Use of Code Words Proven?

[Hektor]

...

My conspiracy theory is that Himmler wanted that phrase inserted so he could present the report at a later date (after Germany was victorious probably) to show a war-time document evidencing mass resettlement.

Ok. So you believe that the utilization of "code words" in documents solely for the purpose of post-war deception was practiced?
You do also accept that these Eastern camps were described as being part of a program of resettlement in multiple documents, yes?
And you also accept that multiple documents described the "Final Solution" as a non-genocidal policy, and this was all done to deceive, correct?
And you think that the bodies were originally dumped into pits, and then later the rotting corpses were dug up and burned in giant outdoor pyres and then dumped back into pits to "hide the evidence" - yes?
So why wouldn't they have done the most obvious thing and developed fake train records describing a resettlement of Jews after arriving at these camps?
Instead we have all sorts of records of trains arriving, but virtually no records of trains leaving - empty or full.
As pointed out by Curioussoul:

"If the Germans were actually interested in faking documents to hide their genocide, they would have forged travel documents from the Reinhardt camps. Instead, it has been claimed that the Germans faked post cards from resettled Jews to fool a handful of Jews in Poland that their family members have "actually" resettled."

Authentic documents would have served the purpose of internal communication and to enforce compliance and accountability of those assigned task by the then government. It's far more plausible that those trying to frame an enemy would meddle with documents assigned to him. A far more common phenomenon is however cherry picking documents or parts thereof and use them repetitively to create an impression with the audience to form public opinion in the way to prefer it to exist.

There is various post-cards from Concentration Camps. Some are a standard response others are more elaborate. Of course the Holocaustians don't like that at all, because the existence of post-cards casts a bit of a strange late on their favored thesis. If you allow inmates to writer post-cards and letters, you are exposing yourself to the possibility of information emitting from the camps. Not likely, when you are busy exterminating the inmates.

[bombsaway]

Again, you dodged simple questions about these claimed testimonies. So you don't seem very curious about why these exist but others do not. If you were, you would answer these question

Lamprecht, you've asked me many many questions in my short time here. In the first part of your last post alone you ask me 7. Your questions are interesting so I'd like to answer them but I have a time issue so it would likely take me weeks to answer all of them. I don't want to be accused of dodging anything, so from now on can we stick to 1 or 2 at a time? I'll abide to this as well, though I don't think I've asked many questions so far.

Also I think you're making assumptions about my arguments, so it would be good if you took the time to really understand where I'm coming from before laying into me. I think the conversations on this topic can become really aggressive (though I get where the passion is coming from), but it makes communication much easier.

Do you think I've misunderstood anything you've said?

[Lamprecht]

Lamprecht, you've asked me many many questions in my short time here. In the first part of your last post alone you ask me 7. Your questions are interesting so I'd like to answer them but I have a time issue so it would likely take me weeks to answer all of them. I don't want to be accused of dodging anything, so from now on can we stick to 1 or 2 at a time? I'll abide to this as well, though I don't think I've asked many questions so far.

Those questions are relevant to what I interpret your position as, which is: the post-war testimony of Jews from Transnistria, which have nothing to do with Belzec, support the position that hundreds of thousands of Jews were dumped into pits at Belzec.
I actually find the two completely unrelated. I was trying to understand why anyone would think these unrelated testimonies at all support the hypothesis of massive pits full of Jews at Belzec.

Also I think you're making assumptions about my arguments, so it would be good if you took the time to really understand where I'm coming from before laying into me. I think the conversations on this topic can become really aggressive (though I get where the passion is coming from), but it makes communication much easier.

To understand where you're coming from? If you're going to bring up testimonies that appear completely irrelevant you should expect to be asked questions about them. I'm not going to go through pages and pages of testimony is actually completely irrelevant to this subject just because you're trying to make some weird case for why they are relevant. I have never seen this "Transnitria testimonies means Jews were dumped into pits at Belzec" argument before. It's a "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?" situation. If you want to make the case that it isn't, then that's on you.

Imagine someone came here to speak to you, and said that a bunch of obscure UFO testimonies were proof that Jews weren't gassed by the millions in WW2, sent you a bunch of random UFO sighting descriptions, and then refused to elaborate about them. Would you really spend your time reading through all of those UFO sightings just in the off-chance they might have something to do with Jews being gassed in WW2?

Do you think I've misunderstood anything you've said?

Not sure. Do you believe over half a million Jews were dumped into massive pits at Belzec?

[bombsaway]

Those questions are relevant to what I interpret your position as, which is: the post-war testimony of Jews from Transnistria, which have nothing to do with Belzec, support the position that hundreds of thousands of Jews were dumped into pits at Belzec.

I agree it doesn't evidence anything about Belzec. I brought it up because I think it shows shows that resettlement of Jews in occupied USSR would indeed generate extensive witness testimony, documents, etc.

I understand you have some questions about the evidence here so I think I'll make a separate thread for this.

Not sure. Do you believe over half a million Jews were dumped into massive pits at Belzec?

My feeling is similar to what David Irving believes (short answer: it happened) but I am open to hearing your reasons for why it didn't, or if you could direct me towards a good source or thread.

Since this is the code words thread, I'll get back to some of your previous questions

Ok. So you believe that the utilization of "code words" in documents solely for the purpose of post-war deception was practiced?

Not solely. There are few other reasons. There's a definite crossover between coded language and euphemistic, eg see the 'made harmless' descriptor used in the document I posted earlier about Jews being transported to Belzec. Authors understandably wouldn't have wanted to incriminate themselves by showing involvement in dubious activities.

Finally, and most importantly, there was the need for internal secrecy. This way the Korherr report could be passed around to civilian agencies without alerting them to any mass killing program.

You do also accept that these Eastern camps were described as being part of a program of resettlement in multiple documents, yes?

If I'm not mistaken only 3 documents even vaguely evidence this position. The first is the Korherr report, the second Himmler mentioning Sobibor as a transit camp in 1943, and the third is the 'unemployable Jews go to Belzec'

This document + a related one illustrates my point internal secrecy pretty well so I'll post the entire thing plus a related document.

The information came from Fritz Reuter, who worked in the department of Richard Turk (civilian) which was helping with deportations.

I arranged for a talk with Hstuf. Höfle for Monday, the 16th of March 1942, namely at 17:30 hours. In the course of the discussion the following was explained by Hstuf. Höfle:

It would be expedient to divide the transports of Jews arriving in the Lublin district already at the station of departure into employable and unemployable Jews. If it is not possible to make this distinction at the station of departure, one must eventually pass on to separating the transport in Lublin according to the aspects mentioned above.
Unemployable Jews are all to come to Bezec [Bełżec], the outermost border station in the Zamosz district.

Hstuf. Höfle is thinking of building a large camp, in which the employable Jews can be registered in a file system according to their occupations and requested from there.
Piaski is being made Jew-free and will be the collection point for the Jews coming out of the Reich.

Trawnicki [Trawniki] for the present time is not occupied by Jews.

H. asks where on the Dęblin-Trawnicki route 60,000 Jews can be unloaded. Informed about the Jewish transports now running as far as we are concerned, H. explained that of the 500 Jews arriving in Susiec, those who were unemployable could be sorted out and sent to Bezec. According to a teletype of the government of March 4, 1942, a Jewish transport, whose destination was the Trawnicki station, is rolling out of the Protectorate. These Jews are not unloaded in Trawnicki, but have been brought to Izbiza. An inquiry of the Zamosz district, asking to be able to request 200 Jews from there for work, was answered in the affirmative by H.

In conclusion he stated that he could accept 4-5 transports daily, of 1,000 Jews with the destination station of Bezec. These Jews would go across the border and would never come back into the General Gouvernement

Source: Józef Kermisz, Dokumenty i Materiały do dziejów okupacji niemieckiej w Polsce, Tom II, "Akce" i "Wysiedlenia," Warsaw-Lodz-Krakow 1946, p. 32 [Quoted in the book by Mattogno and Graf: Belzec, p. 103]

On 20 March, Türk wrote a note about the meeting between Höfle and 2 Kreishauptmann

Kreishauptmann Weienmeyer has as yet been able to learn nothing about final outcome of the deportation; all that is known is the existence of a collection camp some distance from the Belzec train station on the district border, that is entirely closed off, and the arrival of a SS-commando of some 60 men.

Source: Türk notes, 20 March 1942. YVA O-53/79/476

The second document obviously isn't evidence of murderous activities at Belzec, but rather secrecy surrounding the camp. We can see in Globocnick's letter of 1944 that all documentation "vouchers" related to the camps were destroyed, equipment removed, and "surveillance" farms built on the sites. Indeed documentation related to the construction and function of these camps is nearly non-existent.

The Reuter document therefore doesn't contradict the orthodox narrative, unless you are arguing it would be necessary and prudent for the SS to tell civilian agencies within the borders of Poland about any genocidal program.

[fireofice]

I will say it's possible "code words" were occasionally used. Although notice how in this case that Mattogno concedes is actually a "code word", it's more obvious based on the context. Using "code words" without context like that constantly wouldn't work.

Talk of execution of Jews in these reports doesn't mean much to me at all though. Babi Yar was completely fabricated even though it is "attested to" with documents.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14829

[Otium]

Not solely. There are few other reasons. There's a definite crossover between coded language and euphemistic, eg see the 'made harmless' descriptor used in the document I posted earlier about Jews being transported to Belzec. Authors understandably wouldn't have wanted to incriminate themselves by showing involvement in dubious activities.

Finally, and most importantly, there was the need for internal secrecy. This way the Korherr report could be passed around to civilian agencies without alerting them to any mass killing program.

These are all assertions, dubious assertions at that.

1.) You do not know what "rendered harmless" refers to, it could very well mean the Jews who have been deported and are kept away from the other trouble makers are no longer able to cause any trouble for the German regime. Only with the predetermined idea that they were killed in mind can you allege a sinister connotation. In any case, you must prove it. However, it must be said, there are instances where this term is used to imply killing (eg. Mattogno, Einsatzgruppen, 2022, pp. 105-106, 185); but there are also examples of the term being used to refer to opponents as being rendered powerless in a non-homicidal way, for example Goebbels said the following on March 3rd, 1933:

"The Bolshevik blood agents will not be able to escape the arm of justice in the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg. We will know how to catch them here as well. Our fist will fall heavily upon them. Woe to those who should undertake to resist the power of the state, behind which millions of nationalistic Germans now stands as it resolutely sets about rendering harmless [unschädlich zu machen] the muderous pack of communists Germany!"

Helmut Heiber (ed.), Goebbels-Reden, Vol. 1: 1932-1939 (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1971), Doc. 12, p. 75.

And Hitler on March 28th, 1933:

"Now that the inner enemies of the nation have been rendered harmless [unschädlich gemacht] by the people themselves, what was long expected has arrived: The Communist and Marxist criminals and their Jewish intellectual ringleaders, who headed to foreign countries with their monies in time, now unfurl from there an unscrupulous, treasonous hate campaign against all the German people."

Völkischer Beobachter, No. 88 (29 March, 1933). Printed in: Max Domarus, Hitler: Reden und Proklamationen 1932-1945. Kommentiert von einen deutschen Zeitgenossen , Part 1: Triumph, Vol. 1: 1932-1934 (Leonberg: Pamminger & Partner, 1988), p. 248.

2.) If these "dubious activities" were government policy there would be no need to worry about those involved incriminating themsevles. Unless we're expected to think the code-words were invented due to the omniscience of the planners as to thee losing of the war. But there is no reason to assume this, it's a post hoc assumption. It's nonsense for another reason too: the documents in which this language is used are not coded well enough (according to you) to actually cover what it is they're trying to hide. If you can easily discern the meaning, then they didn't do their job right, and it's therefore quite likely it was never intended to work the way exterminationists claim.

3.) The idea that the language was coded for "internal secrecy" is also nonsensical. If you have private internal documents which are used as the foundation of clear managment for an operation among those "in the know", then you do not need to use coded language. If you want to inform underlings you don't send them the same document when you can easily just write another one with the coded language in use specifically for them. There is no good reason to think they must have passed along the "incriminating documents" in its original form to those who weren't supposed to know about it.

---

As to the documents you quote, none of them from what I can tell are proof of an intention to kill anyone.

It seems you copy and pasted these verbatim from this post on the AxisHistoryForum: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=933970&sid=e44fbe8ddfb1d443737ca0b490b7e6d8#p933970

---

Regarding Korherr:

Carlo Mattogno, "Sonderbehandlung: Georges Wellers und der Korherr-Bericht", Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, 1(2) (1997), pp. 71-75.
http://vho.org/VffG/1997/2/Mattogno2.html

[bombsaway]

2.) If these "dubious activities" were government policy there would be no need to worry about those involved incriminating themsevles. Unless we're expected to think the code-words were invented due to the omnicionese of the planners as to thee losing of the war. But there is no reason to assume this, it's a post hoc assumption. It's nonsense for another reason too: the documents in which this language is used are not coded well enough (according to you) to actually cover what it is they're trying to hide. If you can easily discern the meaning, then they didn't do their job right, and it's therefore quite likely it was never intended to work the way exterminationists claim.

The documents are coded well most of the time (assuming no resettlement). There are only a handful of examples where it is absolutely blatant.

I brought up the Korherr report more for its implications concerning the revisionist narrative

The idea that the language was coded for "internal secrecy" is also nonsensical. If you have private internal documents which are used as the foundation of clear managment for an operation among those "in the know", then you do not need to use coded language. If you want to inform underlings you don't send them the same document when you can easily just write another one with the coded language in use specifically for them. There is no good reason to think they must have passed along the "incriminating documents" in their original form to those who weren't supposed to know about it.

What happens if the Korherr report was sent to a separate department also interested in tracking Jewish population, but not at all involved in killing operations?


And what non-speculative reasons do you have for the secrecy surrounding Reinhardt (as I said before this is not evidence of mass killing, yet explanations should be offered):

We have the note from Turk about "the closed off camp at Belzec"

Globocnik's report on destruction of vouchers related to Reinhardt + complete removal of all equipment from the sites

the Reinhardt secrecy oath https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... oath.shtml

"that I may not under any circumstances pass on any form of information, verbally or in writing, on the progress, procedure or incidents in the evacuation of Jews to any person outside the circle of the "Einsatz Reinhard" staff"

[fireofice]

As pointed out here, secrecy would be very important to a resettlement operation:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14850&p=107648#p107649

[Otium]

The idea that the Korherr report refers to codewords is easily disproven by the report itself.

According to Brandt's letter of April 10, 1943 it's reported that Himmler rquested for Korherr to remove the phrase "special treatment" from specifically Page 9, Section 4 of the report:

The Reichsfuehrer SS has received your report about “ The Final Solution of the Jewish Problem” . He does not want any reference to be made anywhere to “ Special Treatment of the Jews” . Page 9, Section 4 must read as follows

“Transport of Jews from the Eastern provinces to the Russian East:
Processed through the camps in the Government-General the camps in the Warthegau......................”

Other descriptions may not be used.

I am returning the Reichsfuehrer’s copy of your report, which he has already initialled and ask you to change Page 9 accordingly and send it back.:

Printed in: Stephen Challen, Richard Korherr and His Report: A Translation and Commentary (London: Cromwell Press, 1993), p. 31.

Obviously this was taken to be "proof" extermination was meant. Though, as Stephen Challen points out, it makes little sense to use a codeword like "Special Treatment" at specific points in the report because it implies that all the other Jews were actually evacuated:

What Korherr originally wrote about evacuated Polish Jews is unknown. It would seem however that only Polish Jews were subject to “Special Treatment” . The other Jews, of whom there were over one million, were always described by Korherr as having been evacuated.“ Exterminationist” writers seem not to notice the significance of these other Jews as never having had “ Special Treatment” . If they continue to insist that “ Special Treatment” meant mass execution, then to be consistent they would have to accept that non-Polish Jews were exempt from that. That amounts to the extraordinary finding that the Germans intended only to murder Polish Jews!

Stephen Challen, Richard Korherr and His Report: A Translation and Commentary (London: Cromwell Press, 1993), p. 59.

This is my larger point too, that "Special Treatment" (in this case) cannot refer to a codeword for killing, because the whole report is described in terms of "evacuation" which is supposedly another codeword. This would mean Korherr is saying the same thing twice, but only in particular cases, which of course makes no sense unless "Special Treatment" refers to something else entirely.

Further proof of this is found in the fact that, as Mattogno pointed out all the way back in 1997, that the phrase "Special Treatment" still occurs in the report in another section, and Himmler took no issue with it. From the report we read is section 5:

5. Evacuation of Jews from other countries:

France (pre-10.11.1942 Occupied Zone) 41, 911 Jews
Netherlands 38, 571 Jews
Belgium 16,886 Jews
Norway 532 Jews
Slovakia 56, 691 Jews
Croatia 4,927 Jews

Total evacuation (incl. Theresienstadt and special treatment) 1,873,549 Jews
excluding Theresienstadt 1,786,356 Jews

Printed in: Stephen Challen, Richard Korherr and His Report: A Translation and Commentary (London: Cromwell Press, 1993), p. 24.

So in this section we see two alleged "codewords" being used; first, "evacuation", and second "special treatment". This proves that "special treatment" cannot refer to killing because it's already supposedly being specified by the term "special treatment" subsequently ordered to be removed; and also because the numbers given for these Jews are already prefaced with the word "evacuation" which itself already means killing. This means Korherr cannot be, for any concievable reason, compelled to be saying the same thing twice. In-fact Korherr is clearly differentiating between the two words, "evacuation" on the one hand and "special treatment" on the other; otherwise it makes no sense to write "including special treatment" in the total of this section of the report.

That Korherr does this would also mean the use of the term "special treatment" in the report - ordered to be taken out by Himmler - was a reference to something else as well which wasn't applicable to the "Transport of Jews from the Eastern provinces to the Russian East". Unless one wishes to believe only certain Jews here were being killed, and not all of them, thus conceding that the term "evacuation" in the Korherr report doesn't refer to killing, then you're in quite the predicament.

[Lamprecht]

And what non-speculative reasons do you have for the secrecy surrounding Reinhardt (as I said before this is not evidence of mass killing, yet explanations should be offered):

We have the note from Turk about "the closed off camp at Belzec"

Globocnik's report on destruction of vouchers related to Reinhardt + complete removal of all equipment from the sites

the Reinhardt secrecy oath https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... oath.shtml

"that I may not under any circumstances pass on any form of information, verbally or in writing, on the progress, procedure or incidents in the evacuation of Jews to any person outside the circle of the "Einsatz Reinhard" staff"

By default a mass resettlement program would be secret

The "Operation Reinhardt Secrecy Oath" - proof for extermination?
viewtopic.php?t=12924

As pointed out here, secrecy would be very important to a resettlement operation:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14850&p=107648#p107649