The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

[Callafangers]

By "Holocaust goggles" you mean evidence. The reason why the phrasing used in the minutes is interpreted as meaning death, is because of the evidence of deaths. You ignore the evidence, and come up with unsupported interpretations.

"Evidence of deaths"? Nessie, this conversation took place as the alleged beginning of the 'Holocaust', so you need to interpret it from the minds of those standing in the room at the time. Is everyone there just smiling and nodding as homicidal-genocide is just casually skimmed over? Or is labor and utilization of Jews thereof the obvious focus of discussion?

The context discussed is also leading to the conclusion that this forced labor will need to entail caution in ensuring special control measures for the surviving "resistant/strong" Jewish population (i.e. those not 'dropping out'). The point is simply to show that, as Germany recognized work leads to strength, and while Jews could be used to get important work done in the East, Germany would need to implement this cautiously, so as not to create 'super-Jews', so to speak. All of this aligns with German thought at the time.

[SanityCheck]

There's a lot of agreement between the different directories and lists, but I expect things to be substantially cleared up by USHMM Encyclopedia Vol VI, which will cover ZALfJ among other categories.

Yes, it will no doubt "cover" these things but overwhelmingly from word-of-mouth claims, often inconsistent or absurdity-riddled, the majority of which will have no reasonable corroboration from official German documents, if any at all, let alone physical evidence of any kind. If we rely on claims from people benefiting from the war which raised propaganda as a foremost weapon in modern warfare -- only seeking 'convergence' between this and coerced statements or Soviet-led "investigations" and documents, most of the time -- are we taking this seriously?

It's no secret that exterminationists are laissez faire on everything-source-criticism but claims this big with sources just as bad doesn't exactly spell "certainty", nor even "confidence".

Well, then, you should regard your list of ZALfJ extracted from the website as thoroughly tainted, since it's clear that many entries and details were derived from eyewitnesses and postwar investigations, and not from German documents.

[Callafangers]

Well, then, you should regard your list of ZALfJ extracted from the website as thoroughly tainted, since it's clear that many entries and details were derived from eyewitnesses and postwar investigations, and not from German documents.

Oh, I certainly do! Come on, Nick, let's not pretend it isn't you who spends more time 'scraping the barrel', compared to the rest of us. I fully admit the details of these records are vague but, most importantly, I carefully consider the motives of all parties making any particular statement or claim. This kind of criticism tends to be absent on the exterminationist side. The notion that Jews/Allies benefit and that Germans (and their families) were under the thumb of an enemy post-war doesn't seem to factor into how you see any statements or 'confessions'. It's treated like a trivial footnote, something not so significant in the bigger picture, once enough 'convergence' comes about. Funny that the 'convergence' seems to always have a lack of open debate, lack of forensic evidence (incl. cremation), and lots of Soviet-communist and Jewish hands in the pot (although before Nessie bites me, let's also acknowledge the German-hating Polish hands in the pot, and the occasional "neutral" parties who surely weren't motivated to be on the 'good side' of the powers that just conquered the world).

Just how many Jewish babies do you personally believe were thrown off rooftops onto German bayonets, Nick? Serious question.

[Nessie]

You are trying to excuse your inability to evidence millions of Jews working for OT in 1944. Your suggestion is that there was a wholesale destruction of evidence by the Allies, without any Nazi or OT personnel attempting to prevent that, or coming forward as a witness, or any circumstantial evidence, to prove the conspiracy.

All signs suggest there was definitely "wholesale destruction" of evidence by the Allies whom went as far as to implement 'denazification' campaigns.

Imagine if you and I got into a personal feud, Nessie, and I went around to all your friends and neighbors shoving propaganda down their throats in my "de-Nessiefication campaign" . Do you think this wouldn't suggest a motive for me to also destroy documents that you might want to keep in your defense?

Motive, means, opportunity -- it is all there for the Allies with regard to exonerating German documents.

More importantly, though, you have misrepresented my previous argument -- the issue is that the documentation was typically missing to begin with. There are virtually NO documents on Zwangsarbeitslager camp strengths, especially in the Eastern territories where there was also an absence of OBL administrative units, making documentation minimal at best. Have you read none of my earlier posts on this thread? I really spelled it out.

"Signs", "suggest", "imagine". Typically, your posting misses out evidence. You had to spell out that there was a lack of documentation to prove lots of OT, or other labour camps, open after September 1944, after I pointed out the chronological gap.

By the end of 1944, all the ghettos had closed, many labour camps had closed and A-B had a smaller population than in 1943. Nazi documents, from the Einsatzgruppen OSRs, to Wannsee, to Korherr had been recording drops in the Jewish population since 1941.

You do not just lack documents to evidence millions of Jews in labour camps in the east, you lack witness, physical and circumstantial evidence. We are back to your suggestion the Nazis would hide millions of Jews, in 1944, knowing that they were being accused of killing them. You jump to postwar de-Nazification, leaving a chronological gap.

We both know, that OT does not provide you with evidence that Jews were not being mass murdered and a genuine revision of the history.

[Nessie]

By "Holocaust goggles" you mean evidence. The reason why the phrasing used in the minutes is interpreted as meaning death, is because of the evidence of deaths. You ignore the evidence, and come up with unsupported interpretations.

"Evidence of deaths"? Nessie, this conversation took place as the alleged beginning of the 'Holocaust', so you need to interpret it from the minds of those standing in the room at the time. Is everyone there just smiling and nodding as homicidal-genocide is just casually skimmed over? Or is labor and utilization of Jews thereof the obvious focus of discussion?

The context discussed is also leading to the conclusion that this forced labor will need to entail caution in ensuring special control measures for the surviving "resistant/strong" Jewish population (i.e. those not 'dropping out'). The point is simply to show that, as Germany recognized work leads to strength, and while Jews could be used to get important work done in the East, Germany would need to implement this cautiously, so as not to create 'super-Jews', so to speak. All of this aligns with German thought at the time.

In January 1942, the senior Nazis present would know about the role of the Einsatzgruppen, eliminating Communists, partisans and Jews. Estonia, where Einsatzgruppen A were operating, was recorded as Jew free.

[Callafangers]

All signs suggest there was definitely "wholesale destruction" of evidence by the Allies whom went as far as to implement 'denazification' campaigns.

Imagine if you and I got into a personal feud, Nessie, and I went around to all your friends and neighbors shoving propaganda down their throats in my "de-Nessiefication campaign" . Do you think this wouldn't suggest a motive for me to also destroy documents that you might want to keep in your defense?

Motive, means, opportunity -- it is all there for the Allies with regard to exonerating German documents.

More importantly, though, you have misrepresented my previous argument -- the issue is that the documentation was typically missing to begin with. There are virtually NO documents on Zwangsarbeitslager camp strengths, especially in the Eastern territories where there was also an absence of OBL administrative units, making documentation minimal at best. Have you read none of my earlier posts on this thread? I really spelled it out.

"Signs", "suggest", "imagine". Typically, your posting misses out evidence. You had to spell out that there was a lack of documentation to prove lots of OT, or other labour camps, open after September 1944, after I pointed out the chronological gap.

I understand you are struggling with reading. To support your effort at being a better reader, I have highlighted my statements of fact (i.e. not mere speculation) above, in green. Enjoy.

[Nessie]

All signs suggest there was definitely "wholesale destruction" of evidence by the Allies whom went as far as to implement 'denazification' campaigns.

Imagine if you and I got into a personal feud, Nessie, and I went around to all your friends and neighbors shoving propaganda down their throats in my "de-Nessiefication campaign" . Do you think this wouldn't suggest a motive for me to also destroy documents that you might want to keep in your defense?

Motive, means, opportunity -- it is all there for the Allies with regard to exonerating German documents.

More importantly, though, you have misrepresented my previous argument -- the issue is that the documentation was typically missing to begin with. There are virtually NO documents on Zwangsarbeitslager camp strengths, especially in the Eastern territories where there was also an absence of OBL administrative units, making documentation minimal at best. Have you read none of my earlier posts on this thread? I really spelled it out.

"Signs", "suggest", "imagine". Typically, your posting misses out evidence. You had to spell out that there was a lack of documentation to prove lots of OT, or other labour camps, open after September 1944, after I pointed out the chronological gap.

I understand you are struggling with reading. To support your effort at being a better reader, I have highlighted my statements of fact (i.e. not mere speculation) above, in green. Enjoy.

What better way to "de-Nazify" than to produce evidence that they did not kill as many Jews as alleged, and OT kept Jews alive?

You have zero evidence of Allied destruction of documentary evidence of millions of Jews in OT or other camps in 1944.

You are alleging that the Nazis were such cowards, that none would come forward with the truth, having hidden evidence from the Allies.

You have zero evidence from physical, circumstantial of other evidence of millions of Jews in OT or other camps in 1944.

[Callafangers]

What better way to "de-Nazify" than to produce evidence that they did not kill as many Jews as alleged, and OT kept Jews alive?

Nessie, you are doing the opposite of making sense, here. Read this, out loud to yourself, and tell me what it is you're trying to say here.

People trying to "de-Nazify" are trying to make Nazis look bad, so they would not "produce [exonerating] evidence", they would hide it.

Take a nap.

[HansHill]

Holocaust goggles

I almost spit out my Matzah Balls

[bombsaway]

Yes, in some of the ghettos, this was the case, because the ghettos were not strictly work sites -- hence the need of sending many Jews to the East, where there were many work sites, factories, etc. which might better suit their predicaments (e.g. need for lighter work). This is not speculation -- we can see the type of work conducted at these facilities being much better aligned with the circumstances of Jews less fit for more heavy munitions work, construction work, etc.

The relevance of the Kube document is, as I said, the declaration of most German Jews being unused for work. This contradicts your 'need for lighter work' idea. You are speculating where your whims take you essentially and I'm bringing real evidence to the table. In the East Jews were maybe even less utilized for labor.