Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

[hermod]

I am asking for proof because it's important to provide proof to make an historical case -- particularly when the case goes against the case for which the most evidence actually exists. You can sneer at "criminal traces" all you like, particularly if you view them each in isolation, but the fact of the matter is that the sheer volume of criminal traces out there, this telephone note among them, presents a serious problem for non-extermination theories.

One tenth of evidence + one tenth of evidence + ... + one tenth of evidence will never amount to a full proof of anything. Or at least, it shouldn't...

[Thames Darwin]

I am asking for proof because it's important to provide proof to make an historical case -- particularly when the case goes against the case for which the most evidence actually exists. You can sneer at "criminal traces" all you like, particularly if you view them each in isolation, but the fact of the matter is that the sheer volume of criminal traces out there, this telephone note among them, presents a serious problem for non-extermination theories.

One tenth of evidence + one tenth of evidence + ... + one tenth of evidence will never amount to a full proof of anything. Or at least, it shouldn't...

Really? Why not?

[Bob]

The disagreement can be seen in the fact Hitler guaranteed and promised autonomy whereas the plan would result in factual liquidation of autonomy as accepted by historians. Maybe the disagreement was exposed during/after the lecture, talk or speech between them? Who knows. Report will not help you on this matter.

Perhaps not this report specifically on this point, no. Gerwarth seems to indicate that Heydrich was sent into B&M in the first place to do exactly what he ended up doing. Moreover, if Gerwarth's account of the Nov. 9 meeting in Munich is correct, then that's why I believe the matter was settled. Hitler ordered a downsizing of ministries, all of which would report to Heydrich. Reading the Nov. 16 letter and report will allow me to see the extent to which suggestions beyond this were made by Heydrich. If you scanned it, I'd be grateful, but the UPenn library, near where I live, has a copy also.

Frankly, I'm interested in this issue indepedently since I am of partial Czech-Jewish ancestry and am interested in the Protekorat history generally.

Not settled, already pointed out, scroll back.

Afaik the reports we are discussing are always addressed to Führerhauptquartier, so I doubt is a coincidence he was always there when Heydrich wanted to send a report. Number of places? What places? Afaik only Wolfsschanze functioned as FHQ, other places either had not this function, were not ready or they functioned as FHQ only for a certain period which is not included in our issue.

But the artice you linked to reads, "Besides the well-known Wolfsschanze, there were all together 20 other FHQs in the German Reich and occupied territories, not all of which were finished by the end of the war in 1945." The table shows 13 of these FHQs were operational. That's a problem, in my opinion, for the conclusion that Bormann was at Wolfsschanze, particularly when he had regular work to do at the Reichkanzlei in Berlin and was not yet working as personal secretary to Hitler. Again, some 200 days were spent away from Wolfsschanze by Hitler.

Yes, and then follows a list in which you can see that only Wolfsschanze worked as FHQ in that period. Using logic, is clear that FHQ cleraly meant one specific place otherwise how could you deliver the document if FHQ could meant number of places? I see no problem, I still do not understand your irrelevant comments about Wolfsschanze and where was Bormann when the main issue is the reports were delivered to Hitler so I will not waste more time by addressing if Bormann was at Berlin or Wolfsschanze, that´s just irrelevant.

Hence FHQ surely meant Wolfsschanze otherwise it does not make even sense to address it to FHQ if FHQ could mean "number of places" acc. to you, it was obviously clear what FHQ means. Unless you have evidence FHQ in the reports was something other than Wolfsschanze, then is clear it was Wolfsschanze.

See above; the Wiki article you linked to demonstrates this. I would accept your conclusion were that not true. Plus, you can see in the Monologe, e.g., that more than one place is referred to as FHQ. Finally, if a letter is going to Bormann and Bormann works at the Reichskanzlei, and the Reichskanzlei is among the places referred to as FHQ, then a letter to Bormann almost by default would go to the Reichskanzlei. Q.e.d.

Btw, among other sources, the Tischsprache refers to the Reichskanzlei as FHQ (see 25.4.1942, e.g.).

See above. I do not dispute more places were referred to as FHQ during the entire history, my point is that one specific place was referred to as FHQ in the reports from Heydrich sent through Bormann to Hitler.

And I still do not know why are you interested in Bormann and where he was, the reports were for Hitler.

I'm interested in the flow of information. That's all.

Information which is irrelevant to the discussed issue, reports were for Hitler, so is irrelevant if Bormann was at Berlin or at Wolfsschanze, in both cases the reports were sent to Hitler because they were for Hitler.

I did not see any concrete proof that Hitler ever used a toilet, but I consider it likely.

You consider it likely because Hitler was a human being. Entertain a syllogism:

P1: All human beings use a toilet.
P2: Hitler was human.
C: Hitler used a toilet.

I don't think a similar syllogism can be used to make the case that Hitler and Heydrich had something over which they disagreed between Nov. 16 and Nov. 30 vis-à-vis the autonomy of B&M.

Where is your concrete proof that all human beings use a toilet since this is your basic assumption? I saw people not using toilets for their "needs", so you are clearly wrong. So Where is your concrete proof! No such proof? Only logical assumption? Got my point?

It can be used, I am just applying logical assumption like you, assumption that like other people, Hitler et al. discussed issues with each other and did not bother to create a concrete proof for this simply because there was no reason to do it. So if a concrete proof is missing at this time, you cannot use it as a justification why to dismiss or undermine the hypothesis because there is a reasonable reason why such proof may not exist.

I understand you want a concrete proof for every tiny bit of this hypothesis because you are reluctant to drop this alleged "criminal trace" without a fight (trace which as usual can be explained in non-sinister way), and you are trying really hard to find "something" what you can use to dismiss this hypothesis, but you expect a concrete proof in the case in which is likely that no concrete proof exist, because there was no reason for existence of such proof unless Heydrich et al, foreseen our debate over 70 years later.

You misunderstand my intentions.

I am asking for proof because it's important to provide proof to make an historical case -- particularly when the case goes against the case for which the most evidence actually exists. You can sneer at "criminal traces" all you like, particularly if you view them each in isolation, but the fact of the matter is that the sheer volume of criminal traces out there, this telephone note among them, presents a serious problem for non-extermination theories.

I do not think this goes against the most evidenced case, i.e. the revisionist case. You are asking for concrete proof for every tiny bit of information for this hypothesis which is nonsensical approach, what you can expect are bits which can be put together in one picture using logical assumptions in the case which can hardly leave some proof. You are asking for proof for every tiny bit of information while you accept any unfounded claim if convenient for your case, that is my observation of your approach, so I think your approach is purely opportunistic, not serious and not honest. Supposed sheer volume of traces is no problem, all such traces can be explained and backed up in non criminal way or in a way having nothing to do with extermination theory. And as you know, where such explanation and doubts exist, then this should be in favor of accused.

Wanted to check things related to that transport (like time o departure, etc.)? To know number of deportees? I really do not know, there is no hint and I actually do not care much, see below.

All of those issues were handled in Berlin or other point of departure, and the point of contact would not have been Heydrich. That a message on this topic from Himmler to Heydrich, presumably relayed for Hitler himself, indicates something rather important was going on. If they wanted to know how many on the transport (and I can't think of a single reason why any of these people would care), they would phone back to the Gestapo HQ in Berlin -- probably to Eichmann. If they wanted to know what time it was arriving, it would be anyone's best guess; the only thing they'd know for sure was when it left, and again Eichmann would probably know best.

Let me try to make this a bit more clear. Hitler did not normally involve himself in the mundane details of Jewish deportations like these. Rather, he set policy at the top level and let the underlings work it out. Himmler had given over this particular job to Heydrich, who oversaw it in general. A message from Hitler to Heydrich relayed by Himmler on this topic means something at least as important to Hitler as the guy screwing his sister (Jekelius), the guy who might be a valuable prisoner trade ("Molotov"), or (if you're correct) the perceived autonomy of B&M.

What is likely is that Lohse complained to Rosenberg about recent events in Kaunas, and Rosenberg, in turn, complained to Hitler. Hitler saw a potentially large political problem arising and intervened. If you have Browning's Origins of the Final Solution, he works through this material on pp. 393-398. If you have an e-mail address you feel comfortable sharing, I can send you these six pages and notes.

My contention continues to be that the evidence is overwhelming that the line about liquidation refers to this transport, and my proof for that relies on Kube and Lohse's unhappiness with the situation, the discussion of the following day between Himmler and Heydrich about "executions in Riga," and the temporary lull in executions until January.

Your argument is interesting, but there are a lot of other important matters that arise between Nov. 16 and Heydrich's conference on Jan. 19, among which are the planning (and postponing) of Wannsee, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the declaration of war by the U.S., etc., all of which had direct effects on Jewish policy.

Finally, if you're still stuck on four lines, four topics, that's why I included the lines from the next day from the conversation with Berger. Five lines, four topics in that one. We know that because Berger and Otto Hofmann were indeed sent as representatives to HJ meetings in Munich on a regular basis. It's possible that Berger and Hofmann are to be "Vertreter" in some other capacity, but the bit about Landdienstes makes it almost certain.

Still no evidence the fourth line is related to the third whereas there is evidence the line is not related at all like the previous lines, previous lines are separate topics, so logically fourth line as well, please, do not repeat yourself as this force me to repeat too and I really hate repeating myself over and over again. The only reason why are you link them together is the word liquidierung which you find convenient for your case because for you this automatically means "kill" and because it means kill then it must refer to the third line about transport. If there was "keine Äpfel", you would not connect them together at all, merely the presence of the word liquidierung is the reason why are you doing it, the same fallacious approach used by for other words like "sonder" etc. What we have here is begging the question ignoring there is other explanation, backed up.

Your theory addressed and refuted, scroll back, afaik you have not presented any arguments to my points refuting your theory which does not even make sense leaving aside missing evidence. I am not demanding like you, leaving aside missing evidence, the big problem for me is that your theory does not make sense whereas my explanation does make sense and is backed up in documents. My argument is not only interesting and backed up, but there is actually no counter argument although you tried really hard to complain about every tiny bit you though will help you to dismiss the hypothesis.

As i said, I do not have an idea what Himmler wanted regarding the third line, there is no hint, so I will not waste time by speculating or addressing your responses to these irrelevant speculations.

Afaik the only reason why are all debating the document and the line with transport is the fourth line, without that fourth line and its alleged "criminal" meaning, nobody would give a shit about the third line and the document itself.

I disagree with that as well, but it's probably not worth arguing about.

You can disagree, but the fact is the document is cited only because of this "issue", never saw it mentioned for other issue related to so called holocaust.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I am finished with this, no more repetitions please. If I find something new, I am going to post it of course.

[Bob]

I would like to stress again, that credit goes to pictorex, I am only trying to find as much evidence as possible for his hypothesis.

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2143&p=72751#p72751

[Thames Darwin]

Not settled, already pointed out, scroll back.

I guess once I read the Nov. 16 report, I'll know for sure.

Yes, and then follows a list in which you can see that only Wolfsschanze worked as FHQ in that period. Using logic, is clear that FHQ cleraly meant one specific place otherwise how could you deliver the document if FHQ could meant number of places? I see no problem, I still do not understand your irrelevant comments about Wolfsschanze and where was Bormann when the main issue is the reports were delivered to Hitler so I will not waste more time by addressing if Bormann was at Berlin or Wolfsschanze, that´s just irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant. Depending on the content of the Nov. 16 report, the rate at which such a report would go from Prague to Berlin (if that's where Bormann was -- this was, after all, where his office was) to Wolfsschanze (if that's where Hitler was the entirety of the period from Nov. 16 to Nov. 30), and any other matters to arise between Hitler and Heydrich in the interim, whether Hitler could even be responding to the Nov. 16 report by Nov. 30 is up in the air.

See above. I do not dispute more places were referred to as FHQ during the entire history, my point is that one specific place was referred to as FHQ in the reports from Heydrich sent through Bormann to Hitler.

But you haven't proved that.

Information which is irrelevant to the discussed issue, reports were for Hitler, so is irrelevant if Bormann was at Berlin or at Wolfsschanze, in both cases the reports were sent to Hitler because they were for Hitler.

See above.

Where is your concrete proof that all human beings use a toilet since this is your basic assumption? I saw people not using toilets for their "needs", so you are clearly wrong. So Where is your concrete proof! No such proof? Only logical assumption? Got my point?

Yes, you're using "go to the toilet" quite literally. I wasn't.

It can be used, I am just applying logical assumption like you, assumption that like other people, Hitler et al. discussed issues with each other and did not bother to create a concrete proof for this simply because there was no reason to do it. So if a concrete proof is missing at this time, you cannot use it as a justification why to dismiss or undermine the hypothesis because there is a reasonable reason why such proof may not exist.

But there is. There is rather a large volume of documentation on administrative matters regarding virtually every area of Third Reich affairs, including for the Protekorat. You yourself posted a link to the National Archives in Prague with literally thousands of documents for the period -- and as I'm sure you're aware, the most important documents aren't even posted online yet. On top of this, we have daily phone logs and diary notes from Himmler, not to mention Bormann's diary, Hitler's appointment books, etc. People were always writing things down. That there is a significant absence of material on the topic of the autonomy of B&M between Nov. 16 and Nov. 30 is a problem for your case, like it or not.

I do not think this goes against the most evidenced case, i.e. the revisionist case. You are asking for concrete proof for every tiny bit of information for this hypothesis which is nonsensical approach, what you can expect are bits which can be put together in one picture using logical assumptions in the case which can hardly leave some proof. You are asking for proof for every tiny bit of information while you accept any unfounded claim if convenient for your case, that is my observation of your approach, so I think your approach is purely opportunistic, not serious and not honest.

Literally every word of the above approach I would apply directly to the revisionist case and very directly to the case you're making here. Every. Single. Word.

Supposed sheer volume of traces is no problem, all such traces can be explained and backed up in non criminal way or in a way having nothing to do with extermination theory.

If you read each trace in isolation, then sure you can. The problem is that no sane historian builds a case in that manner.

And as you know, where such explanation and doubts exist, then this should be in favor of accused.

Would for revisionism that history were a court case.

It isn't.

Still no evidence the fourth line is related to the third whereas there is evidence the line is not related at all like the previous lines, previous lines are separate topics, so logically fourth line as well

There is zero logic in your conclusion.

First, I continue to dispute the idea that the fourth line is independent given the conclusion you offer. I concede it's possible but until I'm able to examine the evidence myself, I can't possibly concede that it's definite.

Second and more importantly, the idea that the fourth line is separate from the third line because the third line is separate from the second and the second separate from the first begs the question of whether that's how Himmler himself intended the entry. It assumes that Himmler made entries in the fashion you suggest, but I proved to you with the entry on Berger and Hofmann that he clearly didn't. He made that entry the next day. It does you no favors to ignore this point.

please, do not repeat yourself as this force me to repeat too and I really hate repeating myself over and over again. The only reason why are you link them together is the word liquidierung which you find convenient for your case because for you this automatically means "kill" and because it means kill then it must refer to the third line about transport. If there was "keine Äpfel", you would not connect them together at all, merely the presence of the word liquidierung is the reason why are you doing it, the same fallacious approach used by for other words like "sonder" etc.

Apples and oranges.

You concede that "Liquidierung" can mean "killing." We know that several of the contemporaneous transports were shot -- most notably those arriving in Kaunas in the previous week. "Äpfel" holds no such connotation. Moreover, "sonder" as in "Sonderbehändlung" or "Sonderaktion" isn't used fallaciously; it's used in context. If you want to start a thread on that topic, then fine.

What we have here is begging the question ignoring there is other explanation, backed up.

I don't think you know what that term actually means.

Your theory addressed and refuted, scroll back

It's adorable that you're so confident in your arguments.

afaik you have not presented any arguments to my points refuting your theory which does not even make sense leaving aside missing evidence.

Your inability to apply logic and to concede a point I've disproved isn't my problem.

I am not demanding like you, leaving aside missing evidence, the big problem for me is that your theory does not make sense whereas my explanation does make sense and is backed up in documents.

No, it isn't. You have zero documents indicating an ongoing conflict. You've shown none and referred to none, other than the Nov. 16 letter. You have the letter, I presume. Post it here if it says what you say it does.

I have a mound of documents on the problematic nature of the transport in question and its liquidation, not the least of which is a note on the very next day in the same source. You have nothing even remotely approaching that level of corroboration. Throw in the interrogrations of Jeckeln and Lohse while you're at it. Jeckeln was summoned by Himmler immediately and they met four days later.

My argument is not only interesting and backed up, but there is actually no counter argument although you tried really hard to complain about every tiny bit you though will help you to dismiss the hypothesis.

I haven't dismissed it. I've made it clear what I would want to see by way of proof -- some documentation of an ongoing conflict. If it's in the Nov. 16 report, then show it here.

As i said, I do not have an idea what Himmler wanted regarding the third line, there is no hint, so I will not waste time by speculating or addressing your responses to these irrelevant speculations.

If there is a more plausible explanation for the telephone note, then it's up to you to respond. Your refusal to do so is noted.

You can disagree, but the fact is the document is cited only because of this "issue", never saw it mentioned for other issue related to so called holocaust.

That's just a breathtakingly naïve remark. You clearly don't have the sheerest idea how much ink has been spilled over the transports going east from the Reich during the period under debate. It's an object lesson in how much research revisionists ignore or aren't even aware of. I took it upon myself to read the relevant pages from Angrick's Riga book; his theory is that the order on this transport actually came from Heydrich and that Hitler had nothing to do with it. So I'm sure you'd like to believe that it's settled, but it isn't. Even among the historians holding the majority view, the details aren't settled. Jesus: Even Mattogno and Butz both concede that "Liquidierung" refers to this transport.

I think I am finished with this, no more repetitions please. If I find something new, I am going to post it of course.

You can start with the content of the Nov. 16 report that supports your point of view.

To summarize, you claim that there was much pending in Heydrich's planning after his Nov. 9 meeting. The only document we have in the interim between Nov. 9 and Nov. 30 is the Nov. 16 report, which you claim supports your case. I claim that the matter was settled on Nov. 9.

If you have evidence from the Nov. 16 report, then let's see it.

[Bob]

Ok, but what do you expect from me? I´ve dealt with your claims (including your "summary") starting here, your recent comment is merely a rehash of the claims I patiently dealt with although I considered some of them plain stupid. Let me know if you plan to post something new or relevant, then we can continue. Until then pictorex´s hypothesis will remain as the only one valid and supported and your false starting with your inability to evidence your basic premise that the third line and the fourth line are connected into one topic whereas we have evidenced that the first three lines are three topics, hence fourth line logically too. That´s logic sir, the thing you are lacking in your claims, your basic premise is simply illogical.

But I thank you for this admission:

And as you know, where such explanation and doubts exist, then this should be in favor of accused.

Would for revisionism that history were a court case.


It isn't.

Accusation of extermination is a court case, so thanks for your admission that if presented during the fair trial, accused would have been acquitted. Admission appreciated, so much for your "criminal traces".

[Thames Darwin]

Ok, but what do you expect from me?

The Nov. 16 report. If you dont have it, then say so. If you haven't actually read it, then say that. If you have it but refuse to share it, then say so. You haven't responded that I can see, other than provided me the info of where I can find it myself. As I said, I'll get to it at UPenn,. but it'll take a couple of weeks.

I´ve dealt with your claims (including your "summary") starting here, your recent comment is merely a rehash of the claims I patiently dealt with

Your refusal to acknowledge new content is not the same as there being done. You *still* haven't addressed the matter of the Berger phone note, which is clearly five lines, four topics. Based on the rulels of this forum, that's dodging.

although I considered some of them plain stupid.

Boy, now my feelings are hurt.

Let me know if you plan to post something new or relevant, then we can continue. Until then pictorex´s hypothesis will remain as the only one valid and supported

Simply adorable.

and your false starting with your inability to evidence your basic premise that the third line and the fourth line are connected into one topic whereas we have evidenced that the first three lines are three topics, hence fourth line logically too. That´s logic sir, the thing you are lacking in your claims, your basic premise is simply illogical.

I realize that you like to think you're being logical, but you're not. Let me see if I can demonstrate this using numbers, which might be easier.

Is there a pattern in these three numbers?

27172, 576, 63677

They were generated by a random number generator, so let's say that there's no pattern (in the off chance that there is, in fact, a pattern for whatever mathematically improbable or obscure reason).

So we have three random numbers.

Here's the fourth number:

63678

See a pattern yet?

If you don't see what I'm getting at, then I can't help you any further.

And you haven't addressed the Berger phone note, which is five lines, four topics. I'm going to keep saying this, because you keep dodging this.

But I thank you for this admission:

And as you know, where such explanation and doubts exist, then this should be in favor of accused.

Would for revisionism that history were a court case.


It isn't.

Accusation of extermination is a court case

Really? Which court are you and I currently in?

so thanks for your admission that if presented during the fair trial, accused would have been acquitted. Admission appreciated, so much for your "criminal traces".

Based on this argument, Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty and OJ Simpson is innocent. Enjoy that victory.

[Bob]

Ok, but what do you expect from me?

The Nov. 16 report. If you dont have it, then say so. If you haven't actually read it, then say that. If you have it but refuse to share it, then say so. You haven't responded that I can see, other than provided me the info of where I can find it myself. As I said, I'll get to it at UPenn,. but it'll take a couple of weeks.

I have the report as reproduced by Miroslav Karny in his book. I provided you with simple source which is a book of Miroslav Karny where he reproduced many documents including this. I´ve read the report since I provided you with information from this report, that´s logic sir. If you want, you can study the document itself using reference already provided by Robert Gerwarth. You can read it after couple of weeks, why not, but you will see only what I already told you so what is your point is still a mystery, but enjoy the journey.

Your refusal to acknowledge new content is not the same as there being done. You *still* haven't addressed the matter of the Berger phone note, which is clearly five lines, four topics. Based on the rulels of this forum, that's dodging.

I see nothing new and relevant, just rehash of claims I already addressed.

I have and you know it, acc. to general rules, that´s lying, again.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2143&start=150#p73919

I realize that you like to think you're being logical, but you're not. Let me see if I can demonstrate this using numbers, which might be easier.

Is there a pattern in these three numbers?

27172, 576, 63677

They were generated by a random number generator, so let's say that there's no pattern (in the off chance that there is, in fact, a pattern for whatever mathematically improbable or obscure reason).

So we have three random numbers.

Here's the fourth number:

63678

See a pattern yet?

I see you still do not have evidence that fourth line is connected with the third in one topic whereas we have evidenced that the first three lines are three topics and you accept this. Hence fourth line is one topic too, that´s logic whether you like it or not, what you are posting is illogical.

Really? Which court are you and I currently in?

Ehm...?

Based on this argument, Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty and OJ Simpson is innocent. Enjoy that victory.

I have not studied this so I cannot tell, but you can discuss it with yourself, enjoy.

[Thames Darwin]

You haven't addressed the Berger notes. That is dodging.

[Bob]

I have and you know it, acc. to general rules, that´s lying, again.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2143&start=150#p73919

Your are dodging almost everything.

[Thames Darwin]

If you give me a specific instance of something I've dodged, I'll respond.

I have given my example. If you continue to dodge, the rules say you have to leave the thread.

[borjastick]

Still dancing around the handbags then?

Interesting subject completely ruined by those who will not see.

[Bob]

For instance this post and the two further which are related to it, good example, Your fail with Kube´s letter, points related to your theory, your fail with the meaning of liquidierung,....

Your example was false, I´ve addressed it and provided my stance.

Do not expect from me that I am going to address your comments if you are going to continue in the same way (dodging, obfuscations or even lying) leaving aside that your attacks against me on Rodoh are another reason why to ignore you, Your agenda is clear, I am ignoring other such individuals like you, I do not see reason why you should be an exception. Continue and you are likely to be ignored by me, I do not have time for such games.

[Bob]

To summarize it.

- this issue is not going to have a definite end since I will keep arguing all lines are separate subjects, and the fourth line is related to the situation in Protectorate, hypothesis which makes sense and have no problems and is backed up in documents from period in question, it matches the historical background. Mathis concede this is possible and I patiently answered all his "objections" even when I considered some of them plain stupid. We cannot expect definite end, this is not a matter depending on laws of nature or physics.

- Mathis will keep arguing that the last two lines are connected and the last line is a reaction to protests against extermination of Berlin Jews. Hypothesis which does not make sense, is based on mere presence of the term "liquidierung", is not backed up and has problems as pointed out so I cannot accept it as possible, he dodged to address few problems I pointed out.

Anyway, Mathis can keep repeating his stance as he wish and keep ignoring the problems, my points etc, I am content with the fact Mathis accepts the hypothesis about protectorate is possible as explanation for the last line, this is fine since where such explanation and doubts exists, then it should be in favor of accused, i.e. of those accused of alleged extermination. That he does not accepts it as a definitive explanation is logical, this would have been against his belief in holocaust and agenda he let out of bag when he asserted several hours ago towards me: "My foul language is wholly deserved by Nazis like you", he cannot accept it not because the hypothesis is wrong, not backed up, nonsensical etc., but because that would have meant "supporting Nazis" which deserve something different than support.

Anyway, this topic has been discussed ad nauseam, I mostly repeat myself because Mathis is repeating himself and it does not make sense to feed Mathis more when is clear he is never going to accepts the hypothesis as the one which is most likely correct at this time. I even did not expect this, I am just fine he accepts it as possible explanation for the last line. I will keep posting stuff related to the pictorex´s hypothesis if I find something new and interesting.