Hektor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 7:55 am
Exterminationists don't saying something directly, they love using innuendo. And I've seen the Hoefle Telegram being used to suggest that this somehow proves that those camps were actually extermination camps.
I'm sure you have, but engage with the opponents actually in front of you rather than the ones in your memory or your imagination.
On its own, the Hoefle telegram does not support transit, since the document simply refers to 'intake' (Zugang) not 'throughput' (Durchgang). That is additional evidence to corroborate the proper interpretation of the Korherr report as deceptively edited, with the original specifying special treatment (Sonderbehandlung), a proven euphemism for killing in the Nazi paper trail as a whole.
So the Hoefle telegram is already not a neutral document even without specifying killing or gassing. It's even less neutral in its proper conjunction with the Korherr report and the Himmler letter ordering the editing of the report, which is already just three documents. ...
Of course it is Zugang and 'Durchgang; isn't mentioned. Because registering Zugang/addition is what is done, simply because it has a punctual nature. One really shouldn't try to interpret official documents, if one is clueless about how administration operates. Then one could come up with something serious in the process and won't have to resort to this kind of eisegesis. If there was no "Abgang" (people leaving), there would have been physical evidence for their remains still being there. While there are - as expected by the revisionist position -some remains to be found in that area (as by the why in any previous war zone), there is nothing of that kind one would expect if the Exterminationist position would be true.
The Hoefle Telegram is exactly what one would expect, if those were transit camps... Adding anything else demonstrates malicious intent. Which I noticed in abundance on the Exterminationist side.
Again you default back to trying to interpret a document in isolation of other sources in favour of an unevidenced hypothesis (transit) backed up solely by your interpretation of the physical condition of the sites (multiple), pointing to a supposed deficiency of remains which is not then corroborated by other evidence explaining the whereabouts of the deportees reported by many hundreds, if not thousands, of sources to have been killed then cremated at the sites.
It's positively laughable when revisionists pontificate about administration when they've shown zero knowledge of the different agencies and units involved, and keep on forgetting to factor in the immediately adjacent reports (like the Korherr report) and the circumstances of their composition.
I'm sure you have, but engage with the opponents actually in front of you rather than the ones in your memory or your imagination.
On its own, the Hoefle telegram does not support transit, since the document simply refers to 'intake' (Zugang) not 'throughput' (Durchgang). That is additional evidence to corroborate the proper interpretation of the Korherr report as deceptively edited, with the original specifying special treatment (Sonderbehandlung), a proven euphemism for killing in the Nazi paper trail as a whole.
So the Hoefle telegram is already not a neutral document even without specifying killing or gassing. It's even less neutral in its proper conjunction with the Korherr report and the Himmler letter ordering the editing of the report, which is already just three documents. ...
Of course it is Zugang and 'Durchgang; isn't mentioned. Because registering Zugang/addition is what is done, simply because it has a punctual nature. One really shouldn't try to interpret official documents, if one is clueless about how administration operates. Then one could come up with something serious in the process and won't have to resort to this kind of eisegesis. If there was no "Abgang" (people leaving), there would have been physical evidence for their remains still being there. While there are - as expected by the revisionist position -some remains to be found in that area (as by the why in any previous war zone), there is nothing of that kind one would expect if the Exterminationist position would be true.
The Hoefle Telegram is exactly what one would expect, if those were transit camps... Adding anything else demonstrates malicious intent. Which I noticed in abundance on the Exterminationist side.
Again you default back to trying to interpret a document in isolation of other sources in favour of an unevidenced hypothesis (transit) backed up solely by your interpretation of the physical condition of the sites (multiple),...
Thanks for confirming that we are at the stage where Exterminationists have to insist that the documents didn't mean what they actually say.
Hektor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2024 2:22 pm
....
Thanks for confirming that we are at the stage where Exterminationists have to insist that the documents didn't mean what they actually say.
Revisionists claim that "liquidation" was a code word for resettlement and the "special actions" and "treatment" at A-B were code words for shower, or delousing.
