Re: Chronology of the Holocaust
Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2025 4:53 pm
Damn, that's A LOT of partisans
Where Myths Meet Their Demise
https://codohforum.com/
Damn, that's A LOT of partisans
It doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense to Reitlinger. And you can't explain it either. There comes a point when we are justified in looking askance at such a tall tale. You of course believe that we should defer to the authorities for our conclusions and that no sort of independent critique should be allowed. I would counter that this leaves you blind to instances where the official story is BS but continues to be upheld for political and/or emotional reasons.Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 7:35 amJust because it does not make sense to you, does not mean it did not happen. To prove it did not happen, you need evidence, not your opinion. Evidence from witnesses, photos, documents, physical and circumstantial evidence, what happened to the Jews herded to Babi Yar and produce a chronology to show where they were in 1942. Failure to do that means you have failed at the basic task of any historical investigation.
I can explain, with evidence. Your claim was;Archie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 5:02 pmIt doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense to Reitlinger. And you can't explain it either.Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 7:35 amJust because it does not make sense to you, does not mean it did not happen. To prove it did not happen, you need evidence, not your opinion. Evidence from witnesses, photos, documents, physical and circumstantial evidence, what happened to the Jews herded to Babi Yar and produce a chronology to show where they were in 1942. Failure to do that means you have failed at the basic task of any historical investigation.
I believe that we should defer to the evidence and not rely on obviously logically flawed arguments. I think you should be able to chronologically evidence what happened, rather than voice your opinionated incredulity.There comes a point when we are justified in looking askance at such a tall tale. You of course believe that we should defer to the authorities for our conclusions and that no sort of independent critique should be allowed. I would counter that this leaves you blind to instances where the official story is BS but continues to be upheld for political and/or emotional reasons.
I reject your suggestion that this Titanic story is a suitable precedent for how people behave during a mass shooting/mass execution. Have you ever been on a big cruiseliner? There's not much you can do if that thing is going down in icy waters and there aren't enough lifeboats. Sitting around and praying doesn't strike me as an unreasonable reaction to that situation. I guarantee you that if they had taken out guns and started shooting those passengers they would have started to freak out. I already mentioned the conditions under which you might expect passivity. Go back and read it. But in this case there are two big reasons why that doesn't work.bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:17 pm It's not a normal or expected thing for people to willingly lay themselves on stacks of bodies and await their own execution.
Archie's comparison to mass shooters, in public spaces, where the shooter is heavily outnumbered just carries no weight, I don't imagine anything comparable happened with the SS shootings. What if you were in a situation where you became convinced you were about to die and there wasn't anything you could do about it? How would you react? This experience is so removed from our day to day experience, I think it's an act of hubris to say definitively you would react this way or that.
Like, this doesn't make sense either, idk people are complicated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_TitanicSome, perhaps overwhelmed by it all, made no attempt to escape and stayed in their cabins or congregated in prayer in the third-class dining room.[134] Leading Fireman Charles Hendrickson saw crowds of third-class passengers below decks with their trunks and possessions, as if waiting for someone to direct them.[135] Psychologist Wyn Craig Wade attributes this to "stoic passivity" produced by generations of being told what to do by social superiors.[111] August Wennerström, one of the male steerage passengers to survive, commented later that many of his companions had made no effort to save themselves. He wrote:
Hundreds were in a circle [in the third-class dining saloon] with a preacher in the middle, praying, crying, asking God and Mary to help them. They lay there and yelled, never lifting a hand to help themselves. They had lost their own will power and expected God to do all the work for them.[136]
Archie, it isn't 1 Jonestown, it is multiple Jonestowns simultaneously...Archie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 5:33 pmI reject your suggestion that this Titanic story is a suitable precedent for how people behave during a mass shooting/mass execution. Have you ever been on a big cruiseliner? There's not much you can do if that thing is going down in icy waters and there aren't enough lifeboats. Sitting around and praying doesn't strike me as an unreasonable reaction to that situation. I guarantee you that if they had taken out guns and started shooting those passengers they would have started to freak out. I already mentioned the conditions under which you might expect passivity. Go back and read it. But in this case there are two big reasons why that doesn't work.bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:17 pm It's not a normal or expected thing for people to willingly lay themselves on stacks of bodies and await their own execution.
Archie's comparison to mass shooters, in public spaces, where the shooter is heavily outnumbered just carries no weight, I don't imagine anything comparable happened with the SS shootings. What if you were in a situation where you became convinced you were about to die and there wasn't anything you could do about it? How would you react? This experience is so removed from our day to day experience, I think it's an act of hubris to say definitively you would react this way or that.
Like, this doesn't make sense either, idk people are complicated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_TitanicSome, perhaps overwhelmed by it all, made no attempt to escape and stayed in their cabins or congregated in prayer in the third-class dining room.[134] Leading Fireman Charles Hendrickson saw crowds of third-class passengers below decks with their trunks and possessions, as if waiting for someone to direct them.[135] Psychologist Wyn Craig Wade attributes this to "stoic passivity" produced by generations of being told what to do by social superiors.[111] August Wennerström, one of the male steerage passengers to survive, commented later that many of his companions had made no effort to save themselves. He wrote:
Hundreds were in a circle [in the third-class dining saloon] with a preacher in the middle, praying, crying, asking God and Mary to help them. They lay there and yelled, never lifting a hand to help themselves. They had lost their own will power and expected God to do all the work for them.[136]
1) 33,771 victims - this is a huge number
2) They were unrestrained (prisoners who are to be executed are usually restrained for a reason)
This only makes sense if nobody has any idea what's going to happen but that idea falls apart because of the noise of gunfire (which would give the game away to anyone within a few miles), the bodies in the pit (which would give the game away to the current execution batch), the difficulty of transporting so many people any significant distance, and the fact that a given batch would need to be quite large.
The event as described would require the cooperation of the victims. The only precedent I can think of for something like this would be a mass suicide event like Jonestown or something similarly extraordinary.
I agree
Now please evidence clearly why they changed their mind and killed them 10 days later. What happened in those 10 days? Be specific.
“A special labor-deployment office for Jews has been created at the regional
commissar in Riga City, Department of Employment, to handle Jewish labor more
systematically, i.e., to deploy the Jews in such a way that their labor is exploited
exhaustively for German purposes, yet at the same time without constituting com-
petition for Germans or Latvians.”
- Monthly Report on the Establishing of Ghettos in Jewish Work Camps, Labor Deployment and Treatment of Jews, November 20th 1941
According to Peter Longerich - Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews, the leader of Einsatzkommando VI said that 70 to 90 percent of Ukrainian Jews fled and that this saved them the trouble of deporting them to the Urals. I assume that this proportion in Kiev was the same.
You cribbed that from Mattogno, who like you doesn’t understand that there were different chains of command involved. The Generalkommissar in Riga was Otto-Heinrich Drechsler, who reported to the Reichskommissar for the Ostland, Hinrich Lohse, who advocated for exempting “work Jews” from extermination. Lohse reported to Rosenberg as minister for the occupied eastern territories.HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 5:40 pmI agree
Now please evidence clearly why they changed their mind and killed them 10 days later. What happened in those 10 days? Be specific.
“A special labor-deployment office for Jews has been created at the regional
commissar in Riga City, Department of Employment, to handle Jewish labor more
systematically, i.e., to deploy the Jews in such a way that their labor is exploited
exhaustively for German purposes, yet at the same time without constituting com-
petition for Germans or Latvians.”
- Monthly Report on the Establishing of Ghettos in Jewish Work Camps, Labor Deployment and Treatment of Jews, November 20th 1941
None of this explains why "The Jews" were intended to be put to work and "the Jews" were inexplicably murdered the following week. That is unless of course you are asking me to read "the Jews" as "the able-bodied working aged Jews".Numar Patru wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:30 pm
You cribbed that from Mattogno, who like you doesn’t understand that there were different chains of command involved. The Generalkommissar in Riga was Otto-Heinrich Drechsler, who reported to the Reichskommissar for the Ostland, Hinrich Lohse, who advocated for exempting “work Jews” from extermination. Lohse reported to Rosenberg as minister for the occupied eastern territories.
In contrast, SS figures included Jeckeln as HSSPF, reporting directly to Himmler; Stahlecker, heading Einsatzgruppe A and reporting to Heydrich; and Rudolf Lange of the SD, who also reported to Heydrich.
Those are separate chains of commands. If you’ve ever wondered why the Wannsee conference was held, confusion over roles in the final solution was part of the reason.
Do you understand that there was a conflict of interest between the civil authority in Latvia and the SS there?HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:49 pmNone of this explains why "The Jews" were intended to be put to work and "the Jews" were inexplicably murdered the following week. That is unless of course you are asking me to read "the Jews" as "the able-bodied working aged Jews".Numar Patru wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:30 pm
You cribbed that from Mattogno, who like you doesn’t understand that there were different chains of command involved. The Generalkommissar in Riga was Otto-Heinrich Drechsler, who reported to the Reichskommissar for the Ostland, Hinrich Lohse, who advocated for exempting “work Jews” from extermination. Lohse reported to Rosenberg as minister for the occupied eastern territories.
In contrast, SS figures included Jeckeln as HSSPF, reporting directly to Himmler; Stahlecker, heading Einsatzgruppe A and reporting to Heydrich; and Rudolf Lange of the SD, who also reported to Heydrich.
Those are separate chains of commands. If you’ve ever wondered why the Wannsee conference was held, confusion over roles in the final solution was part of the reason.
Is that what you are asking us infer from this document?
Obfuscation. I'll await Nellie's answer.Numar Patru wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:53 pm
Do you understand that there was a conflict of interest between the civil authority in Latvia and the SS there?
Do you understand that there was a conflict of interest between the civil authority in Latvia and the SS there?Numar Patru wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:53 pm
Is that what you are asking us infer from this document?
OK, it was clearly an early example of the conflict between the two policies of the use of Jews as slave labour and to make places Jew free. Some quick research and....HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 5:40 pmI agree
Now please evidence clearly why they changed their mind and killed them 10 days later. What happened in those 10 days? Be specific.
“A special labor-deployment office for Jews has been created at the regional
commissar in Riga City, Department of Employment, to handle Jewish labor more
systematically, i.e., to deploy the Jews in such a way that their labor is exploited
exhaustively for German purposes, yet at the same time without constituting com-
petition for Germans or Latvians.”
- Monthly Report on the Establishing of Ghettos in Jewish Work Camps, Labor Deployment and Treatment of Jews, November 20th 1941
What about the Jews of Kiev, who had gathered at Babi Yar?TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 5:42 pmAccording to Peter Longerich - Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews, the leader of Einsatzkommando VI said that 70 to 90 percent of Ukrainian Jews fled and that this saved them the trouble of deporting them to the Urals. I assume that this proportion in Kiev was the same.
According to Wannsee, there were 3 million Jews in Ukraine, which means that 2.1 to 2.7 million Jews survived. In the Baltic countries there were relatively few. How many were there in German-occupied western Russia? Were they reached even if they had time to evacuate to the interior as those in Ukraine allegedly did?