BA's case for orthodoxy

[bombsaway]

Just on a note there. How do you know this was outlined at Wannsee (deportation/castration of Half Jews)?
It's not implausible that this was discussed, of course. But how would one know what was discussed at the meeting.

I see there's an additional document from Schlegelberger dated April 1942 where he explicitly recommends this

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Na ... 20Jews.%22

[Hektor]

Just on a note there. How do you know this was outlined at Wannsee (deportation/castration of Half Jews)?
It's not implausible that this was discussed, of course. But how would one know what was discussed at the meeting.

I see there's an additional document from Schlegelberger dated April 1942 where he explicitly recommends this

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Na ... 20Jews.%22

Got a scan from the original?

Given the copies of copies without original presented at Nuremberg one can not accept anything at face value.

[Butterfangers]

Sure people lie for various reasons, eg money and clout. Your first example, the masturbation machines, comes from a book written by a gentile pretending to be a Jew : https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/bo ... dkbx4.html

You have provided no good reason for Eichmann to lie.

Yes, you are correct, that book was written by a gentile... just... like... Eichmann.

You have provided exactly zero evidence that he told the truth. Much like the extraordinary claims of aliens probing one's dog, similar claims of gassing millions of vanishing Jews should also require extraordinary evidence... which you don't have any of.

You are making a pretty simple error here. Basically pointing out it's common for people to make up stories like this or (actually believe things happened to them). It's not. There are hundreds of millions of Americans and a few hundred at most have extensive stories like this. The chances are one in a million or one in a hundred thousand. And Eichmann wasn't an average guy, a "random sample" so to speak, but the most influential person in the Reich when it came to the evacuation of the Jews, or at least the most powerful official who was actively involved here.

It's also extremely uncommon among "Nazis" to tell stories like this. Got any other campfire storytelling sessions from "Nazis" you'd like to produce? If not, it certainly looks like a 1-in-100,000 or more situation.

Eichmann was not a major figure within the hierarchy of the Reich. The importance ascribed to him developed in the postwar trials and proceeding years. He became famous for his alleged role before the Sassen interview took place. Hypothetically, you must admit, that if we "assume" there was no actual extermination but that Eichmann had gained such a reputation anyway, it would reasonably affect the way he talks about the issue. And different people respond to fame and popularity (and the narratives associated with it) in different ways. Some choose to 'cash in'.

Again, Eichmann did not have to invent these stories wholecloth as did the alien-abductees and those who invent similar tales. The foundation was already set and widely-known, he only had to confirm it and "play along". There were some obvious, or at least potential, incentives in him doing so, and you have failed to rule these out whatsoever.

Couple all of this with the fact that Eichmann was a serial liar in his precapture testimony (as shown repeatedly), and it's case closed.

For. Various. Reasons.

Yep I've given many of them for all the different hypotheses offered (telling a nice story/Mossad psyop/etc). See my previous posts which you may have missed.

Yes, I have seen your "reasons". It is very compelling to see how you find arguments "improbable", then cite weak evidence for your extraordinary, ridiculous claims.

Ah, so an article published by one Revisionist, Thomas Kues, thirteen years ago (in 2010) can now be assumed to represent the entirety of "what [Revisionists] have offered" on this subject..

Well I never said it was the entirety (you're showing your bias here) but it is pretty much that.

You said "they" (Revisionists). You did not make clear that your reference only indicates the views of a single author in one of his articles, nor that those views have been superceded not only by Revisionist work in general since 2010 but also by the author cited, in the books he wrote and contributed to on the topic since that time. It's a blatant strawman.

Everything that's in the HC blog riposte is in there, plus a lot more. If there's a more substantive offering by a revisionist, please let me know.

Everything that's in the 800-page response by Mattogno and Graf as well as Kues, which came after that article you cite, is in that very article? Does it suffice for me to simply say: you are lying? Or perhaps I can skip straight to: why are you lying?

Are you saying Mattogno's more recent work (https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=28), and "everything" from it, is also already in that Kues article from 2010?

It's weird that you say such obvious lies despite knowing you'll likely be called out on it. You seem comfortable doing so.

[fireofice]

I meant to say the Schlegelberger document was corroborated by the Luther memo, not Lammers. I got the names mixed up. But what I said still stands. And nowhere does the Kroherr report contradict those memos. If anyone thinks it does, then post what you think is the contradiction. Yes, the Final Solution is talked about in it (as well as other documents) but nowhere does it say that the Final Solution has already happened or is completed. Sending the Jews "to the east" was not the Final Solution itself. It was preparation for the Final Solution, to send them to Madagascar or some other place, which was to be postponed until the war ended.

[bombsaway]

I meant to say the Schlegelberger document was corroborated by the Luther memo, not Lammers. I got the names mixed up. But what I said still stands. And nowhere does the Kroherr report contradict those memos. If anyone thinks it does, then post what you think is the contradiction. Yes, the Final Solution is talked about in it (as well as other documents) but nowhere does it say that the Final Solution has already happened or is completed. Sending the Jews "to the east" was not the Final Solution itself. It was preparation for the Final Solution, to send them to Madagascar or some other place, which was to be postponed until the war ended.

Is the 'final solution' mentioned anywhere in the contents of the Korherr report (show me where), or is it just the title of the report?

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... rherr.html

[fireofice]

I meant to say the Schlegelberger document was corroborated by the Luther memo, not Lammers. I got the names mixed up. But what I said still stands. And nowhere does the Kroherr report contradict those memos. If anyone thinks it does, then post what you think is the contradiction. Yes, the Final Solution is talked about in it (as well as other documents) but nowhere does it say that the Final Solution has already happened or is completed. Sending the Jews "to the east" was not the Final Solution itself. It was preparation for the Final Solution, to send them to Madagascar or some other place, which was to be postponed until the war ended.

Is the 'final solution' mentioned anywhere in the contents of the Korherr report (show me where), or is it just the title of the report?

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... rherr.html

I've read the Korherr report before and don't recall anything contradicting the Schlegelberger and Luther documents. If you think there is something there, then you need to provide it. I did a search for "Final Solution" on several webpages hosting the Korrher report and didn't find anything relevant. From all I can see, it's just in the titles. If you have contrary information, then present it.

[bombsaway]

I've read the Korherr report before and don't recall anything contradicting the Schlegelberger and Luther documents. If you think there is something there, then you need to provide it. I did a search for "Final Solution" on several webpages hosting the Korrher report and didn't find anything relevant. From all I can see, it's just in the titles. If you have contrary information, then present it.

Well I think it would be silly for Himmler to commission a report on the Final Solution but nothing in the report has anything directly to do with this.

But there are other German documents which indicate that the final solution was ongoing, definitely not postponed. I don't think you're objective when it comes to reading documents, so you'll probably say this isn't the case, but I'll let people here decide for themselves. This is just a quick incomplete sampling:

“In the course of the work on the final solution of the Jewish question,
discussions concerning ‘very’ harsh measures ’ taken against the Jews, par-
ticularly in the eastern territories, are currently arising amongst the popu-
lation in various parts of the Reich territory.

“In the course of the final solution the Jews are slated to be deployed
for labor in the East under appropriate supervision and in an adequate
manner. ”

“ On 31 July 1941 the Reichsmarschall of the Greater German Reich
entrusted me with the order to undertake - with the involvement of all other
central institutions to be considered - all necessary’ preparations for a
complete solution of the Jewish question in Europe in organizational, fac-
tual and material respect and to submit to him a comprehensive draft in the
near future.

Due to the extraordinary’ importance which has to be given to these
questions, and in order to reach the same perception among the pertinent
central institutions about the other tasks connected with this final solution,
I suggest making these problems the topic of a general talk, particularly
since, as of 15 October 1941, Jews from the territory’ of the Reich including
the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia are already being evacuated to
the East in ongoing transports. "


“The evacuation of Jews to the East recently carried out in certain are-
as constitutes the beginning of the final solution of the Jewish question in
the Altreich, Ostmark and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. ”

sourced from https://ia800402.us.archive.org/3/items ... t_Long.pdf

It's also extremely uncommon among "Nazis" to tell stories like this. Got any other campfire storytelling sessions from "Nazis" you'd like to produce? If not, it certainly looks like a 1-in-100,000 or more situation.

Yes it's true (within the orthodox narrative) that of the 80 million German citizens in ww2 only a very small percentage were actively involved in killing operations. In terms of death camps, probably not more than a few thousand.

Hypothetically, you must admit, that if we "assume" there was no actual extermination but that Eichmann had gained such a reputation anyway, it would reasonably affect the way he talks about the issue

My issue with you on this subject is you haven't provided a plausible theory, psychological or otherwise for why Eichmann might lie about something like this. But maybe I missed something so quote from a previous post?

Everything that's in the 800-page response by Mattogno and Graf as well as Kues, which came after that article you cite, is in that very article? Does it suffice for me to simply say: you are lying? Or perhaps I can skip straight to: why are you lying?

My impression is the HC blog response had less evidence concerning resettlement than Kues's series from a few years before, which was very long and evidence based (probably around 50,000 words), while the relevant section in the HC blog response was more speculative and also concerned with rebutting specific arguments presented by the bloggers. I've read both but please let me know if you think what the new strong evidence is in the blog response, if anything.

[fireofice]

Well I think it would be silly for Himmler to commission a report on the Final Solution but nothing in the report has anything directly to do with this.

But there are other German documents which indicate that the final solution was ongoing, definitely not postponed. I don't think you're objective when it comes to reading documents, so you'll probably say this isn't the case, but I'll let people here decide for themselves. This is just a quick incomplete sampling

The Korherr Report is about preparations for the Final Solution, it doesn't say it already happened.

In the course of the final solution

So it hasn't happened yet.

all necessary preparations for a complete solution of the Jewish question in Europe in organizational

"Preparations" so it hasn't happened yet.

institutions about the other tasks connected with this final solution

Not saying it happened yet.

The evacuation of Jews to the East recently carried out in certain are as constitutes the beginning of the final solution

This is the only one you presented that makes it sound like it already started. Any talk of working on the Final Solution can be understood within the framework that the actual Final Solution will occur after the war. Here's an example: If I am studying for a school project, I might say "I'm working on a school project" even though I haven't actually started on the actual project yet. The actual project hasn't started, yet I will still say I am "working on the project". Likewise, the Final Solution was to deport Jews out of Europe, by putting them on a plane or a boat to their destination. However, first they have to gather them in a spot to the east. Technically, the Final Solution hasn't actually started yet, since no one has yet been put on a plane or boat. But it is still natural to speak as if they are "working on the Final Solution", because they are in a way. They are preparing for the Final Solution, so they are in effect, "doing the Final Solution" even though it hasn't started yet. To put it simply, many people use the phrases "I am preparing for X" and "I am doing X" interchangeably. And this document is from January 1942, whereas the Luther memo is from August 1942, and since it describes Hitler's position there as "unalterable", Hitler definitely didn't change his mind by this point. So my interpretation here makes much more sense. What I propose makes use of natural human language and fits with the surrounding evidence, whereas you just have to completely ignore what certain documents say.

[Butterfangers]

It's also extremely uncommon among "Nazis" to tell stories like this. Got any other campfire storytelling sessions from "Nazis" you'd like to produce? If not, it certainly looks like a 1-in-100,000 or more situation.

Yes it's true (within the orthodox narrative) that of the 80 million German citizens in ww2 only a very small percentage were actively involved in killing operations. In terms of death camps, probably not more than a few thousand.

Do you remember when I quoted Hitler earlier in this thread? I did that because the quote highlights the tactics which I am still witnessing from you. You pretend not to have seen or otherwise simply do not acknowledge (or later "forget") arguments which are inconvenient to you. The reason I suspect you are Jewish and doing "damage control" here as we have seen so many times before is that what I am describing is, in fact, a Jewish argumentative tactic which they know as "pilpul". There are many discussions on this term but it's described most concisely, perhaps, by the user-submitted Urban Dictionary definition:

You did this again, right here in this thread, by omitting the section which immediately followed the words which you quote me as saying, above. Here is what I said:

Eichmann was not a major figure within the hierarchy of the Reich. The importance ascribed to him developed in the postwar trials and proceeding years. He became famous for his alleged role before the Sassen interview took place. Hypothetically, you must admit, that if we "assume" there was no actual extermination but that Eichmann had gained such a reputation anyway, it would reasonably affect the way he talks about the issue. And different people respond to fame and popularity (and the narratives associated with it) in different ways. Some choose to 'cash in'.

Again, Eichmann did not have to invent these stories wholecloth as did the alien-abductees and those who invent similar tales. The foundation was already set and widely-known, he only had to confirm it and "play along". There were some obvious, or at least potential, incentives in him doing so, and you have failed to rule these out whatsoever.

Couple all of this with the fact that Eichmann was a serial liar in his precapture testimony (as shown repeatedly), and it's case closed.

Remember, Eichmann is in a very unique situation and cannot be compared to the general population from whom you are pulling your "one in 100,000" or "in more than a million" figure estimates [of how many are liars are out there] completely out of your @$$ (if you think liars are a 1-in-100,000 phenomenon, well...).

What you ignored above is that Eichmann was already believed to be the "monster" (or "hero", depending who you'd asked) that he later 'confirmed' himself to be and told tales about.

If someone was already thought to have been abducted by aliens, and they see a way to gain from this description about them, they are far more likely to embrace it than someone who has to invent it from scratch.

As always, you switch the burden of proof -- it is not upon any of us to prove Eichmann had other motives (yet, we have still made a strong case that he did, which you'll never admit but that is irrelevant). It is, rather, upon you to prove that he had no other motives.

Going back to 'pilpul', another example is how you earlier said:

I think the only people that agree Eichmann lied (consciously uttering mistruths) in his pre-capture statements are revisionists.

But after it became completely clear that Eichmann had, in fact, lied multiple times in his pre-capture statements, your opinion on Eichmann stayed exactly the same, and you never really made a clear concession that you were dead-wrong on this statement. You just kinda "moved on" and again declared repeatedly that its "implausible" that Eichmann lied to Sassen. Also:

• You brought up Alvensleben as another 'confessor' to extermination on the Sassen tapes. but were unphased when it turned out that Alvensleben was just parroting propaganda about 'gas ovens' which never existed.
• You don't bother to explain or address Eichmann's financial situation at the time of the interviews.
• You don't really bother to explain or address the motives related to fame and popularity (noting that Eichmann had been famous in Argentina in his circle for years before Sassen arrived), which I have addressed repeatedly regarding Eichmann. And on that note, here's a statement from PR guru and "fame-maker" Max Clifford:
  

  “The sad part about [fame] is people that desperately need to become famous. It’s like a drug...and there’s so many people that come up and then they go, and when you meet them they are desperate, desperate for it. I mean, they are living 10, 15, 20 years ago when they were famous, they can’t accept they are no longer famous. It is an addiction. It’s a craving. It varies from individual to individual but it’s the same as drugs or alcohol or anything else. At it’s worst – and I’ve known a lot of the worst – it totally takes over your life, your philosophy, your outlook on everyday life. It’s tragic."
  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... gh-stardom

[bombsaway]

The Korherr Report is about preparations for the Final Solution, it doesn't say it already happened.

The title of the report is "The Final Solution of the European Jewish Problem". Where does it mention anything about preparations?

(yet, we have still made a strong case that he did, which you'll never admit but that is irrelevant)

I don't think that you've ever made a strong case, though we can continue to talk about it. I asked for what you thought was the most likely theory for Eichmann pretending to be a proponent of genocide, and you presented me with a bevy of other points and questions with maybe an answer in there somewhere. All of this to me seems like pilpul - I'm trying to simplify as best as I can.

Bottom line, maybe this is where our disagreement stems: I believe that if you're making an assertion about reality, no matter what it is, you should be able to justify it in some way. Otherwise there is no reason to believe it is true. I am frankly perplexed about the notion that certain assertions don't have to be justified (or not nearly as much) because of a 'burden of proof' or some other amorphous concept.

re unanswered, I definitely have a preference for this discussion to be more like conversation as opposed to a formal debate. This is not a debate "event" but an internet forum where people can argue over months or years. So I'm not going to answer every point because I prefer to take things one at a time. The conversation gets less muddled this way and I don't have a lot of free time for extended responses, but also want to stay in communication.

I did learn things about Eichmann so can answer some of your questions

You brought up Alvensleben as another 'confessor' to extermination on the Sassen tapes. but were unphased when it turned out that Alvensleben was just parroting propaganda about 'gas ovens' which never existed.

Maybe so, or maybe he wasn't involved in the death camps, but as a high ranked member had heard about gassings from people involved and in vague terms, then filled in the gaps with what he heard from allied sources. Secret recordings disclosed in 'Tapping Hitler's Generals' gives us an idea of how conversations like this might have gone, and illuminate the complex relationship between hearsay, propaganda, and more reliable accounts:

THOMA: In the paper today there are details of the mass poisonings, that gas
business. I know it’s true, because the people who did it told me about it
themselves.
BASSENGE: I don’t know, but I presume it is . . . 100 per cent correct.
THOMA: Yes, I heard of it from a man who had to do it. It was SS men and
Gestapo youths who rounded up the Jews and so on, and as they had no
technical experts amongst their own numbers, chemists who were in the
gas department of the Ordnance Branch, had to work with them. One
man told me himself with horror that that time in RUSSIA was the most
appalling time of his life; I said I wouldn’t have done it.
THOMA: When I’ve got both the German and English news service I can
roughly sift out what’s true.
BASSENGE: Obviously everyone lies like a trooper in war-time and here
one has the opportunity of hearing both sides–
THOMA: We get a clearer picture than the Generals in command at the
front.
BASSENGE: We were never so well-informed as we are here.

You don't bother to explain or address Eichmann's financial situation at the time of the interviews.

I assumed he was a humble rabbit farmer but it turns he was more of a manager of large industrial farm, making decent money according to Stangneth "But the income was pretty good—
Eichmann put it at 4,500 pesos a month, ") . Later he became an executive at Mercedes. Haven't seen evidence he was in poor circumstances.

You don't really bother to explain or address the motives related to fame and popularity (noting that Eichmann had been famous in Argentina in his circle for years before Sassen arrived), which I have addressed repeatedly regarding Eichmann.

Are you saying that in this situation it would be likely for Eichmann to go with the narrative about him, as unappealing as it was? I think a statement like this has to be substantiated, preferably with in a scientific way with case studies etc.

Speaking from a common sense perspective, imagining I was famous for something I didn't do that was really bad, I think I'd want to people to know the truth.

[fireofice]

The title of the report is "The Final Solution of the European Jewish Problem". Where does it mention anything about preparations?

OK, you're completely getting off track here. Even if other people were talking about a Final Solution in 1943 or even in 1941 and 1942, there was no Hitler order for that during the war from up until at least August 1942. Therefore, Eichmann was lying. Everything else is a distraction.

[bombsaway]

I see. So, you think there should be more documents.

Well, I think there should be more physical evidence.

If "extermination" happened as alleged, it is 100% certain the physical evidence can be found and verified.

If resettlement happened as alleged, it is less than 100% certain that the documents which pertain to this can be found and verified (or that they even existed by the end of the war, or at all).

In murder investigations, do we traditionally expect the accuser to provide evidence, first (physical, if/whenever it can be found)? Or do we expect for the accused to provide documents which show the alleged victim(s) went elsewhere? Which makes more sense?

You know the answer, you're evading/obfuscating it.

We know why.

More documents more witness statements, yes. Currently there are 0 directly evidencing resettlement of the sort orthodox historians don't believe happened (eg the existence of internments camps with low labor requirements and non-working children and elderly people also there)

There is an expectation that this would exist yes (see the case of Transnistria, which we can discuss next) , and on top of this the absolute 0 evidence really hurts your case. It isn't really a matter of me saying the evidence for it is bad or scarce (this is a value judgement which could be applied to Transnistria even) but rather that there's nothing. No historical theory concerning a large group of people in the modern era has ever been accepted with no evidence.

The camps were scrutinized immediately after the war, in 45 and 46. It seems you just don't trust the investigators. Or are descriptions like this (of a 20,000 square foot area covered in human ashes) not at all indictive of a mass killing and cover up operation?

In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones).

[Hektor]

The title of the report is "The Final Solution of the European Jewish Problem". Where does it mention anything about preparations?

OK, you're completely getting off track here. Even if other people were talking about a Final Solution in 1943 or even in 1941 and 1942, there was no Hitler order for that during the war from up until at least August 1942. Therefore, Eichmann was lying. Everything else is a distraction.

I think it's a terminology issue here. What is the demarcation between preparation of project, operation/execution of project and finished project.
That can be rather flimsy. There is e.g. preparations before operations start and there will be still preparation during the operations are going on. Now the issue is about what is understood by "(Final) Solution of the Jewish Question.". They had confined areas for Jews, but anything like this could only be provisionally unless they'd agreed on a specific area of course and say "This is were Jews gonna stay". It does appear as if they never reached that anyway. Given that Jews were still distributed all over Germany in 1945. So the deportations to the "Ostgebiete" were never a complete thing, and probably even reversable.


What amazes me is that people seem to think that *killing all Jews* would be the only 'final solution of the Jewish problem'. Can't they think of alternative solutions?

[hermod]

Do you remember when I quoted Hitler earlier in this thread? I did that because the quote highlights the tactics which I am still witnessing from you. You pretend not to have seen or otherwise simply do not acknowledge (or later "forget") arguments which are inconvenient to you. The reason I suspect you are Jewish and doing "damage control" here as we have seen so many times before is that what I am describing is, in fact, a Jewish argumentative tactic which they know as "pilpul".

I think that we've all gone through such "debates"...

https://postimg.cc/d7ThrNVR

[Butterfangers]

I don't think that you've ever made a strong case, though we can continue to talk about it.

I understand you'd like to continue to talk about it. I also understand that your reason for this is likely to portray these topics we are "debating" on as though your position still retains credibility after all that has been said, here. It doesn't.

You can argue the earth is flat. I can show all of the science that it is, in fact, not flat. I can completely debunk you in the eyes of any and every rational, honest person. But you can "continue to talk about it" as though this has never happened. And that's 'pilpul', or at least one variation of it.

I asked for what you thought was the most likely theory for Eichmann pretending to be a proponent of genocide, and you presented me with a bevy of other points and questions with maybe an answer in there somewhere. All of this to me seems like pilpul - I'm trying to simplify as best as I can.

You are not trying to "simplify" anything; you are doing quite the opposite. You have not proven Eichmann was motivated to tell the truth to Sassen. Nothing you have said here comes remotely close to proving this. You have not ruled out other motives. In fact, you have hardly even addressed the other potential motives at all. You have ignored this, for the most part, despite it being one of my main assertions for the last 4-5 pages of this debate. You write it off as "improbable" and move on. You do not delve into really understanding how or why someone might be motivated to tell lies, despite the fact that we know Eichmann was a liar. You have thus far ignored the question of financial motives as this is devastating to your position, you have largely ignored motives related to fame, vanity, popularity, or other social or personal factors. You have also ignored Eichmann's situation and how he was uniquely positioned and "primed" to be able to benefit from the tales he told (given they were already widely-circulating before he told them!).

In brief, when there are inconvenient arguments that would make you look stupid when trying to address/refute them, you dodge them entirely. You bring up other topics, other issues, other ideas. You do not address those which are most challenging to you. And that is the behavior of someone not interested in truth.

I am frankly perplexed about the notion that certain assertions don't have to be justified (or not nearly as much) because of a 'burden of proof' or some other amorphous concept.

And this shows your weakness in terms of understanding critical concepts in logic and criminal law. Perhaps this is where you can excuse your failings throughout this thread as honest mistake or ignorance rather than mendacity.

"Burden of proof" is relevant to criminal investigations and trials, such that this "burden" rests with the prosecution, who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.

A lack of corpses always warrants some reasonable doubt. It is extremely rare in any criminal prosecution of homicide for a conviction to be made without a body being found and identified (along with other substantial evidence tying the accused to the crime). That reasonable doubt is further magnified when deception is a tactic that has indisputably been implemented by the accuser(s), who lack credibility, especially when among them are the best-known and most elaborate, documented liars of all time, such as Soviets and Jews (and their organizations).

re unanswered, I definitely have a preference for this discussion to be more like conversation as opposed to a formal debate. This is not a debate "event" but an internet forum where people can argue over months or years. So I'm not going to answer every point because I prefer to take things one at a time. The conversation gets less muddled this way and I don't have a lot of free time for extended responses, but also want to stay in communication.

You would like to keep this argument structured in any way that can benefit you and keep you from having to directly confront the arguments which are most challenging to you.

We get it, and we know why.

You brought up Alvensleben as another 'confessor' to extermination on the Sassen tapes. but were unphased when it turned out that Alvensleben was just parroting propaganda about 'gas ovens' which never existed.

Maybe so, or maybe he wasn't involved in the death camps, but as a high ranked member had heard about gassings from people involved and in vague terms, then filled in the gaps with what he heard from allied sources.

That is a LOT of conjecture for someone of a position necessitating having "proven [mass gassing and extermination of millions] beyond a reasonable doubt".

I assumed he was a humble rabbit farmer but it turns he was more of a manager of large industrial farm, making decent money according to Stangneth "But the income was pretty good—
Eichmann put it at 4,500 pesos a month, ") . Later he became an executive at Mercedes. Haven't seen evidence he was in poor circumstances.

Oh boy, what a liar you are. For obvious reasons, I decided to check your reference. Here is the quote you cite but expanded just slightly to include the appropriate context which you strangely left out:

But the income was pretty good—Eichmann put it at 4,500 pesos a month, which was just over 1,000 Deutschmarks. The family urgently needed the money, as an unexpected event had taken place: Vera Eichmann was pregnant again.

(Stangneth, B., "Eichmann Before Jerusalem", p. 167)

Why on Earth would you leave that out, bombsaway? Aren't you here for the truth?

And why would you mention Mercedes Benz when Eichmann didn't even start working there until March 1959 (two years after the Sassen interviews)?

He was hired by Mercedes Benz in March 1959...

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/th ... f-eichmann

Super weird, if I were to assume you are honest. But makes perfect sense if you are, in fact, not.

You don't really bother to explain or address the motives related to fame and popularity (noting that Eichmann had been famous in Argentina in his circle for years before Sassen arrived), which I have addressed repeatedly regarding Eichmann.

Are you saying that in this situation it would be likely for Eichmann to go with the narrative about him, as unappealing as it was? I think a statement like this has to be substantiated, preferably with in a scientific way with case studies etc.

Speaking from a common sense perspective, imagining I was famous for something I didn't do that was really bad, I think I'd want to people to know the truth.

Did Eichmann think hurting Jews was "really bad"?

I understand that your primary goal here is to waste everyone's time and create confusion but I'd ask you to make the right choice, bombsaway, and just let it go.

I'm not following you back into Transnistria where you have already been thoroughly demolished. I am not interested in quote-posting my earlier statements on the subject which you will undoubtedly have "forgotten" or "conveniently ignore".

Your tactics have been exposed and your lies are now transparent.