the translated Sassen papers

[bombsaway]

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6abc469cc014819 ... 174932adc6

AI states these are your main points.

But if Hahnzog's dating was fall of 1941 then objections 1, 3, 4 largely dissolve, right? Why is not plausible he might have just gotten the date wrong? In his testimony he gives a range from fall of 40 to spring of 41, so he was unsure about it.

Your GPT laziness is wearing thin. Do you have a brain of your own? And that's not even a rebuttal. Just a summary of what I said. I don't even think you read my post. I find myself disinclined to interact with you much going forward since you are turning into ConfusedJew.

But I disagree with your post above. Even if we play pretend that Hahnzog meant to say fall 1941,

1 - this still involves the additional leap about Wirth. He needs both of these leaps. This is probably the main reason Arad favors the later dating.
3 - this still stands. Stationary gas chambers with engine exhaust in fall 1941 don't fit with the history of the AR camps or the general development of the gassing technology.
4 - I don't "think" Arad and Browning offer contradictory solutions. They do. Undeniably. Browning does not mention Arad by name but he explains in detail why he rejects the later dating for the Eichmann visit. He's arguing with other Holohistorians there, not with revisionists.

Given the language “in the spring of 1941, if not earlier, in the fall of 1940," I think stretching that to fall 1941 is a desperate leap. He says spring of 1941 and then suggests if anything pushing it earlier rather than later. And all of that is pre-Barbarossa which is very different context. Barbarossa is a common anchor point for people. Plus he was in the region from Jan 1940 to Apr 1942 so that would give him some bearings to determine the relative timeline even if he couldn't remember the exact calendar dates.

GPT just summed up your post, the rest was my work.

1, The December date establishes Wirth's arrival at the actual Bełzec camp. Browning explicitly distinguishes that from an earlier presence in the Lublin district, and cites Gorgass's postwar affidavit that Wirth told him in late summer 1941 that he was being transferred to a euthanasia institution in the Lublin area. So there is independent evidence for precisely the thing Browning is proposing here. You can question that evidence, but it's not an unsupported leap.

3, Why not? Why is an experimental installation precluded here?

4, Historians offering different reconstructions of sparse evidence demonstrates uncertainty. It does not establish that Browning’s reconstruction is ad hoc or false.

Hahnzog could have just gotten the year wrong. Substitute fall to spring 40-41 for the next year and it all works.

You guys would be better off just not addressing it at all

This is what you do with the Sassen papers huh? For myself, the truth truly does not fear investigation.

What is your explanation for Eichmann over and over and over again asserting a program of physical extermination? (and that it was a good and righteous thing and he wished more died)

Still not answered, which is why I think this is good evidence. I think I automatically win this one because I'm actually answering things.