Where Specifically Do [Revisionists] Think the Reinhardt Jews Went?

[hermod]

I'm not really denying that hosing down the gas chamber would hypothetically have been necessary, I'm just pointing out the fact that the one or two witnesses who mention hosings down are not credible. The glaring issue with this explanation, however, is the fact that the upper walls and the ceiling would not have been necessary to hose down.

Anyway, one or two witnesses mentioning anything are still 1,000 or 10,000 times fewer witnesses than the 'witnesses' mentioning anal probes during alleged abductions by extraterrestrial aliens.

[HistorySpeaks]

My point was that Mattogno acknowledges in a general sense that the the word Sonderbehandlung meant to murder.

No, Mattogno said that Sonderbehandlung had numerous meanings, including murder in rare occurrences, not in a general sense.

Lol you haven't read your Mattogno closely bro. He literally says in page 7 (the first page of the Preface) of Special Treatment at Auschwitz:

It cannot be disputed that in numerous documents of the Third Reich, the term “special treatment” is, in fact, synonymous with execution or liquidation,

That is not "rarely."

Mattogno merely argues against the claim that "the meaning of this term always and exclusively had this significance." He does not deny that SB generally meant killing; he merely says it also could and did have other meanings.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/10-stia.pdf

[HistorySpeaks]

Regarding the formation of Prussian Blue: Another variable we have not discussed, but which is quite salient, relates to he fact that delousing was a much longer process than gassing humans, owing to the greater resistance of pests to HCN than humans. So the walls of the gas chambers were exposed to high levels of HCN for a much shorter period of time.

One qualifier: many anti-deniers have suggested that more cannisters of Zyklon was used in the delousing chambers than gas chambers. It isn't clear that this is true. The testimonial evidence, at least, indicates that a similar amount of Zyklon was used in the homicidal gas chambers. However, the time it took to gas the Jews was much shorter; therefore the walls in the delousing chamber had much more prolonged exposure to high levels of HCN than those of the gas chamber.

[Hektor]

My point was that Mattogno acknowledges in a general sense that the the word Sonderbehandlung meant to murder.

No, Mattogno said that Sonderbehandlung had numerous meanings, including murder in rare occurrences, not in a general sense.

I recall a book on Sonderbehandlung in Auschwitz (and related terms). In all cases it had a life-saving meaning in the documents.

The trick in the debate was to pick some instance where "Sonderbehandlung" seems to have some sinister meaning and then focus on it over and over again until one got people prejudiced in a way that they thing that it always must have had a sinister meaning. If they then hear that Sonderbehandlung or similar terms are in their thousands in the documents they assume that this is "documentary evidence for the Holocaust".

[curioussoul]

That is not "rarely."

Mattogno merely argues against the claim that "the meaning of this term always and exclusively had this significance." He does not deny that SB generally meant killing; he merely says it also could and did have other meanings.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/10-stia.pdf

You are just arguing semantics. Yes, we all accept that the word "Sonderbehandlung" was sometimes used euphemistically to refer to killings. Orthodox Holocaust historians assume almost categorically, and with no evidence, that reams of documents are referring to killings, even though it can be easily refuted. What Mattogno did was demonstrate this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

What you need to realize is that the word "Sonderbehandlung" is not some specialized neologism invented by the Nazis. It's a common compound which simply means "special treatment". To be "treated specially" can obviously refer to practically anything, including trivial occurrences which simply fell outside the norm or outside established guide lines, or that related to certain projects, policies or practices. As Mattogno proved, "special treatment" often referred to things of a positive nature, such as bathing/delousing, being housed in a luxury camp for privileged prisoners, and so on.

Again, I want to highlight the fact that you keep using revisionist literature to source your claims. This is because orthodox historians don't treat these topics seriously.

[curioussoul]

Regarding the formation of Prussian Blue: Another variable we have not discussed, but which is quite salient, relates to he fact that delousing was a much longer process than gassing humans, owing to the greater resistance of pests to HCN than humans. So the walls of the gas chambers were exposed to high levels of HCN for a much shorter period of time.

I'm not sure if that's necessarily the case. Rudolf quotes Leipprand on this, but I'm sure there are better sources clarifying the type of disinfestation method used:

The stationary gas chambers and the disinfestation procedure had been developed to such a degree that an entire cycle of loading, gassing, ventilation and unloading could be achieved within 75 – 90 minutes in a circulation gas chamber [...].

If the entire process took 75-90 minutes, including loading, gassing, ventilation and unloading (which would have been in a chamber using the Degesch-Kreislauf circulation system and powerful ventilators), how long was the gas present in the room in the homicidal gas chambers? Let's assume a gassing time of 15 minutes, how long would it have taken the very weak ventilators in LK1 to get rid of the gas, not to mention the gas undoubtedly trapped between corpses and on the floor where the Ergo pellets pooled up inside the purported introduction column?

There is no "quick fix" for the Prussian Blue problem. It's simply impossible to attribute to the homicidal gas chambers any single factor which would have categorically made the formation of Prussian Blue impossible. Even with all potential factors accounted for, it's not plausible that not a single blue stain formed on any of the 6 surfaces in either gas chamber.

One qualifier: many anti-deniers have suggested that more cannisters of Zyklon was used in the delousing chambers than gas chambers. It isn't clear that this is true.

You're right. And in fact, anti-"deniers" strategically change their position depending upon the circumstances, whereas orthodox Holocaust historians just make up their position out of thin air (Hilberg claimed "almost all" Zyklon B was used for gassings, whereas Pressac and Van Pelt claimed most was used for delousings - all of them without evidence).

[curioussoul]

Anyway, one or two witnesses mentioning anything are still 1,000 or 10,000 times fewer witnesses than the 'witnesses' mentioning anal probes during alleged abductions by extraterrestrial aliens.

Time to lobby Congress for an Extraterrestrial Anal Probe Memorial Museum.

Whatch'ya think?

[borjastick]

'Anti-deniers'. LOL change the language and then bringing Siberia into the action. This is lunacy. And yet you want us to believe you.

[fireofice]

We also have to remember what the purpose of the Korherr Report was. Korherr was talking about the reduction in the Jewish population of Europe since the Nazis came to power. So the only relevant "resettlement" would be resettlement out of Europe. But this would be impossible in the case of the 'Russian East,' since the Germans never occupied the Asian portions of the USSR. They got no further than Nalchik in the North Caucasus, which is still technically Eastern Europe.

The impossibility of transfer to Asian Russia is yet another reason to consider this a euphemism.

Korherr attributes the reduction of European Jews to unknown migration patterns:

In addition there are movements of Jews inside Russia to the Asian part which are unknown to us. The movement of Jews from the European countries outside the German influence is also of a largely unknown order of magnitude. On the whole European Jewry should since 1933, i.e. in the first decade of National Socialist German power, have lost almost half of its population.

It makes sense that lots of Jews left Nazi occupied Europe without the Nazis' doing a single thing to deport them themselves. I don't see anything weird about this.

[HistorySpeaks]

We also have to remember what the purpose of the Korherr Report was. Korherr was talking about the reduction in the Jewish population of Europe since the Nazis came to power. So the only relevant "resettlement" would be resettlement out of Europe. But this would be impossible in the case of the 'Russian East,' since the Germans never occupied the Asian portions of the USSR. They got no further than Nalchik in the North Caucasus, which is still technically Eastern Europe.

The impossibility of transfer to Asian Russia is yet another reason to consider this a euphemism.

This is very silly. A lot of people use the term "Europe" to refer to the west of Russia. I do this all the time. Whether it's technically correct is not relevant.

You refer to St. Petersburg as being in Asia?

Yes, that is actually odd. And wrong lol.

[fireofice]

We also have to remember what the purpose of the Korherr Report was. Korherr was talking about the reduction in the Jewish population of Europe since the Nazis came to power. So the only relevant "resettlement" would be resettlement out of Europe. But this would be impossible in the case of the 'Russian East,' since the Germans never occupied the Asian portions of the USSR. They got no further than Nalchik in the North Caucasus, which is still technically Eastern Europe.

The impossibility of transfer to Asian Russia is yet another reason to consider this a euphemism.

This is very silly. A lot of people use the term "Europe" to refer to the west of Russia. I do this all the time. Whether it's technically correct is not relevant.

You refer to St. Petersburg as being in Asia?

Yes, that is actually odd. And wrong lol.

I edited my post because I wanted to make a different argument. But I never said St Petersburg was in Asia.

Colloquially referring to Europe as "west of Russia" does not mean you are calling Russia "Asia". But it's moot since the report still makes perfect sense, as my edited post shows.

[HistorySpeaks]

I don't think it makes sense to include the resettlement of Jews from one part of Europe to another in a document about the decrease of the Jewish population in Europe.

The only way it would make sense is if the 'resettled' Jews were resettled out of Europe. But this is an absurdity given that the Germans never occupied the Asian regions of the USSR.

Alternatively, the "orthodox" theory is right, and 'transport to the Russian east' (like the term it replaced in the first draft, "Sonderbehandlung") is simply a euphemism for murder.

[fireofice]

OK I looked at the report again and found this:

From 1937 to the beginning of 1943 the number of Jews, partially due to the excess mortality of the Jews in Central and Western Europe, partially due to the evacuations especially in the more strongly populated Eastern Territories which are here counted as off-going, should have diminished by an estimated 4 million.

Evacuation can't mean killing here, since it says there is a reduction of 4 million, much larger than the 1.4 million "evacuated" to Russia. It doesn't make sense to have the rest be "excess deaths" since that would just be lumped in with evacuation if it was a euphemism. So the evacuations here must have been done on their own accord, not "forced" (you could still say it's forced since anti-Semitic policies would "force" them to leave, I'm just using "force" in the sense of forced deportations). So these would be officially recognized evacuations, which can just mean emergency migration out of Europe. Then there are of course all the unknown migrations which are mentioned right after that. This is all able to be explained without reference to the Jews deported to the East. Although I still stand by my comment that I edited out that everyone must always be using the term "Europe" to include Russia is not true. It's just simply not how everyone talks. So I still maintain that the 1.4 million mentioned earlier in the report COULD be a part of this. Having a strict definition of Europe to include Russia is simply not given. Sometimes people even use the term "Europe" to refer to Western Europe. That doesn't mean they are saying Eastern Europe is Asia.

I always understood when the Nazis were saying that Jews were "evacuated to the East" they would consider that to be "out of Europe" for the time being even if that wasn't technically true. They did have plans to really get them out of Europe eventually, like deporting them to Madagascar or some similar place. But for the time being "to the East" will have to do, and it's as good as "out of Europe" for now.

This is actually confirmed by several quotes. First, Hitler's prophecy:

If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

Next, Himmler's speech in Bad Tölz:

The Jewish question in Europe has also completely changed. In a Reichstag speech the Führer once said: Should Jewry instigate an international war to the extermination of the Aryan peoples, then it is not the Aryan peoples who will be exterminated but Jewry. The Jew is evacuated from Germany; today he lives in the east and works on our roads, railroads, and so on. This process has been carried out consistently, but without cruelty.

So Hitler said the Jewish race would be "annihilated from Europe". And Himmler refers back to Hitler's prophecy and says the Jews in Germany were sent to the east and that this is in line with the Jews being "annihilated from Europe" even though they are apparently still in Europe, although moved alive to the east. So clearly "removed from Europe" and "moved to the east alive" can mean the same thing for Nazis.

[Hektor]

Evacuation always means moving people from A to B. It never means killing.

That they can be killed at location B is of course a possibility. But one would have to demonstrate this with physical evidence. Also there should be orders and reports for this. Where are they?

Simply assuming that people were killed at location B by arguing that 'nobody knows who they are' is playing of dishonest mind games. It is deceit and that should be pointed out whenever this method is tried.

[hermod]

Anyway, one or two witnesses mentioning anything are still 1,000 or 10,000 times fewer witnesses than the 'witnesses' mentioning anal probes during alleged abductions by extraterrestrial aliens.

Time to lobby Congress for an Extraterrestrial Anal Probe Memorial Museum.

Whatch'ya think?

Good idea. But the Woke mob would probably call it anti-Gray racism and have it closed after a short while.