The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Hektor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 9:00 pm

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 7:58 pm

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.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2024 10:55 am

Hektor wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 9:00 pm

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 7:58 pm

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),...

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.

SanityCheck wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:15 am...
Wilno-Vilnius took in numerous refugees in 1939-40, then the entire Jewish population was counted in January 1941 under Soviet rule in a confidential population register, some were deported in June 1941 (with good transport data, so exaggerated claims are not feasible here), the Germans invaded and promptly overestimated 80,000 Jews in Wilno. The ensuing massacres from July to November 1941 are documented more roughly for July, but more precisely thereafter, along with some official headcounts, concluding with an initial estimate of 'about 15,000' Jews remaining by December 1941, corrected by more precise headcounts in German documentation thereafter. Historians are not relying on either the prewar population census or the initial German overestimate to support the figures they derive from German reports of mass shootings over July to November 1941. They are by contrast making use of further German, Lithuanian, Polish and Jewish sources to corroborate the course of events, along with photographs from Ponary, the killing site outside Wilno-Vilnius, postwar interrogations and reports, plus the sources which discuss the exhumation and cremation of victims at Ponary, these following earlier collaborator documents noting the existence of mass graves at Ponary.
...

3. Ponary (near Vilnius, Lithuania)
July 1941 - July 1944
~70,000 total killed (majority Jews)