BA's case for orthodoxy

[Butterfangers]

Liquidations almost certainly means killed when referring to groups of people.

I have found not a single example of "liquidation" defined in reference to killing pre-1945. If you believe this word had a common application as such prior to this time, please provide at least one citation to any dictionary pre-1945 (English or German) which mentions "liquidation" in reference to killing people.

Before the 20th century, this was almost strictly a financial term (whether in English or German) referring to clearance or clearing out and was perfectly applicable in reference to to human movement out of one area (and perhaps into another).

This isn't to say it was not ever used by Germany to refer to killing (I would agree it was, in at least some of the cases I've looked into, e.g. for some of the Einsatzgruppen actions), but it does suggest that the word itself cannot count as necessary proof of killing.

This practice of shifting and redefining words is common among Holohoax propaganda, apparently, as we see the word "ausrottung" having rapidly shifted to mean "extermination", almost exclusively when referring to human populations, in its German use post-WW2. This is despite abundant evidence it had a prominent interpretation as "uprooting" prior to that time, or even for much of the mid-20th century.

Propaganda doesn't just target our narratives; language itself is also clearly on the chopping-block. Some of the more bizarre examples seen recently are the redefinition of words like "woman" ("anyone can be one!"), "gender" ("it's not the same as sex!"), "racism" ("you can't be racist against whites!"), etc.

[fireofice]

I have found not a single example of "liquidation" defined in reference to killing pre-1945. If you believe this word had a common application as such prior to this time, please provide at least one citation to any dictionary pre-1945 (English or German) which mentions "liquidation" in reference to killing people.

Yes, this is a good point. From Metapedia:

The English word "liquidate" has had extensive changing in meaning over time. The 1828 and 1913 Webster's dictionaries list no sense in which liquidate means "to kill", but several related to "make clear". In 2015, Merriam-Webster lists "to kill" as one sense of the word and "to make clear" is described as archaic usage.

https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Go ... quidate.22

Here are the 1828 and 1913 dictionary definitions:

https://archive.is/ljNmP

The modern dictionary:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liquidate

As can be seen, the modern dictionary has killing as one of the (but not only) definitions. Whereas the older ones don't even have that. That doesn't mean it was never used for killing. Words can be used outside of their dictionary definitions, but it does show that it wasn't normally used that way by any means. And the modern dictionary does indeed have "to make clear" as an archaic definition. Archaic, as in all the way back before 1945? Seems like it.

[Hektor]

Liquidations almost certainly means killed when referring to groups of people.

I have found not a single example of "liquidation" defined in reference to killing pre-1945. If you believe this word had a common application as such prior to this time, please provide at least one citation to any dictionary pre-1945 (English or German) which mentions "liquidation" in reference to killing people.

Before the 20th century, this was almost strictly a financial term (whether in English or German) referring to clearance or clearing out and was perfectly applicable in reference to to human movement out of one area (and perhaps into another).

This isn't to say it was not ever used by Germany to refer to killing (I would agree it was, in at least some of the cases I've looked into, e.g. for some of the Einsatzgruppen actions), but it does suggest that the word itself cannot count as necessary proof of killing.

This practice of shifting and redefining words is common among Holohoax propaganda, apparently, as we see the word "ausrottung" having rapidly shifted to mean "extermination", almost exclusively when referring to human populations, in its German use post-WW2. This is despite abundant evidence it had a prominent interpretation as "uprooting" prior to that time, or even for much of the mid-20th century.

Propaganda doesn't just target our narratives; language itself is also clearly on the chopping-block. Some of the more bizarre examples seen recently are the redefinition of words like "woman" ("anyone can be one!"), "gender" ("it's not the same as sex!"), "racism" ("you can't be racist against whites!"), etc.

What counts is what it meant in German at the time. Liquidieren (to make liquid) is indeed a bit ambivalent. But it was also used to 'liquidate" a company in the sense of selling the assets and then distributing the money. If one liquidates a ghetto one would pull out the Jews and distribute them to elsewhere putting the buildings to different use.

Ausrotten: To root out. No necessity of killing there neither.

There is plenty of examples of words were meaning is shifted. And there is also 'loading the language' meaning to give words power they previously did not have.

There was also the propensity to use exaggerated language by National Socialist. Hitler said he 'vernichtete the parties'. He didn't kill all their members though, not even their leadership.

Propaganda usually uses present words, but in a promotional or disparaging way. What we're dealing with today is going further than propaganda that is done by people in a company or party office. It is systematic changing of language, perceptions, values, etc. It leads to total confusion making it easier for those that have power presently.

Employable, non-employable, completely irrelevant. The point is lots of Jews were being sent there (hence why Kube was overwhelmed) and it was policy not to kill them, that's why he threatened to kill a subset of them (assuming liquidated means killing, which is what we'll go with here). This has implications for deportation policy in general. This means all deportations to the east were non-genocidal. It was the norm not to kill them, employable or not. Focusing on Kube and his (almost certainly exaggerated) anti-partisan activities is therefore irrelevant. Address the fact that Jews not set to be killed were being transported to the east. Don't bring in any irrelevant nonsense about anti-partisan activity by Kube.

Holocausting is magic by extrapolation. Pick one suitable event or statement and then 'grow' this until you arrive at six million. After all, it's the impressions that count and 'perception is all that there is'.

Eichmann apparently read Holocaust books to prepare for the trial.

"Reading and writing were both permitted, and Eichmann concentrated on books about Nazi regime."
https://www.life.com/history/adolf-eich ... -criminal/

Willem Sassen is also said to give Eichmann 'reading assignments'. It seems Reitlinger played a role in this.

4. His conversations with Sassen continued over a period of four months on 67 tapes, the reliability of them and the circumstances in which they were made.
5. The books by Reitlinger and Poliakov, which he read while being in prison in Israel.
6. Denies bringing an order to Globocnik to murder 250,000 Jews and being in charge of Heydrich's Jewish policy or being the director of the central office for emigration of the entire Reich area and merely followed orders at all times.

[bombsaway]

Some went to work deployment, others were killed upon arrival, even into summer 1942 as I demonstrated here

Some went to work deployment? Really? WHERE DID THEY GO THEN? It must have never happened. Surely, they were all killed and it never happened.

Also, this theory about some being killed on arrival makes no sense. All Jews set to be killed would have been killed at the Reinhardt camps. No point in sending them further east just to be killed there. That's just complete nonsense.

In terms of work deployment, yeah you can trace the whereabouts of different groups, though not all. Large groups like the 1000 Kube wanted to kill went to Bobruysk camp, which you can read about here https://training.ehri-project.eu/small- ... ther-camps.

A problem you guys seem to have is your ignorance of just how much info exists about all these camps. Bobruysk was small and thus not well testified about compared to larger camps but you can still see there's a good deal of detail there (26 witness testimonies).

re the Jews being killed at the Reinhard camps instead . . . I don't think this proves that non-employable Jews weren't killed on arrival. The Reinhard camps were only fully operational in August 1942, and according to witness testimony at times they could not meet demand, so it's not crazy that a few transports were sent further on.

If Eichmann's indeed just telling lies (and assuming his few, brief excerpts from the "Devil's Confession" documentary are accurate and in proper context), what could possibly motivate him to tell such lies? Here are some ideas:

• Attention-seeking: Eichmann may have wanted to draw attention to himself by making sensational claims. By 'admitting' to actions he did not commit, he could have hoped to provoke a reaction from Sassen or others who might learn of the conversation.
• Empowerment/Revenge/Coping: Eichmann might have felt motivated to claim a role in "extermination" which did not actually occur, in order to strike fear into the hearts of his enemies, after a heavy and brutal defeat in WW2.
• Establishing camaraderie: Eichmann might have believed that admitting to these actions would help him establish a sense of camaraderie or shared experiences with Sassen or others who held similar ideological beliefs. By doing so, he could have hoped to strengthen relationships and build alliances.

Of course, people telling lies based on motives such as those above (or any number of others) is not uncommon. And as for Eichmann, the Israelis and just about everyone on the planet (all of us here included) would consider him a liar in some way or another. We agree on that, at least.

I was looking at some mentions of the Sassen recordings on this forum and found a post that contains a long clip

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14609#p105344

here's a machine translation of part of the talk where Eichmann mentions the existence of a genocidal program.

I'm telling you, comrade Sassen, I can't do that. I can't do that because I'm not ready, because inside I'm reluctant to say, for example, that we did something wrong. No. I have to tell you quite honestly, if we had killed 10.3 million Jews out of the 10.3 million Jews whom Korherr[4] expelled, as we now know, I would be satisfied and would say, well, we have destroyed an enemy. Now, through the treachery of fate, the majority of these 10.3 million Jews have survived, I say to myself: fate wanted it that way. I have to submit to fate and providence. I'm just a small person and I don't have anything to stink about, I can't do it either, and I don't want to either. We would have fulfilled our task for our blood and our people and for the freedom of the peoples, we would have destroyed the smartest mind of human minds alive today. Because that's what I said to Streicher[5], what I've always preached: We're fighting an opponent who, thanks to many thousands of years of training, is spiritually superior to us.

The context here is (from the book 'Eichmann Before Jerusalem') is that the discussions they had were primarily about Eichmann's role in the deportation and mass killing of Jews. The fact that killing occurred at these places is never in question, rather the numbers are too high

The group read one murder
statistic after another—tellingly, leaving out those they themselves had
falsified over the preceding years.280 In 1953 Gerald Reitlinger arrived at 4.2
to 4.7 million; the report to the World Jewish Congress from June 1946 put it
at six million; Léon Poliakov thought eight million was possible. The Sassen
circle tried to analyze each figure in the Wannsee transcript and in Korherr’s
report to Hitler from 1943. They read the statement by Camp Commandant
Höß about the extermination capacity of Auschwitz. Sassen rounded the
numbers down; Eichmann rounded them up. Eichmann exaggerated the
number of survivors; Sassen cast doubt on this, and together they tried to
extrapolate a figure. Reading this discussion sometimes feels like being in a
bazaar: once again only numbers, not people, exist for Eichmann: “So, he
[Reitlinger] says 65,000, I say 40,000, so let’s call it around 50,000.”281
Another instance: “381,000 is a little high, but it may have been around
300,000.”282 And whenever Sassen starts to be even slightly optimistic,
Eichmann’s words invariably throw everything into confusion again. “Half of
them always lived,” Eichmann claims on the selections in Auschwitz, and
although this is an incredible underestimation of the murder rate for the
transports from Hungary, Sassen’s reaction is almost panicked: “No, no, we
worked out that the absorption capacity was around 250,000, but if two
million went there in total …,” then a million Jews would have been gassed in
Auschwitz alone.

In terms of your ideas for Eichmann's motivation in lying about the existence of a mass killing program, I would say the reasons you bring up are possible but unlikely. There's another possible reason you didn't mention which I'd say is more likely, Eichmann was suffering from psychosis or early onset senility. This is still unlikely though, no evidence of this. In general you could make these sorts of claims for any non-judicial confession, like a wiretap of mob people talking about killing people. I'm sure similar arguments have been made by defense team, probably futile most of the time. E

Eichmann's statements are evidence, and if he had said that a large scale resettlement program had been carried out this would be evidence of that too. But he nor any other Germans have spoken of this actually being carried out.

By the way the tapes were made for purposes of transcription, Sassen was planning on making a book out of these conversations. If memory serves, almost all the transcriptions are still available, with handwritten corrections from Eichmann himself. 800 pages have been digitized (some hard to read, but most seem ok) so it still might be fruitful for revisionists to analyze. I'm interested to see what they come up with here, but nobody has done it so far I don't think. https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/7747-sassen/

Liquidations almost certainly means killed when referring to groups of people.

I have found not a single example of "liquidation" defined in reference to killing pre-1945. If you believe this word had a common application as such prior to this time, please provide at least one citation to any dictionary pre-1945 (English or German) which mentions "liquidation" in reference to killing people.

Before the 20th century, this was almost strictly a financial term (whether in English or German) referring to clearance or clearing out and was perfectly applicable in reference to to human movement out of one area (and perhaps into another).

This isn't to say it was not ever used by Germany to refer to killing (I would agree it was, in at least some of the cases I've looked into, e.g. for some of the Einsatzgruppen actions), but it does suggest that the word itself cannot count as necessary proof of killing.

There's no need for me to see if this term was in the dictionary, because as you say Germans were obviously using it to refer to killing, so that was an accepted possible meaning of the word. Can you find a single instance of a German using this word as something that happens to people (as opposed to entities that are not formally alive) where through action is obviously not killing.

Eg , the Jews of X were liquidated, and transferred to Y location

I haven't seen anything like this. For the record, I do think there's ambiguity in language, even the term killing can mean something other than that. When viewed probabilistically it's pretty rare though, so that's why I said "almost certainly". That's what makes the Goebbels diary entry strong evidence. Even a few other posters here (Lamprecht and Hermod I believe) agreed that by liquidate he meant killing.

I want to get back to Transnistria this week, but I'll first take some time to respond to posters queries on Eichmann / Kube / liquidate first. I can't respond to everything, since there's one of me and like 5 of you, so please prioritize and give me only the strongest or most unassailable arguments you have.

[Butterfangers]

A problem you guys seem to have is your ignorance of just how much info exists about all these camps. Bobruysk was small and thus not well testified about compared to larger camps but you can still see there's a good deal of detail there (26 witness testimonies).

What you don't seem to realize is that if there were 260 testimonies---hell, even 2,600---it makes little difference when you are dealing with people who understand very well that their war was won (and vengeance implemented) through media, propaganda, information, and narrative.

Lies won the war. And that war did not end in 1945.

This is an issue of quality versus quantity. The Revisionist view is far more rigidly adherent to traditional methods of science and criminal investigation whereas the establishment view has had to reinvent the rules to justify their failings.

I was looking at some mentions of the Sassen recordings on this forum and found a post that contains a long clip

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14609#p105344

here's a machine translation of part of the talk where Eichmann mentions the existence of a genocidal program.

I'm telling you, comrade Sassen, I can't do that. I can't do that because I'm not ready, because inside I'm reluctant to say, for example, that we did something wrong. No. I have to tell you quite honestly, if we had killed 10.3 million Jews out of the 10.3 million Jews whom Korherr[4] expelled, as we now know, I would be satisfied and would say, well, we have destroyed an enemy. Now, through the treachery of fate, the majority of these 10.3 million Jews have survived, I say to myself: fate wanted it that way. I have to submit to fate and providence. I'm just a small person and I don't have anything to stink about, I can't do it either, and I don't want to either. We would have fulfilled our task for our blood and our people and for the freedom of the peoples, we would have destroyed the smartest mind of human minds alive today. Because that's what I said to Streicher[5], what I've always preached: We're fighting an opponent who, thanks to many thousands of years of training, is spiritually superior to us.

The context here is (from the book 'Eichmann Before Jerusalem') is that the discussions they had were primarily about Eichmann's role in the deportation and mass killing of Jews. The fact that killing occurred at these places is never in question, rather the numbers are too high

The group read one murder
statistic after another—tellingly, leaving out those they themselves had
falsified over the preceding years.280 In 1953 Gerald Reitlinger arrived at 4.2
to 4.7 million; the report to the World Jewish Congress from June 1946 put it
at six million; Léon Poliakov thought eight million was possible. The Sassen
circle tried to analyze each figure in the Wannsee transcript and in Korherr’s
report to Hitler from 1943. They read the statement by Camp Commandant
Höß about the extermination capacity of Auschwitz. Sassen rounded the
numbers down; Eichmann rounded them up. Eichmann exaggerated the
number of survivors; Sassen cast doubt on this, and together they tried to
extrapolate a figure. Reading this discussion sometimes feels like being in a
bazaar: once again only numbers, not people, exist for Eichmann: “So, he
[Reitlinger] says 65,000, I say 40,000, so let’s call it around 50,000.”281
Another instance: “381,000 is a little high, but it may have been around
300,000.”282 And whenever Sassen starts to be even slightly optimistic,
Eichmann’s words invariably throw everything into confusion again. “Half of
them always lived,” Eichmann claims on the selections in Auschwitz, and
although this is an incredible underestimation of the murder rate for the
transports from Hungary, Sassen’s reaction is almost panicked: “No, no, we
worked out that the absorption capacity was around 250,000, but if two
million went there in total …,” then a million Jews would have been gassed in
Auschwitz alone.

Look at all these words you're writing/pasting while still missing the point. You did not provide the audio. No one open to Revisionist ideas has been allowed to get their hands on this material, and we know the German archive refuses to release it publicly precisely because (as they admit) they worry Revisionists will be able to 'misuse' the material.

If it's all already in the transcript, what are they concerned about?

And what type of 'misuse' do you suppose they have in mind? Please answer, and be specific.

In terms of your ideas for Eichmann's motivation in lying about the existence of a mass killing program, I would say the reasons you bring up are possible but unlikely.

That's a nice opinion you have there, thank you for sharing!

We do not know all of what was actually said (i.e. not just worked into the transcript somehow) because we do not have the complete, original audio. And with past experience, I expect that the portions I would be most interested in hearing or verifying are those which they are least likely to make public. This applies to the 15 hours they admit to having as well as any of the remaining 55 which have somehow gone missing over the years.

Everyone agrees Eichmann is a liar. We only disagree what he may be lying about.

By the way the tapes were made for purposes of transcription, Sassen was planning on making a book out of these conversations. If memory serves, almost all the transcriptions are still available, with handwritten corrections from Eichmann himself. 800 pages have been digitized (some hard to read, but most seem ok) so it still might be fruitful for revisionists to analyze. I'm interested to see what they come up with here, but nobody has done it so far I don't think. https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/7747-sassen/

Fruitful to read an alleged transcript of a defeated NSDAP official telling sadistic tales as a drunken pastime? Maybe, maybe not.

There's no need for me to see if this term was in the dictionary, because as you say Germans were obviously using it to refer to killing, so that was an accepted possible meaning of the word. Can you find a single instance of a German using this word as something that happens to people (as opposed to entities that are not formally alive) where through action is obviously not killing.

Eg , the Jews of X were liquidated, and transferred to Y location

I haven't seen anything like this. For the record, I do think there's ambiguity in language, even the term killing can mean something other than that. When viewed probabilistically it's pretty rare though, so that's why I said "almost certainly". That's what makes the Goebbels diary entry strong evidence. Even a few other posters here (Lamprecht and Hermod I believe) agreed that by liquidate he meant killing.

You haven't seen anything 'like that' because you assume every single use of "liquidate" means "exterminate". I have neither the time nor ability to search for possible uses of a word in original documents, the vast majority of which are locked away in German archives I probably would be prohibited from entering. It's sufficient to make the case that this word had multiple applications pre-1945 and is, hence, in and of itself, no proof of killing. Referring to human populations, it became associated primarily/exclusively with mass murder only after the "Holocaust" narrative developed.

I'll add that this is a human population that was categorically undergoing total confiscation of assets, which draws further relevance to the term "liquidation" in reference to this population.

I want to get back to Transnistria this week, but I'll first take some time to respond to posters queries on Eichmann / Kube / liquidate first. I can't respond to everything, since there's one of me and like 5 of you, so please prioritize and give me only the strongest or most unassailable arguments you have.

I don't think you've provided anything here that warrants the amount of effort you are requesting from members of the forum ("give me only the strongest" ). I can speak for myself at least to say that I enjoy the activity of this thread as things can sometimes get quiet or a bit stale here but you have not added anything new to the mix, other than perhaps the comparison to Transnistria, which was new to me. Most of this thread has been you saying, "well, I think", "I believe", "yeah but I still feel that...", despite very sound arguments refuting your position. As already shown, you:

• Fundamentally misunderstand the burden of proof---it is on you to prove a Holocaust actually happened, not upon us to prove it did not (though due to abnormal circumstances, we are forced to go above and beyond).
• Fail to show a regard for levels of evidence---physical evidence trumps any and all testimony. The accusers (Jewish organizations, Allied governments, etc.) having the ability to prevent a thorough physical excavation of all crime scenes is a major conflict of interest.
• Source criticism, patterns in deception, conflicts of interest---these all seem like foreign ideas to you, in your interpretation of testimony

Despite these logical failings, it's understood that you will press forward like an Energizer bunny. I'll keep circling back to entertain it, though perhaps less often as I've been busy with other things.

[Hektor]

On Sassen and Eichmann:

The Sassen family lived first in Ciudad Jardín Lomas del Palomar in Greater Buenos Aires, where their second daughter was born. Sassen started to work as a journalist, translator and as a ghost writer for Hans-Ulrich Rudel and later Adolf Eichmann.

Around 1960, Willem Sassen was recruited by Gerhard Mertins.[citation needed] He was asked to represent Merex AG, which was a cover for the illegal arms trade controlled by the German secret service Bundesnachrichtendienst.[1] Other representatives in Latin America were Klaus Barbie (Bolivia),[1] Friedrich Schwend (Peru),[citation needed] his brother, Alfons Sassen (Ecuador),[citation needed] and, in Madrid, Spain, Otto Skorzeny.[2]

So, there is an intelligence connection there.

In 1957, Sassen interviewed Adolf Eichmann about his involvement in the Nazis' Final Solution. In reality the interviews were group discussions arranged by Sassen and his publisher Eberhard Fritsch and held at Sassen's Buenos Aires home over a number of Sundays. Others were also in attendance, although Eichmann and his revelations dominate proceedings. In 1980, the Sassen documents or Sassen tapes, were transferred to Eichmann's widow, Veronika. The Sassen interviews are documented in detail in Eichmann Before Jerusalem by Bettina Stangneth first published in German in 2011 and in English in 2014.[4]

About 15 hours of audio recordings survive out of around 70 hours in total. The tapes were recycled on cost grounds after transcripts of the conversation were made. The complete transcripted text runs to about 700 pages.[5][6]

Sassen may also have been interested into selling that material. Imagine what that would have been worth at the time. Don't think Sassen wasn't eager to get some more money as he certainly took financial damage from previous events.

Stangneth pieces together the interview sessions with Sassen, who, like a schoolteacher, gave Eichmann reading assignments; the strategies attempting to refute the increasingly indisputable evidence amassed by a growing body of historiography (quotations account for over 10% of the Sassen interviews); the participants' commitment to the operation's success; and the excessive efforts of Eichmann, who almost forgot why he had been summoned. For example, in relation to a passage in American historian Gerald Reitlinger's 1953 book The Final Solution he wrote "[Reitlinger] says 65,000, I say 40,000, so let's make it around 50,000"8

Eichmann's information coming from 'historiography'?

Stangneth proves how much the Sassen interviews — the former SS officer's command of Shoah historiography, manipulation of half-baked statistics or attitude best adapted to his defense, that of the cautious bureaucrat — laid the groundwork for the trial after the criminal became a defendant

https://archive.org/details/EichmannNoOrdinaryDefendant
And this is from a pro-Holocaust source. Eichmann got his info from books 'written about the Holocaust'. Odd, when he is the perpetrator. Imagine a murder accused getting his info from novels about a murder. That said, the whole story is bizarre. And it doesn't corroborate with the vast majority of other people working for the NS-State at the time. They all 'deny' knowledge of an extermination program for Jews. Nobody thought that the purpose of deportation and resettlement was the extermination of the Jews. Not even Himmler thought so. Dr. Buehler said it was resettlement in Russia. As for the 'historiography' it reads like a conspiracy theory that involved millions of people without them knowing what was actually happening.

Yes, the burden of proof is on the accusers. They however managed to shift it on those not believing the accusation. Meanwhile it should be easy for them to prove their claims... with physical evidence. No trickery needed, no verbiage, no threats, no persecution of those that disagree with them. But that's not what we are seeing. Because the accusation is not true.

[fireofice]

So BA posted this source:

https://training.ehri-project.eu/small- ... ther-camps

Is he saying that these Jews were transited from the Reich, to Kube, then to Bobruysk? If so, that answers "where they went". Thanks for helping with the revisionist cause, I guess. Here is even a case of someone "not fit to work":

a youth or rather a boy, because Avraham Fabishevich was only 13 when he was deported to Bobruysk

Now he may still have engaged in work anyway, as Butterfangers pointed out, being declared "unfit for worK" doesn't necessarily mean they didn't work. So far, I don't see any evidence of the working abilities of these Jews in this article. And there is no good evidence that Jews "unfit to work" were absent after the war. All I've seen is this:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ewish.html

But there is good reason to believe fraud was involved. Evidence by Hannover:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11780&p=88161#p88163

That combined with the physical evidence at Auschwitz showing no mass exterminations, this shows this survey is just a fraud pushing a narrative.

If that's not what he is saying, then it is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing. Kube explicitly describes Jews being deported to the east from the Reich, and official policy was not to kill them. This applies to all of them, employable or not. Anyway, he has still not provided physical evidence of mass killings, which trumps all. The scientific evidence demonstrates that there were no mass killings at these camps. You can't negate that by waving around deportation documents. It simply doesn't work like that.

The fact that he's still clinging on to Eichmann's absurd testimony is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose which aspects of the testimony you like. That's what holocaust historians do all the time. Pick aspects of testimony they like, and disregard the rest. Eichmann being drunk, senile, practicing a strategy, or a combination of those are indeed more likely than "he confessed to mass murder, which is true, but testified to absurd methods that didn't happen for some reason". That is way more convoluted than "he told a false story".

[Hektor]

So ...
If that's not what he is saying, then it is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing. Kube explicitly describes Jews being deported to the east from the Reich, and official policy was not to kill them. This applies to all of them, employable or not. Anyway, he has still not provided physical evidence of mass killings, which trumps all. The scientific evidence demonstrates that there were no mass killings at these camps. You can't negate that by waving around deportation documents. It simply doesn't work like that.

The Holocaust Industry got away with this for decades.

The fact that he's still clinging on to Eichmann's absurd testimony is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose which aspects of the testimony you like. That's what holocaust historians do all the time. Pick aspects of testimony they like, and disregard the rest. Eichmann being drunk, senile, practicing a strategy, or a combination of those are indeed more likely than "he confessed to mass murder, which is true, but testified to absurd methods that didn't happen for some reason". That is way more convoluted than "he told a false story".

Submarine-Engines, Hovel-gas-Chambers, Blood-Fountains and then recording something for a book or news story with Sassen that is simply hilarious. Nobody would take that serious, if it wasn't about the Holocaust.

[bombsaway]

Some quick clarifying remarks for now

Look at all these words you're writing/pasting while still missing the point. You did not provide the audio. No one open to Revisionist ideas has been allowed to get their hands on this material, and we know the German archive refuses to release it publicly precisely because (as they admit) they worry Revisionists will be able to 'misuse' the material.

If it's all already in the transcript, what are they concerned about?

And what type of 'misuse' do you suppose they have in mind? Please answer, and be specific.

there's an audio file for the first quote, provided in the post I linked to https://archive.org/details/mich-reut-gar-nichts

In terms of misuse, Eichmann's minimization of numbers, eg at Auschwitz ("half of them always lived" - orthodoxy puts selection survival much lower) would give wind to David Irving types. This is supposition, as you asked.

You haven't seen anything 'like that' because you assume every single use of "liquidate" means "exterminate". I have neither the time nor ability to search for possible uses of a word in original documents, the vast majority of which are locked away in German archives I probably would be prohibited from entering. It's sufficient to make the case that this word had multiple applications pre-1945 and is, hence, in and of itself, no proof of killing. Referring to human populations, it became associated primarily/exclusively with mass murder only after the "Holocaust" narrative developed.

No liquidate only means kill in reference to humans (a store cannot be killed obviously). You're saying it can mean something else in reference to humans but I've seen no such usage of the term in German documents (eg Goebbels diaries) whereas I've seen many many usages from them where it unmistakably means killing (you said as much). I agree the usage is often ambiguous: eg if it just says 500 Jews liquidated with no other context.

Can you share any info you have about revisionists being rejected from viewing archives? Or is the only example the restriction on not being able to listen to the Sassen tapes? It's been my impression that some revisionists have spent a lot of time in the archives, and have done good work there, unearthing documents and translating and transcribing ones that haven't been yet. HC blog I know cites documents presented in Mattogno's books. Mattogno also writes under his real name, revisionists using pseudonyms like Thomas Dalton shouldn't have any issues.

Eichmann's information coming from 'historiography'?

Stangneth proves how much the Sassen interviews — the former SS officer's command of Shoah historiography, manipulation of half-baked statistics or attitude best adapted to his defense, that of the cautious bureaucrat — laid the groundwork for the trial after the criminal became a defendant

As I've said before, witness testimony is unreliable, especially when it comes to details. If our legal system threw out testimony based on these expected irregularities, virtually all of it would be gone

https://archive.org/details/EichmannNoOrdinaryDefendant
And this is from a pro-Holocaust source. Eichmann got his info from books 'written about the Holocaust'. Odd, when he is the perpetrator. Imagine a murder accused getting his info from novels about a murder.

Reitlinger drew his numbers from deportation documents, which Eichmann clearly didn't think were all forged and saw as useful points of information.

So BA posted this source:

https://training.ehri-project.eu/small- ... ther-camps

Is he saying that these Jews were transited from the Reich, to Kube, then to Bobruysk? If so, that answers "where they went". Thanks for helping with the revisionist cause, I guess.

Nope these are Polish Jews from Warsaw brought in by the Luftwaffe to do forced labor. By all accounts Bobruysk was a brutal labor camp, with most of the workers there dying, so this doesn't stand as good evidence of resettlement.

The fact that he's still clinging on to Eichmann's absurd testimony is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose which aspects of the testimony you like. That's what holocaust historians do all the time. Pick aspects of testimony they like, and disregard the rest. Eichmann being drunk, senile, practicing a strategy, or a combination of those are indeed more likely than "he confessed to mass murder, which is true, but testified to absurd methods that didn't happen for some reason". That is way more convoluted than "he told a false story".

As I've said before, witness testimony is unreliable, especially when it comes to details. If our legal system threw out testimony based on these expected irregularities, it would almost never be used.

[Butterfangers]

Eichmann got his info from books 'written about the Holocaust'. Odd, when he is the perpetrator. Imagine a murder accused getting his info from novels about a murder.

I also wonder how much of Eichmann's ideas on the Sassen tapes were directly from these books and other propaganda themes as well. By 1957 (the time of the Sassen recordings), the Nuremberg trials and infamy were long-passed and widely written about, museums had been erected, popular books (e.g. Anne Frank's diary, Elie Wiesel's "Night") had already been written, countless reports had been published, movies made, etc. And obviously, all of this was deeply personal to Eichmann, who knew the men said to be "villains". Who can imagine the emotions, rage and bitterness one must experience in such a situation? When I hear the excerpt from the Sassen tapes where Eichmann speaks against those Germans who "deny" and instead encouraging them to "admit" to allegations of crimes against Jews, I take all of this into consideration.

Eichmann didn't invent these stories he tells, nor was he the first to unveil any important details thereof---they were already widely in circulation. He simply reiterated them, sure to emphasize his important role.

This was not a "confession", in that Eichmann had no idea this information would lead him to being 'accountable' for his 'crimes'. He'd been safely hidden away in Argentina for almost a decade by this time, reminiscing about days past, and reading the stories in newspapers. Then one day, a few interested individuals wish to give him the time and attention to "set the record straight". It is an open mic to be able to frame the narrative in any way he wished.

And how, exactly, should we suppose Eichmann had wished for that narrative to be told? If he hadn't actually sent mass numbers of Jews to their deaths... might his desire to have done so been present, considering the outcome of the war?

Might he figure that such an 'extermination' narrative being widely-believed by Jews could prevent them from "misbehaving" into the future? Or, that he might inspire others to take extreme measures to defend their race and people, at all costs?

We all agree Eichmann is a liar. So the question is: what is it, exactly, that he wanted others to believe?

[fireofice]

So if they are not from the Reich, then bringing up this camp is irrelevant to what is being discussed. The basic fact that Jews deported to the east alive in these documents remains unrefuted.

Trust me, you do NOT want this to be treated like a court case. Your "I think this is more likely" schtick would not fly. It would be on you to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I would absolutely vote to acquit based on Eichmann's absurd testimony.

It is not on us to prove that liquidation doesn't have to mean killing for people. You need to prove that the normal definition at the time can't apply to people. But we do have one example. Goebbels's March 7 entry shows the intention was deporting them to Madagascar. This provides context for his "liquidation" entry 20 days later. He was not talking about killing.

[bombsaway]

We all agree Eichmann is a liar. So the question is: what is it, exactly, that he wanted others to believe?

You're making an assumption that Eichmann is lying. From wikipedia "Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased."

The view that this testimony has no evidentiary value shows the strong bias on the revisionist side. If Eichmann (or anyone else) had claimed that millions of non-working Jews were resettled in Russia I would not automatically assume he was lying.

So if they are not from the Reich, then bringing up this camp is irrelevant to what is being discussed. The basic fact that Jews deported to the east alive in these documents remains unrefuted.

Why do you keep on saying this as if you don't think I agree? My statement is simple, no evidence of resettlement or non-working Jews being maintained in Belarus past a certain point ~summer 1942, and evidence showing they were the process of all being killed, including transports upon arrival. I think I won't engage anymore with you here because I'm just repeating myself.

It is not on us to prove that liquidation doesn't have to mean killing for people. You need to prove that the normal definition at the time can't apply to people. But we do have one example. Goebbels's March 7 entry shows the intention was deporting them to Madagascar. This provides context for his "liquidation" entry 20 days later. He was not talking about killing.

How could I possibly prove that the traditional definition didn't apply? My position is there appears to be no evidence of Germans using the word in reference to humans where this meaning is absolutey clear, unlike when it refers to killing where there are many examples. Therefore there is no good rationale to believe that Goebbels or anyone else was likely using it in that context . These statements have some level of evidentiary value that mass killing was occuring.

I discussed Goebbels diary earlier in this thread so feel free to reference my posts there. At a certain point the Madagascar policy changed (before the Goebbels diary entry in March) so he was clearly behind in his knowledge of things. The Goebbels diary entry also features several statements that highlight the liquidation of the non-working Jews was something more brutal than mere resettlement and property appropriation. Jews taken for forced labor also obviously had their property seized. Having your property taken and becoming a forced laborer is worse than having your property taken and resettled. This is one of the weaker revisionist arguments in my opinion.

Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated (abgeschoben) eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated (liquidiert) whereas only about 40 percent can be used for forced labor.

The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophesy which the Führer made about them for having brought on a new World War is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us (vernichten). It’s a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Führer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions, and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.

[Butterfangers]

You're making an assumption that Eichmann is lying. From wikipedia "Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased."

You require an assumption that Eichmann is telling the truth, whereas every courtroom on the planet takes seriously the fact that people often lie, for various reasons. You assume this, despite no doubt insisting that Eichmann lied profusely in court just a couple years later.

...what does memory recall have to do with anything here?

The view that this testimony has no evidentiary value shows the strong bias on the revisionist side. If Eichmann (or anyone else) had claimed that millions of non-working Jews were resettled in Russia I would not automatically assume he was lying.

Nothing was "automatically assumed". My reasons are clearly outlined, above. If Eichmann had said "Jews were resettled", you'd have a valid claim to suggest, "he's just motivated to avoid trial or conviction"! That's the nature of testimony. We don't know the motives and we don't know if it's true.

This "testimony" is Eichmann sitting in a chair and telling a combination of truth and lies (we don't know the true proportions of either since we only have transcripts from a "Nazi journalist" who sold them for profit). The original tapes are either vanished or deliberately kept away from "deniers". Christopher Browning acknowledges that Eichmann lies in his precapture testimony. Others insist he lies in his postcapture testimony (in Israeli court).

The narratives Eichmann spoke of [to Sassen] were simply reflections of information that every person on the planet had heard by that time. He'd probably seen several movies about all of it, read newspapers daily, magazines, radio broadcasts, etc..

The real problem, bombsaway, is that you don't feel a need for there to be bodies in a murder investigation. If there is one murder, a body is almost always needed for a conviction. But you're content with millions of alleged murders and near-zero bodies. Despite this glaring lack of bodies, we see several hundreds (thousands?) of convictions and hangings of what may very well have been innocent [German] men and women in most cases, as well as the unofficially-sanctioned mass rape and slaughter of millions of Germans immediately at war's end, the pillaging via 'reparations' and an overcast of perpetual shame imposed upon subsequent generations of German people.

Those of us who think rationally and care about justice will need proof of any extraordinary claims, as is the standard in any murder investigation (just check out an episode of "CSI" or "Criminal Minds"). The bigger the murder, the bigger the investigation. Not so for the "Holocaust" and surely no coincidence that the accusers control every jurisdiction where investigation could occur (but doesn't).

People who are lying are happy to ensure that testimony is kept front-and-center while physical evidence or other higher forms of evidence remain untouchable or strictly limited.

One does not have to look very far to find an endless series of Holocaust liars. They are abundant, shameless, and very busy in their efforts to deceive, touring classrooms in a city near you. There is nothing like this (not this scale) for other major events, not even genocides. You do not see Rwandans and their grandchildren touring the world in great numbers to share their plight and demand shekels and sympathy. You do not see Rwandans infiltrating Hollywood to peddle their narratives.

In some cases, the most widely promoted liars are the most outrageous and shameless of all. Consider the infamous Irene Zisblatt and her shit-diamonds and the entire cast of deceivers on Steven Spielberg's "The Last Days" ( an Academy Award winning film ), torn to shreds by Eric Hunt's documentary a decade ago. You don't see Rwandans and Armenians making shitty documentaries like this. You don't see them overrunning the political, social, and economic pillars of every Western society either, or any of the larger societies where they most prominently reside.

Jews are a special case and there is no denying that. And they are very big on lying, not just individually, but on a large scale, collectively, in ways that are very well-organized. Many examples exist as such in present-day and the same was said (and proven) of them before, during, and after WW2.

In other words, whether or not the "Holocaust happened", Hitler and the NSDAP were still overwhelmingly accurate in their assessment of Jews and their organized and dishonest [collective] behavior. This behavior needs to be factored into our understanding of the testimony which comes from this group, as well as from the overall "bucket" of Holocaust testimony as a whole (since there is interplay between pieces of testimony and the formation of entire narratives over time).

[fireofice]

You're making an assumption that Eichmann is lying. From wikipedia "Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased."

Well if his memory is so faulty, there is no reason to take anything he says seriously. But of course, you just assume his memory is faulty when it agrees with your narrative and not when doesn't. How convenient. Truth is, you are special pleading. By picking out what you want that conforms to your belief, you are the biased one. I am simply being consistent. Even if there were absolutely nothing wrong with Eichmann's testimony, I would still discount it because of all the other overwhelming evidence against the extermination narrative. But with these absurd statements mixed in with that, it makes an overwhelming case not to trust what Eichmann said.

Why do you keep on saying this as if you don't think I agree? My statement is simple, no evidence of resettlement or non-working Jews being maintained in Belarus past a certain point ~summer 1942, and evidence showing they were the process of all being killed, including transports upon arrival. I think I won't engage anymore with you here because I'm just repeating myself.

Jews were supposedly being exterminated at the Reinhardt camps, yet these documents say they were being deported to the east alive. Appealing to Kube on his anti-partisan activities is irrelevant as I already explained.

How could I possibly prove that the traditional definition didn't apply?

I admit it would be a hard thing to prove. But you are the one making a claim that a word that commonly meant one thing can't possibly mean the same thing in a different situation. If you are going to claim that, then you are the one that needs to prove it. It doesn't matter how "hard" it is. If you want to avoid having to complete a near impossible task, don't make such sweeping claims.

My position is there appears to be no evidence of Germans using the word in reference to humans where this meaning is absolutey clear, unlike when it refers to killing where there are many examples.

Circular reasoning. You assume liquidation always means killing when applied to humans, and then you use that as "proof" that it is never used for killing when applied to humans.

Here's another example of "liquidation" being used for a group of people and not used to mean killing.

An article in the London Times had this to say: “The rest of the Jews in the General Government…would be liquidated, which means either transported eastward in cattle trucks to an unknown destination, or killed where they stood” (4 December 1942; p. 3).

https://codoh.com/library/document/goeb ... part-1/en/

It doesn't say "transported eastward and killed" just "transported eastward" and then uses another example, "killed where they stood". If they meant "transport them to an unknown location and killed them" they would have said that, since they used the killing language in the other example. So this is indeed another example. No doubt you will find some way to say they still meant killing, despite the common sense way of reading of it, and then use that as more circular "proof" for your position.

At a certain point the Madagascar policy changed (before the Goebbels diary entry in March) so he was clearly behind in his knowledge of things.

Here's what Goebbels wrote on March 7:

The Jewish question has to be solved now within a framework for the whole of Europe. There are still more than 11 million Jews in Europe. Later they must be at first concentrated in the East. Maybe after the war an island, like Madagascar, can be assigned for them.

From a document on July 24:

After the end of the war, he [Hitler] will take the rigorous stand of squeezing one city after another until the Jews came out, ready to emigrate to Madagascar or to some other Jewish national state.

The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt" page 365

Clearly there was no official abandonment of the plan and Goebbels was not "out of the loop" which would be very unlikely. This also shows that there was no extermination plan even by July 24. So clearly Goebbels was not talking about killing with his "liquidation" passage on March 27.

This also refutes your general claims about the "where did they go" line of argument. If you want to say they were being exterminated at this point, you have to ignore this as well. But then I can just reject any deportation documents out of hand as well.

As for the other quote from Goebbels you posted, yes he was talking about resettlement being a barbaric procedure. He knew some Jews would die and being uprooted from your home was not pleasant at all, to say the least. None of the harsh language he uses indicates mass killing.

[Hektor]

Eichmann got his info from books 'written about the Holocaust'. Odd, when he is the perpetrator. Imagine a murder accused getting his info from novels about a murder.

I also wonder how much of Eichmann's ideas on the Sassen tapes were directly from these books and other propaganda themes as well. By 1957 (the time of the Sassen recordings), the Nuremberg trials and infamy were long-passed and widely written about, museums had been erected, popular books (e.g. Anne Frank's diary, Elie Wiesel's "Night") had already been written, countless reports had been published, movies made, etc. And obviously, all of this was deeply personal to Eichmann, who knew the men said to be "villains". Who can imagine the emotions, rage and bitterness one must experience in such a situation? When I hear the excerpt from the Sassen tapes where Eichmann speaks against those Germans who "deny" and instead encouraging them to "admit" to allegations of crimes against Jews, I take all of this into consideration.

Eichmann didn't invent these stories he tells, nor was he the first to unveil any important details thereof---they were already widely in circulation. He simply reiterated them, sure to emphasize his important role.
.....

Also consider "survivors" telling stories among themselves. This can gets its own life as any Myth does get over time.
Didn't of the Nuremberg witnesses shift blame on Eichmann, already?!

Sassen was a journalist and for a atrocity story to sell it must be juicy something that grasps people's imagination that works them up when they read or hear it. Take some alcohol to it and you will get some good story telling to it.

I looked at some 'testimonies' at the Eichmann Trial again. It is actually pretty clear that the witnesses there are nothing but story tellers. They may have been at some of the places they say. But they clearly embellish there stories with appeals to emotion, tales of heroism (pretty much like soviet hero-stories) and of course the extermination narrative. Bear in mind they tell it as they knew about it 'at the time' they were in the Ghetto or in the Polish, Belarussian, Baltic country sides. And then they could impossibly know this. They could know about rumors of course. But you can not know, what you can't verify. They may possibly lie about their early foreknowledge as well. But it seems that the 'Jewish Fighting Organizations' were using the extermination ploy to manipulate other Jews, recruit members, motivate their members and justify their actions. Kind of trauma-based mind control.

The Berman story is quite obviously psychological manipulation. And well, most if not all they got to tell there is irrelevant to the case, anyway. It doesn't prove anything Eichmann did. The Sassen-tapes were not evidence for most, but it was known to the trial participants as far as the juicy parts and they will take it as an affirmation of the Myth.
The trial went over several month with enormous pressure of course. Best of all: The Trial was held at a 'community theatre'.

It's astonishing that not more people can see that this was a charade, not even a good one.