity of wartime conditions.
11. How they were fed and at what scales:
Rations could have varied; lack of records suggests Soviet tampering. Incoming rations transported on the same trains as incoming Jews.
12. How much heating fuel they received:
Wartime shortages and Soviet post-war erasure of records explain the lack of information.
13. What medical care they had:
Limited, but not necessarily documented, especially under Soviet control.
14. Standard disciplinary measures and punishments:
Likely harsh, but not recorded due to wartime chaos and Soviet secrecy.
15. If any escaped, and if any were recaptured:
Escapes under such conditions would be undocumented due to Soviet control.
16. No survivor-witnesses who escaped north, west or south:
Soviet suppression of information would explain this absence.
17. No German witnesses admitting to this:
Post-war fear of Soviet retribution and Allied propaganda would silence them.
18. German officials, officers, and SS-Police said nothing:
Fear of Soviet retaliation and Allied pressure could explain silence.
19. Whether the 'resettlers' were sent into the Operationsgebiet:
Possible under chaotic wartime conditions, with records lost.
20. How close they came to the frontline:
Fluidity of war fronts makes exact locations hard to pin down without surviving records, which are unlikely.
21. Whether any were left alive by the time their camps/ghettos/reservations were overrun:
Soviet advances would erase any remaining evidence.
22. Why these deportees were treated differently to the Baltic KZs:
Different regions and policies could explain varying treatment.
23. Why advancing Soviet forces didn't publicise multiple Belsens or Kloogas:
Soviet propaganda focused on blaming Germans for all atrocities.
24. How Jewish members of the Red Army might have reacted:
Soviet censorship and focus on Nazi atrocities, isolation of quarantine sites would prevent such accounts.
25. Ditto for non-Jewish diaries and other comparable sources

Although you are correct that documentation is missing for much of the revisionist narrative beyond the 'Iron Curtain', what remains clear is that the Final Solution as a literal evacuation/resettlement policy remains plausible and consistent with consideration of all relevant factors (power dynamics, postwar motives and available resources, patterns in behavior, etc.).

Your listing of "missing documentation" is more akin to cheerleading at what a 'great cover-up' the Allies/Soviets have done, rather than conducting an impartial analysis of the relevant history with proper source criticism and critical review.

But your 'narrative' cannot provide direct sources which begin to answer the majority of these component parts, 22 of which relate to the German occupation and German side of the frontline, a few to the moment of encountering the 'resettled' Jews or their remains (if they'd all starved to death or the survivord had been shot in evacuation massacres, hardly unknown phenomena).

So when you skip the German occupation to speculate wildly about what Stalin did and try to justify why none of the 'resettled' Jews have hitherto shown up in Soviet records (GUVPI for POWs, GULag, special settlement colonies), then you're properly in angels on pinheads territory, equipped with nothing more than coulda-woulda-shouldas and 'dog ate ALL my homework' excuses for why there's no evidence.

Your 'narrative' has to jump through so many hoops before one even gets to Soviet rule being reimposed, the glaring absence of sources to support the narrative under German occupation is like trying to hopscotch over the Atlantic ocean.

Once again: without sources, one cannot write history, only speculation.

Demanding proof of German innocence from the archives of its most corrupted conquerors (known for conducting mass show trials against Germany) is an impossible, even ridiculous standard.

The documented German policy of evacuation and resettlement, as part of the Final Solution, aligns with the logistical efforts described by Franz Novak during the Eichmann trial (which I notice you have ignored). The involvement of the Reich Transport Ministry and the military in coordinating these transports suggests eastbound transports of evacuated Jews as a very real policy put into practice.

Your focus should be upon addressing deficiencies in your own narrative, which are abundant: viewtopic.php?t=59

Overall, the Soviet Union's capacity for deception, coupled with the documented, official German policy of resettlement (and corroboration from sources like Goebbels' diary, the Luther memo, and myriad other statements explicitly about resettlement), provides a more credible explanation for "missing Jews" than the fantastical claims of mass extermination.

[SanityCheck]

Still no sources offered, as predicted. You can hypothesise, speculate and fantasise all you like, but that's not history. You can even hypothesise, speculate and fantasise about an immaculate cover-up, but that's not history. The only thing that qualifies as history is an account supported by direct sources, of whatever kind.

These have to come from the camps eastwards into the occupied eastern territories (or backwards if you prefer your commuter-train ZAL theory for the Generalgouvernement).

But do keep clutching at the straw of the Luther memo, have you read it properly? It doesn't discuss Poland whatsoever, making it irrelevant to four of the key camps.

[SanityCheck]

summing up, the 'debate' sequence is as follows
1. conventional proof of mass murder, mass shootings, mass gassings, mass graves, ash, mass cremation
2. deniers throw hissy fit and deny proof, or claim it's 'much less' without being able to quantify reliably, often also making up strawman of 100% cremation (hint: most mass graves weren't visited by Aktion 1005)
3. anti-deniers note the pointlessness of the hissy fit if no evidence of survival is provided
4. deniers accuse anti-deniers of reversing burden of proof
5. deniers are ignored anyway in the wider world, because they can't present a positive history, only a negative one

[Callafangers]

summing up, the 'debate' sequence is as follows
1. conventional proof of mass murder, mass shootings, mass gassings, mass graves, ash, mass cremation
2. deniers throw hissy fit and deny proof, or claim it's 'much less' without being able to quantify reliably, often also making up strawman of 100% cremation (hint: most mass graves weren't visited by Aktion 1005)
3. anti-deniers note the pointlessness of the hissy fit if no evidence of survival is provided
4. deniers accuse anti-deniers of reversing burden of proof
5. deniers are ignored anyway in the wider world, because they can't present a positive history, only a negative one

Obnoxious.

1. Is evidence largely produced by and for "trials by the victors against the vanquished" what you consider "conventional"? What is the "conventional standard" for proving thousand of instances of industrialized mass gassing?
2. Not even sure what you're talking about, here. Who knows.
3. The debate between 'deniers' and 'anti-deniers' doesn't even begin until some 50 years postwar, around the same time questions of Reinhard camps begin in earnest. Then anti-deniers demand very specific survival tales for Jews imprisoned decades ago.
4. I think you mean that some Bolshevik clowns claimed 'extermination' and didn't prove it, then all those who didn't believe it were labeled "deniers".
5. "Deniers" were subjected to defamation in global media superpowers comprised of the exact people Germany was at war with.

[Callafangers]

New Wiki article just dropped:

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Evacuation

[bombsaway]

New Wiki article just dropped:

https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Evacuation

I would have more respect for revisionists if they were honest about the facts here.

For example, these statements should be included

----
There is not a single piece of direct evidence, whether documentary or witness, concerning the mass resettlement of perhaps millions of Jews from 1942 on, nor any Polish Jews.

Currently there is no known mechanism for this lack of evidence, no known mechanism by which potentially millions of witnesses could be silenced or otherwise suppressed, ditto for documents. Rather we are asserting the possibility of possibility, that a mechanism exists, it just can't be conceived of at the moment.
---

This last one I think is an important thing for revisionists, one that you see echoed in the case of Belzec https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=107&start=225

Revisionist posit that there is some explanation for the vast layers of ash mixed with sand that Kola describes, but after months have still not provided a firm rationale for why the bodies were even exhumed.

Possibility in general is a no no for conventional history, especially in the modern period where mass events are as a rule directly evidenced to some degree. Revisionists skip over this by attempting to prove possibility, but they even fail at this, because they do not offer even speculative scenarios for what really happened.

It would be as if orthodoxy was stating that Nazis murdered so and so many Jews, with zero direct evidence obviously, but also no specifics as to how the deed was carried out. From the revisionist perspective, one can see the attractiveness of such an approach. If you're not offering up a story, there's really nothing to criticize.