Challenge for Believers

[TlsMS93]

It doesn't matter who it was addressed to. It's sensible to assume (if you step into the orthodox framework) that following the German victory this document would be presented to foreign governments and bodies as contemporaneous evidence that resettlement had occurred.

Where in the document or anything related to it mentions this? This document is more to demonstrate the deportations of the General Government and not to satisfy the world about the whereabouts of a population of people, especially since the war was not over and logically more Jews would be involved. This document is with the battle of Stalingrad already defined, the war had already taken a dark turn even for the most fanatical leaders of the party, so using it in case of victory is another fallacy here.

I honestly don't know what your point is.

[bombsaway]

It doesn't matter who it was addressed to. It's sensible to assume (if you step into the orthodox framework) that following the German victory this document would be presented to foreign governments and bodies as contemporaneous evidence that resettlement had occurred.

Where in the document or anything related to it mentions this? This document is more to demonstrate the deportations of the General Government and not to satisfy the world about the whereabouts of a population of people, especially since the war was not over and logically more Jews would be involved. This document is with the battle of Stalingrad already defined, the war had already taken a dark turn even for the most fanatical leaders of the party, so using it in case of victory is another fallacy here.

I honestly don't know what your point is.

The part of the document that says 1.4 million transported into the Russian East. This violates the orthodox view that they were killed en masse in the Reinhardt camps and Chelmno, these sites were widely known as killing centers in 1942.

A problem you guys have is total inability to view this subject from a non-revisionist perspective. If you did, such things would be obvious.

But you're right, even this document is not quite evidence of resettlement. That they were killed there is also a possibility assuming the document is literally true. This speaks to the truly woeful state of evidence for this hypothesis. I think there's a good chance that looking so closely at this is what made Kues abruptly hang up the hat after so many years of diligent work.

[Nessie]

...

So far as what did or didn't happen, 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 didn't happen. That's different from 'nothing happened'.

Something happened.

The difficulty is parsing the truth from the lie.

It is not difficult when you understand evidencing and investigations. Finding 5-6 million Jews, still alive in Nazi camps and ghettos in 1944, would be easy, if it had happened, since they would generate a huge amount of bureaucracy and witnesses, not to mention the physical evidence of a massive camp and ghetto system to accommodate them all.

[Nazgul]

It is not difficult when you understand evidencing and investigations. Finding 5-6 million Jews, still alive in Nazi camps and ghettos in 1944, would be easy, if it had happened, since they would generate a huge amount of bureaucracy and witnesses, not to mention the physical evidence of a massive camp and ghetto system to accommodate them all.

HERMANN F. WEISS (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ) wrote "As opposed to concentration camp systems, forced labor camps for Jews continue to receive relatively little scholarly attention.
This is because 99% of the records and file for the Todt and Schmelt organizations who organized the labour camps, disappeared, especially in Soviet held territories such as Poland, Ukraine.

[TlsMS93]

The part of the document that says 1.4 million transported into the Russian East. This violates the orthodox view that they were killed en masse in the Reinhardt camps and Chelmno, these sites were widely known as killing centers in 1942.

A problem you guys have is total inability to view this subject from a non-revisionist perspective. If you did, such things would be obvious.

But you're right, even this document is not quite evidence of resettlement. That they were killed there is also a possibility assuming the document is literally true. This speaks to the truly woeful state of evidence for this hypothesis. I think there's a good chance that looking so closely at this is what made Kues abruptly hang up the hat after so many years of diligent work.

Widely known to whom? You are a playful.

The Germans wanted to deport and not resettle anyone. Where does the document state that they would be killed? Special treatment? You are assuming that the conspiracy to hide something is true.

[Nazgul]

Special treatment? You are assuming that the conspiracy to hide something is true.

I have heard this term highlighted bandied around many times. Even the Highland Lord of the Kelpie used it, speaking of disposing "useless eaters" in his words.

Special Treatment in German is Sonderbehandlung, used only in one context: invalid euthansia which required T4 staff to perform this legally under that system of the time. Invalid euthanasia performed in SS camps is known as "aktion 14f13". The following article explains it.
Action 14f13, also called Sonderbehandlung (special treatment) 14f13 and Aktion 14f13, was a campaign by Nazi Germany to euthanize decrepit elderly or disabled prisoners who in the opinion of qualified medical staff would have little chance of survival.

This may be murder by todays standards, but only about 20, 000 perished. It is this that caused fear and blew into the full blown holocaust.

[Nessie]

It is not difficult when you understand evidencing and investigations. Finding 5-6 million Jews, still alive in Nazi camps and ghettos in 1944, would be easy, if it had happened, since they would generate a huge amount of bureaucracy and witnesses, not to mention the physical evidence of a massive camp and ghetto system to accommodate them all.

HERMANN F. WEISS (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ) wrote "As opposed to concentration camp systems, forced labor camps for Jews continue to receive relatively little scholarly attention.

Could you link to a source please.

This is because 99% of the records and file for the Todt and Schmelt organizations who organized the labour camps, disappeared, especially in Soviet held territories such as Poland, Ukraine.

Can you evidence that claim.

[TlsMS93]

HERMANN F. WEISS (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan ) wrote "As opposed to concentration camp systems, forced labor camps for Jews continue to receive relatively little scholarly attention.

I wonder why this is happening? Jewish lobby? No, these camps let my witnesses and ad hoc trials do the job.

[Nazgul]

Expediency

[bombsaway]

The part of the document that says 1.4 million transported into the Russian East. This violates the orthodox view that they were killed en masse in the Reinhardt camps and Chelmno, these sites were widely known as killing centers in 1942.

A problem you guys have is total inability to view this subject from a non-revisionist perspective. If you did, such things would be obvious.

But you're right, even this document is not quite evidence of resettlement. That they were killed there is also a possibility assuming the document is literally true. This speaks to the truly woeful state of evidence for this hypothesis. I think there's a good chance that looking so closely at this is what made Kues abruptly hang up the hat after so many years of diligent work.

Widely known to whom? You are a playful.

The Germans wanted to deport and not resettle anyone. Where does the document state that they would be killed? Special treatment? You are assuming that the conspiracy to hide something is true.

https://ibb.co/0xGd4Jj

It doesn't state that they were going to be killed. But Himmler changed the terminology from given special treatment and called the document great camouflage.

I don't really understand your thought process here. It seems you don't think the Orthodox position makes sense but I think it's because you can't step out of your given frame.

[TlsMS93]

It doesn't state that they were going to be killed. But Himmler changed the terminology from given special treatment and called the document great camouflage.

I don't really understand your thought process here. It seems you don't think the Orthodox position makes sense but I think it's because you can't step out of your given frame.

Your logic makes no sense at all. No one establishes camouflage for a secret document addressed only to the person who requested the camouflage and the person who ordered the genocide (without proof either). On the contrary, the camouflage is intended to give a new meaning to whoever is going to read it. Obviously Himmler did not want Hitler to know that 1 million Jews escaped through Soviet escapes and evacuation, which in their view would mean more future disruptions to the war effort and more Bolshevik propaganda. This interpretation by Rudolf and Challen makes much more sense in the shorter report than in the longer one, where there is a contradiction that would be the origin of the camouflage.

[Nessie]

The logic of coded language amongst senior Nazis is from what happened regarding the bad publicity and protests over T4 and plausible deniability.

[bombsaway]

It doesn't state that they were going to be killed. But Himmler changed the terminology from given special treatment and called the document great camouflage.

I don't really understand your thought process here. It seems you don't think the Orthodox position makes sense but I think it's because you can't step out of your given frame.

Your logic makes no sense at all. No one establishes camouflage for a secret document addressed only to the person who requested the camouflage and the person who ordered the genocide (without proof either). On the contrary, the camouflage is intended to give a new meaning to whoever is going to read it. Obviously Himmler did not want Hitler to know that 1 million Jews escaped through Soviet escapes and evacuation, which in their view would mean more future disruptions to the war effort and more Bolshevik propaganda. This interpretation by Rudolf and Challen makes much more sense in the shorter report than in the longer one, where there is a contradiction that would be the origin of the camouflage.

So the camouflage was for Hitler? Why would he care if Jews escaped prior to Barbarossa or in the wake of the Nazi advance?

Why was the original wording "given special treatment" and why were they counted as part of the population of the gg by korherr?

[TlsMS93]

So the camouflage was for Hitler? Why would he care if Jews escaped prior to Barbarossa or in the wake of the Nazi advance?

Why was the original wording "given special treatment" and why were they counted as part of the population of the gg by korherr?

In fact, the camouflage has to do with the general data on the Jewish population in Europe, which fell by 5 million between 1933-42, where Korherr mentions that half of these losses were due to emigration, but in his report he created a contradiction where 1.5 million went to other continents, so 1 million would be missing. The explanation for this contradiction is that Himmler asked Korherr to camouflage these 1 million because of Soviet escapes and evacuations.

In addition, Himmler wanted only 300,000 Polish Jews to remain, that is, there was an incentive for the numbers in these reports to be tampered with. Furthermore, the Franke-Griksch Report does not confirm that there were only 20,000 Jews in the Lublin district, but a much higher number.

In other words, the Korherr report seems to be a document purely to please someone and not to give a clear view of what was really happening.

[bombsaway]

So the camouflage was for Hitler? Why would he care if Jews escaped prior to Barbarossa or in the wake of the Nazi advance?

Why was the original wording "given special treatment" and why were they counted as part of the population of the gg by korherr?

In fact, the camouflage has to do with the general data on the Jewish population in Europe, which fell by 5 million between 1933-42, where Korherr mentions that half of these losses were due to emigration, but in his report he created a contradiction where 1.5 million went to other continents, so 1 million would be missing. The explanation for this contradiction is that Himmler asked Korherr to camouflage these 1 million because of Soviet escapes and evacuations.

In addition, Himmler wanted only 300,000 Polish Jews to remain, that is, there was an incentive for the numbers in these reports to be tampered with. Furthermore, the Franke-Griksch Report does not confirm that there were only 20,000 Jews in the Lublin district, but a much higher number.

In other words, the Korherr report seems to be a document purely to please someone and not to give a clear view of what was really happening.

What's the 1 million Soviet "escapes"? this is prior to barborossa or in the wake of the German advance? Why is this something Himmler wanted to hide? Does this have anything to do with special treatment --> deportation to the Russian (presumably under German control since moving 1.5 million Jews across enemy lines would be pretty insane).

I'm not following your logic. From the orthodox view, the "camouflage" is intended to disguise the killings at Reinhardt camps, and this also dovetails completely with the change of terminology from a code word "special treatment". I don't see your issue with this.