Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

[Bob]

Needless to say I fail to see what you wanted to achieve with your "Berlin" connection. Is completely irrelevant if all four lines are related to matters somehow connected to Berlin, if we follow your invention, what you need is connection between the topics, that lines are related to each other, that the lines discuss the same topic. But you have nothing like that, you admitted second line has nothing to do with the topic of the first line and if I am not mistaken you admit third line has nothing to do with the second, so logically there is no reason why fourth line should be related to third, each line is obviously one topic. The only reason why are you nonsensically connecting the fourth line with third line is to create false evidence for your belief since it happened there are words you find convenient for this, a common exterminationists´tactic of pathological search for "traces" in which every suitable words are interpreted as criminal no matter what is the context or background, approach made "famous" by Pressac. Is a mystery why you made up that "Berlin connection" since you achieved nothing.

[Thames Darwin]

I missed this from Mathis aka Thames:

There are two problems with your line of argument here. First, of course I'm looking for a pattern -- people don't tend to jump all over the place in their conversations, at least if they're not psychotic. Second, there is no reason to assume that the influence of Berlin in the Protektorat is going to increase by virtue of its autonomy being abolished. To allege so would be to ignore that its autonomy was a joke to begin wiith.

Thanks for accepting you are looking for patterns, I easily jumped in this game and showed the same pattern is here when it comes to the liquidation of autonomy, so using your standard, everything is fine, Berlin is there, you dodged it.

Of course, I'm looking for patterns. The diffference between you and me, apparently, is that I'm looking for a pattern that would explain these four lines having to do with one another, within a larger context of Jews being deported east, while Jews already there are being murdered. You're doing the same thing, just in the opposite direction and so with a sort of opposite method: a piece of evidence arises, and rather than view it in context, you view it in isolation and read it as such.

Also, your pattern only applies to two lines, not to all four, as my pattern does.

There is nothing strange when Heydrich discussed more topics, that was purpose of his reports, to inform Hitler about situation in protectorate, people regularly discuss more topics and you can´t do anything about it. His November 16 report contains TEN points dealing with various subjects. That is a fact unless you claim the report is a fake. You are again trying hard to make up a problem to have a horse to beat, really stupid problem and acc. to you all people are psychotic including you. Second, autonomy was certainly not a joke when they discussed how to reorganize it meaning a factual liquidation, there is no reason to do it if the autonomy is already a joke and non existing.

First, you don't have to be insulting. Second, when responding to me, you might want to write in your original language. I read French and German both, as well as some Spanish. You read English fine it seems, but I have a hard time reading your posts when you write in English, which is the reason why I gave up on trying to debate you privately.

No. That I didn't mention it earlier proves only that I didn't mention it earlier. The rest is your assumption, which you're welcome to, as well as your "problem," which is yours and not mine.

The rest is a reasonable conclusion based on your sudden change in tactic, it is quite obvious you used that as an ad hoc excuse when your previous argumentation failed and you have been provided with the context and background for the Himmler´s note as you wanted, but unfortunately for you this ad hoc did not help you at all.

So you should probably try debating me rather than the image in your head that you have of me. Just a suggesting.

The topic was ongoing, as noted earlier in this thread, through to 1943 at least. We have agreeement from "orthodox" historiography but not from primary sources. I don't see connection or context, sorry.

We are not discussing 1943, stop dancing around the bush

This is what I'm talking about...

and admit the topic was on the table at the period which is under discussion in relation to Himmler´s phone call notes, this is what you wanted, you got it and now dodging it. Why? Because you obviously assumed there is no evidence so you felt safe when you requested it. In November the topic was on the table and richly discussed but you do not see the context, hm, ok. I do not expect your agreement since this means your fail, but unfortunately for you, others can nicely see the context and orthodox sources are in agreement with me and I am finding funny how you suddenly do not accept orthodox sources you usually treat as gospel. Your denial has been noted.

Oh, for Christ's sake...

If other historians use the term "liquidate," then say so. If primary sources use the term to refer to the end of autonomy for the Protektorat, then say that too.

Yes, they use, I already said it. Primary sources linked and explained too, including explanation from historians which quote these primary sources. There is not used the term "liquidierung" in the primary documents I cited in relation to our topic, I already said that and explained. What was written in length meant factual end of autonomy, liquidation, as explained. Why are you forcing me to repeat myself?

Listen, Bob: I've just been through this thread again from top to bottom, and I see no proof that you've actually brought to bear on this forum of "liquidierung" being used in a primary source by anyone on the topic of B&M's autonomy. I am legitimately not trying to dodge anything; I just don't see it. If you wouldn't mind posting the source again, then I can check it, bearing in mind that it should be a PRIMARY source.

Göring would only be involved on the matter of economics, which I allowed might be the case earlier in this thread. If not, then we can remove him from the discussion.

I still do not understand why are you still writing about Göring, some kind of red herring I suppose.

Do you need me to draw a picture for you?

Liquidate means to kill or to turn assets into cash. If the latter definition applied, then Göring's presence in a conversation on the matter would be likely, given his role in economic planning. If you are not maintaining that this liquidation was primarily economic, then I'd be happy to dismiss the matter.

Regarding the Gauleiters, they are introduced by Teichová, not me, but as noted by her, they would be involved in the integration of the Protektorat into the party system. Such information, as noted by Teichová, would pass through Bormann, as head of the party chancellery. There is no reason to think that Himmler somehow enters this discussion, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Remember, the point we're discussing is a phone call btw. Himmler and Heydrich.

Hitler was informed about the topic via Heydrich´s reports sent to Hitler´s private secretary Bormann and Himmler just reported Hitler´s stance on the topic when he telephoned to Heydrich from Hitler´s HQ, simple as that, do not make up problems where are no problems. In the same way as Himmler reported to Heydrich about other three lines, he reported to him about the fourth line. So like it or not, Himmler entered the discussion in the case of all FOUR lines when he called Heydrich.

It's a problem, whether you like it or not, and not one of my making.

Hitler was a busy guy, as I'm sure you're aware. So he ran three chancelleries as a kind of interference system between himself and problems in administration, since he wasn't a big administrator. On party matters, which the matter of B&M's autonomy was, given the interest of the Gauleiters, the point of contact was Bormann. You seem like a reasonably well read person, so I assume you know that. Himmler. however, didn't need to run a Bormann gauntlet to get to Hitler, but Heydrich did. Himmler was not interested on involved in party matters per se, and if you know anything about Himmler, you'd know that he'd see it as beneath him to relay infomation to Heydrich on Bormann's account. That's why it's relevant.

To make it more succinct: When Heydrich is communicating about SS matters, he reports to Himmler; when reporting on political matters in B&M not to do with Jews, he reports to Bormann. That's the protocol. That's important, like it or not.

Leaving aside other things, here you still act as if the two lines were related which is not the case, each line = one subject.

I have not conceded that point.

And is obvious why, with this admission your whole position collapses, that is why you refuse to admit the obvious, there are no connections between the lines, each line = one subject as kindly explained to you by pictorex who provided what each line means. You have no connection between the lines, so please, stop dodging, and finally admit each line = one subject and end this issue once and for all. If you claim lines are related, show us the connection and back it up with evidence, simple as that. But since you have not provided anything like this, you obviously have nothing.

You haven't addressed any of my argument; you've merely alleged you don't understand, which I concede is likely.

And by other things I mean for instance: your argument does not make sense, at the time of allegedly existing extermination policy and alleged order, why just this one single transport of Berlin Jews should be suddenly an exception and not liquidated while all others can be liquidated if there were alleged protests against alleged extermination of Berlin Jews which allegedly caused this one transport to be not liquidated?

I am asking for the moderator's leeway to respond to a direct question.

The statement demonstrates a lack of understanding about the evolution of the policy under discussion. Certainly, by November 30, there was a policy in place for Soviet Jews. It's far less clear whether there was a policy for Reich Jews -- Gerlach says such a discussion didn't come for another two weeks or so. Beyond that, there is the question of where Reich Jews being sent east were supposed to go. This wasn't the best planned program at this point, and local SS and party leaders at the ends of the railways had some say about where the transports ended up. By and large, they went to three places: Lodz, Riga, and Minsk. In Lodz, they went into the ghetto, and most were eventually sent to Chelmno or Auschwitz. In Riga and Minsk, they also went into ghettoes and were eventually shot.

A week or two before this date, however, a transport was re-routed to Kaunas, in Lithuania, and the 5,000 Jews in the transport were shot upon arrival at the Ninth Fort (by Jäger's Einsatzkommado). This upset a lot of people, Lohse among them. Kube, in addition, was already upset about the treatment of Reich Jews in Minsk, and he complained about this point to Lohse in a separate communication (PS-3665 from Nuremberg).

The prevailing explanation for the note is currently (in Browning's 2003 book, for instance) that it was stated not to liquidate the transport in question because they were Reich Jews, tempers were hot on the Eastern Front among some of the SS and party leadership, and a final decision had yet to be made on what to do with Reich Jews once shipped east.

Please, no dodging, here is the point again and this time, try to address it with direct and clear response which solve this issue I pointed out:

I'm not going to spoon feed this to you, Bob.

"And by other things I mean for instance: your argument does not make sense, at the time of allegedly existing extermination policy and alleged order, why just this one single transport of Berlin Jews should be suddenly an exception and not liquidated while all others can be liquidated if there were alleged protests against alleged extermination of Berlin Jews which allegedly caused this one transport to be not liquidated?"

Do you finally understand? Why this ONE single transport from all transports of Reich Jews should not be liquidated whereas other transports were of no problem including any other further transports? Why one single transport was all of sudden of such problem from all these transports, why they did not said "keine liquidierung" in relation to all Berlin transports? Did you finally get it? Do you know difference between singular and plural? So what was so special about this one transport? Explanation please, evidence please, does not make sense at all. Leaving aside your premises: i.e. existence of extermination of Jews including Berlin Jews = there were protest against extermination of Berlin Jews - require proving as well before you can operate with them as with facts, otherwise = begging the question. But I kindly ignore this for the sake of the argument.

I've discussed this elsewhere on this thread. This phone conversation took place one day after the liquidation of a train transport from Berlin in Kovno. Go back and read what I wrote, specifically w/r/t Kübe and Lohse. Or Google "Kübe" and "cultural milieu." This was an issue, whether you like it or not.

Answer please, still no explanation and I even did not pointed out all problems with your hypothesis like that extermination operation which was allegedly part of the program, including Berlin Jews, caused some subordinates to be upset since they probably missed there is an ongoing extermination operation, and these people forced Hitler and Himmler to stop it (but not all, only in relation to one transport), that sounds really absurd. One can assume that at such situation this would have been considered as a sabotage and the people in question would have been simply replaced by people who have no problem with extermination.

Which eventually happened, of course, but I digress.

What was so special about this one transport? Nothing of course, because the fourth line had nothing to do with the third line, the line was obviously not about a transport and that´s why your argument does not make sense like the alleged protests against alleged extermination.

You're begging the question. I haven't conceded the point of the fourth line being unrelated.

That is all very nice that you still repeat how you do not concede it, but what I expect from my opponent is to justify why, some arguments, evidence which justify this stance. Your declarative statement is devoid of any value and is purely opportunistic.

Yawn. You're boring, Bob.

Since other lines do not represent one subject, is clear our lines are not one subject as well, hence each line = one subject, that is the only interpretation which makes sense. Your spurious accusation of fallacy is thus off, based on your denial of that obvious fact since accepting this fact means total collapse of this supposed "criminal trace" as Pressac would put it.

More begging the question.

Reminder for you Mathis, each line = one subject, you know it and that is why you limit yourself to your declarative worthless statement since you have no arguments, just nothing, not even refutation and not even own explanation how lines are connected to each other which is an essential premise used for your unevidenced hypothesis which does not even make sense leaving aside missing evidence. Your "Berlin" connection has been addressed previously and above.

Really? Because I don't see that either. You've yet to prove that each line is one subject. I have also yet to prove that the four are connected. I have my theory, and you have yours. The difference between you and me is the staggering, simply blinding volume of evidence on my side.

[Thames Darwin]

Needless to say I fail to see what you wanted to achieve with your "Berlin" connection. Is completely irrelevant if all four lines are related to matters somehow connected to Berlin, if we follow your invention, what you need is connection between the topics, that lines are related to each other, that the lines discuss the same topic. But you have nothing like that, you admitted second line has nothing to do with the topic of the first line and if I am not mistaken you admit third line has nothing to do with the second, so logically there is no reason why fourth line should be related to third, each line is obviously one topic. The only reason why are you nonsensically connecting the fourth line with third line is to create false evidence for your belief since it happened there are words you find convenient for this, a common exterminationists´tactic of pathological search for "traces" in which every suitable words are interpreted as criminal no matter what is the context or background, approach made "famous" by Pressac. Is a mystery why you made up that "Berlin connection" since you achieved nothing.

Let's recap where we stand at this point:

Your contention is that the four lines are totally unrelated to each other and that the "Keine Liquidierung" note refers to the dissolution of the political autonomy of the Protektorat. Where I disagree with that reading is in your interpretation of Liquidierung, which I concede could have an economic connotation but not a purely political connotation. I have asked for primary sources providing such a reading. You have provided (I think) Teichova on this point, but she is not a primary source. I sincerely apologize if I missed something that was primary material.

My contention is that the four lines are in fact all related to SS matters emanating out of Berlin. Two political detainees, Jekelius and "Molotov," are discussed, and then the Jewish transport from Berlin heading to Kovno, which Himmler has ordered not to be liquidated. I make that conclusion on the basis of the complaints of high-ranking civil administrators and SS in the Ostland, primarily Kübe and Lohse.

If I missed anything, please let me know.

[Bob]

Of course, I'm looking for patterns. The diffference between you and me, apparently, is that I'm looking for a pattern that would explain these four lines having to do with one another, within a larger context of Jews being deported east, while Jews already there are being murdered. You're doing the same thing, just in the opposite direction and so with a sort of opposite method: a piece of evidence arises, and rather than view it in context, you view it in isolation and read it as such.

Also, your pattern only applies to two lines, not to all four, as my pattern does.

I do not look for any patterns, there is no my pattern, is it you who is making things up and surely one can find more patterns, you are limited only by your fantasy.

First, you don't have to be insulting. Second, when responding to me, you might want to write in your original language. I read French and German both, as well as some Spanish. You read English fine it seems, but I have a hard time reading your posts when you write in English, which is the reason why I gave up on trying to debate you privately.

No insults, stop making things up please. That is my English, I was told my English is no problem to understand so this seems to be an excuse from you.

So you should probably try debating me rather than the image in your head that you have of me. Just a suggesting.

You should probably try addressing my points rather than writing irrelevant responses. Just a suggesting.

This is what I'm talking about...

?

Oh, for Christ's sake...

That is supposed to be an argument? Ok.

Listen, Bob: I've just been through this thread again from top to bottom, and I see no proof that you've actually brought to bear on this forum of "liquidierung" being used in a primary source by anyone on the topic of B&M's autonomy. I am legitimately not trying to dodge anything; I just don't see it. If you wouldn't mind posting the source again, then I can check it, bearing in mind that it should be a PRIMARY source.

Which is irrelevant and I explained why, you keep dodging.

Liquidate means to kill or to turn assets into cash. If the latter definition applied, then Göring's presence in a conversation on the matter would be likely, given his role in economic planning. If you are not maintaining that this liquidation was primarily economic, then I'd be happy to dismiss the matter.

What liquidation means - already addressed, scroll back, you keep repeating yourself.

It's a problem, whether you like it or not, and not one of my making.

Hitler was a busy guy, as I'm sure you're aware. So he ran three chancelleries as a kind of interference system between himself and problems in administration, since he wasn't a big administrator. On party matters, which the matter of B&M's autonomy was, given the interest of the Gauleiters, the point of contact was Bormann. You seem like a reasonably well read person, so I assume you know that. Himmler. however, didn't need to run a Bormann gauntlet to get to Hitler, but Heydrich did. Himmler was not interested on involved in party matters per se, and if you know anything about Himmler, you'd know that he'd see it as beneath him to relay infomation to Heydrich on Bormann's account. That's why it's relevant.

To make it more succinct: When Heydrich is communicating about SS matters, he reports to Himmler; when reporting on political matters in B&M not to do with Jews, he reports to Bormann. That's the protocol. That's important, like it or not.

Whether you like it or not, Himmler was the one who reported to Heydrich on four lines in his notes so your complaints are irrelevant.

You haven't addressed any of my argument; you've merely alleged you don't understand, which I concede is likely.

I have, you are dodging and is easy to understand why.

I'm not going to spoon feed this to you, Bob.

I've discussed this elsewhere on this thread. This phone conversation took place one day after the liquidation of a train transport from Berlin in Kovno. Go back and read what I wrote, specifically w/r/t Kübe and Lohse. Or Google "Kübe" and "cultural milieu." This was an issue, whether you like it or not.

Your dodging has been duly noted, still no explanation.

Which eventually happened, of course, but I digress.

Previously you argued they actually forced them to stop extermination of Berlin Jews which was your explanation of the fourth line, now you claim they were replaced because of sabotage, but obviously after they successfully forced Hitler and Himmler to stop extermination and later these two guys realized that this was in fact a sabotage and replaced them. You keep stacking up nonsenses.

Can you enlighten me on Kube and Lohse? I did not know they were replaced for sabotage after alleged complaints. You surely can elaborate more on this issue, come on.

Yawn. You're boring, Bob.

Don´t hesitate to admit your are down.

More begging the question.

More dodging.

Really? Because I don't see that either. You've yet to prove that each line is one subject. I have also yet to prove that the four are connected. I have my theory, and you have yours. The difference between you and me is the staggering, simply blinding volume of evidence on my side.

I think readers have already realized you do not want to see things which contradict your belief. Scroll back, read again, each line = one subject whether you like it or not. Your arguments = 0

As i see, you dodged almost every point.

[Bob]

Needless to say I fail to see what you wanted to achieve with your "Berlin" connection. Is completely irrelevant if all four lines are related to matters somehow connected to Berlin, if we follow your invention, what you need is connection between the topics, that lines are related to each other, that the lines discuss the same topic. But you have nothing like that, you admitted second line has nothing to do with the topic of the first line and if I am not mistaken you admit third line has nothing to do with the second, so logically there is no reason why fourth line should be related to third, each line is obviously one topic. The only reason why are you nonsensically connecting the fourth line with third line is to create false evidence for your belief since it happened there are words you find convenient for this, a common exterminationists´tactic of pathological search for "traces" in which every suitable words are interpreted as criminal no matter what is the context or background, approach made "famous" by Pressac. Is a mystery why you made up that "Berlin connection" since you achieved nothing.

Let's recap where we stand at this point:

Your contention is that the four lines are totally unrelated to each other and that the "Keine Liquidierung" note refers to the dissolution of the political autonomy of the Protektorat. Where I disagree with that reading is in your interpretation of Liquidierung, which I concede could have an economic connotation but not a purely political connotation. I have asked for primary sources providing such a reading. You have provided (I think) Teichova on this point, but she is not a primary source. I sincerely apologize if I missed something that was primary material.

My contention is that the four lines are in fact all related to SS matters emanating out of Berlin. Two political detainees, Jekelius and "Molotov," are discussed, and then the Jewish transport from Berlin heading to Kovno, which Himmler has ordered not to be liquidated. I make that conclusion on the basis of the complaints of high-ranking civil administrators and SS in the Ostland, primarily Kübe and Lohse.

If I missed anything, please let me know.

Your ad hoc complaining about meaning of the word liquidierung already addressed, you keep dodging. I provided more sources for historians, primary documents showing the context, historical background for the period in question, you keep dodging and are confused, it was pictorex who cited Teichová.

Your theory is false, there is no connection between the lines as kindly admitted by you, first two lines are two different topics as you admitted, other two lines are two topics as well, but you keep nonsensically connecting the last two lines into one topic which is patently false, does not make sense to connect them together when other two lines are unrelated. And your theory have problems you dodged to explain, so irrelevant theory. The fact that each line is one topic is enough to refute your theory.

Please, keep in mind I will not play this "wall of text game" with you, your dodging is so obvious.

[Bob]

What follows is an elucidation that I have sent to David Irving several years ago and again in January of this year.

As is common for such aide-mémoires, each line refers to an entirely separate topic of concern.

The first line: “Verhaftung Dr. Jekelius”
Refers to the detention Dr. Erwin Jekelius, who was dismissed from his position as head of the Am Spiegelgrund clinic in Vienna in November 1941, following a disciplinary proceeding. He was arrested and briefly imprisoned before being drafted by the Wehrmacht and at the beginning of 1942 sent to the Eastern front. There is speculation that the real cause of his fall from grace was his having become engaged, against Hitler’s wishes, to Hitler’s sister Paula. Dr. Jekelius died in 1952 in a Soviet prison camp.

The second line: “Angebl.[icher] Sohn Molotow.”
Refers to a German propaganda campaign featuring a Soviet prisoner of war who, upon his capture on October 10, 1941 declared himself to be Vyacheslav Molotov’s son, hoping no doubt to receive preferential treatment. The prisoner’s real name was Vasily Georgiyevich Tarasov from the city of Voronezh. Though the Germans saw through the ruse (as is clear from Himmler’s use of the word “Angebl.”), they exploited the opportunity for propaganda broadcasts to Soviet troops in November and December 1941, the purpose of which was to assure them that they would be well treated were they to surrender to the German army. For a detailed account of the incident, as well as a transcript of the interview with Molotov’s alleged son, as broadcast by the Germans to Russian troops in the fall and winter of 1941, see the account given to RFE/RL by Sergei Kudryashov of the German Historical Institute in Moscow on December 5, 2009. http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/trans ... 96844.html.

The third line: “Judentransport aus Berlin.”
Refers to one of three transports of Berlin Jews:
1) A transport of 1009 deportees which had left Berlin three days earlier (27th of November), destined for Lodz
2) A transport of 1053 deportees which had left Berlin on the same date (27th November), destined for Riga.
3) A transport of 1079 deportees scheduled to leave Berlin on 1st of December 1941, destined for Lodz.
The third transport, which had not yet left Berlin, is the most likely subject of this line.

The fourth line: “Keine Liquidierung.”
Refers to the political situation in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in the fall of 1941. This situation is well explained in a paper by Alice Teichová, published in the 1998 anthology (ed. Mikuláš Teich), Bohemia in History. I cite from pp. 273ff.
“From the very beginning German rule was headed by the Reichsprotektor, whose authority was strengthened, as he was directly responsible to Hitler…. Unlike in Germany and in the unrestrained post-Anschluß period in Austria, the activities of the NSDAP in the Protectorate were strictly separated from the executive authority of the Reichsprotektor. Nevertheless, claims of the Gauleiters, the heads of NSDAP’s regional party organizations, to have a say in the affairs of the Protectorate led to competition within the National Socialist hierarchy… on attempts to change the territorial organization of the Protectorate…. Leading functionaries of the NSDAP in southern Germany and in the Ostmark (Austria) applied pressure on Berlin to liquidate the autonomy of the Czech government in the Protectorate, together with the office of the Reichsprotektor, and include Bohemia and Moravia in the German Reich’s Gau-system. While the Reichsprotektor, sensing a restriction of his powers, opposed such schemes as they arose, Hitler prevaricated and as late as 1943 let it be known that the last word about this had not yet been spoken.”

Specifically, the fourth line refers to a reassurance given to Heydrich that Hitler had no intention of acceding to increasingly vociferous demands voiced within the NSDAP in the fall of 1941 to liquidate the Protectorate and fully integrate it into the Reich—which would also have entailed the elimination of Heydrich’s position as Reichsprotektor. Liquidating the Protectorate would have been a violation of the Munich Agreement. Hitler still clung to the hope of an entente with Britain, and adhering to the Munich Agreement was the cornerstone of that policy. The reassurance given to Heydrich that the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia shall not be liquidated gives us an crucial insight into Hitler’s strategic thinking in the winter of 1941.

Here is where we are, four lines, four topics Mathis, stop dodging and stop nonsensically connecting two last lines together, does not make sense at all.

[borjastick]

It's all very simple but Thames Darwin wants it to be seen as very complicated.

Think of it as a list of bullet points to be discussed in a future meeting, we've all been there. Items that are associated by the fact that they will be discussed at the same meeting but individual items not necessarily linked to each other.

Or consider for a moment a recipe:

Ingredients

For the jam

500g/1lb 2oz strawberries, hulled and halved

500g/1lb 2oz jam sugar

For the sponge

175g/6oz unsalted butter, at room temperature, plus extra for greasing

175g/6oz caster sugar

3 large free-range eggs, beaten

1 tsp vanilla extract

175g/6oz self-raising flour

300ml/10½fl oz double cream

icing sugar, for dusting

All individual things that are not necessarily together or connected but for this purpose to be discussed in one session.

It's only difficult to accept if you want it to be...

[Thames Darwin]

Listen, Bob: I know you find your argument, like, real compelling, but I don't. If I lump the last two lines together, that's my right. You can claim it makes no sense, but it makes perfect sense to me. That you can't see that isn't my problem; that you engage in all-or-nothing thinking is -- again -- not my concern. That said, I would ask you to bear in mind that there are more than two possibilities, i.e., that the lines are all unrelated or all related. The first two lines being on different topics in no way proves the the final two lines are not on a single subject. Logic does not dictate such a conclusion at all -- not even close. It could be four lines covering three topics, four lines covering two topics, or even four lines, the first two on one subject, the third line on a second topic, and the fourth line back to the first topic again. You have no idea, and frankly neither do I. We're both guessing and providing our cases. I'm comfortable with it being four lines on three topics, and I've made my case for why. You have made no case that I find compelling, so I dismiss it. Again, that's not "dodging." If it were, then you'd be dodging in grand style.

Regarding the remainder of your arguments (and I use nested quotes so I don't have to shuffle back through pages of material to figure out what I'm responding to), it would seem you either doubt or don't understand that Kube and Lohse had specific issues with shooting Reich Jews. Here's what I'm talking about:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/german/ ... ilieu.html

Lohse had lodged similar complaints. In response to the complaints, specifically about the shooting of a batch of Jews in Kovno, Himmler attempted to stop the liquidation of the latest shipment of Reich Jews to Riga. By the time the phone call we're discussing happened, it was too late. The proof for that, by the way, is the phone call of December 1, on which the topic of Riga Jews comes up again, not to mention his radio message to Jeckeln that same day, which I believe is among the Bletchley Park decrypts. Irving also has an eyewitness account of the Aktion.

Regarding your primary source(s) using "liquidate" in a purely political and non-economic or murderous sense, as I said, I went back through this thread and couldn't find the sources. So if you'd be so kind as to post them here again, then perhaps we'll have something to discuss further. Your dismissing them as "irrelevant" is not a point in your favor; having literally never heard the word used in the sense you or pictorex or whoever is trying it here, I'm going to need to see context.

Or you can have the last word if you care for it. I honestly couldn't care less.

[Bob]

Is absurd how Mathis wants proofs and ignores everything what is spoonfed to him, but he offers not a single piece of evidence that the latest two lines belongs to one topic whereas from the context is clear that the lines are not connected at all, one line, one topic for discussion. Context refutes his theory leaving aside missing evidence and problems with his theory he dodged to explain.

[Bob]

Listen, Bob: I know you find your argument, like, real compelling, but I don't. If I lump the last two lines together, that's my right. You can claim it makes no sense, but it makes perfect sense to me. That you can't see that isn't my problem; that you engage in all-or-nothing thinking is -- again -- not my concern. That said, I would ask you to bear in mind that there are more than two possibilities, i.e., that the lines are all unrelated or all related. The first two lines being on different topics in no way proves the the final two lines are not on a single subject. Logic does not dictate such a conclusion at all -- not even close. It could be four lines covering three topics, four lines covering two topics, or even four lines, the first two on one subject, the third line on a second topic, and the fourth line back to the first topic again. You have no idea, and frankly neither do I. We're both guessing and providing our cases. I'm comfortable with it being four lines on three topics, and I've made my case for why. You have made no case that I find compelling, so I dismiss it. Again, that's not "dodging." If it were, then you'd be dodging in grand style.

Still not even a smallest piece of evidence that the last two lines are connected whereas this interpretation is refuted by the fact the first three lines are three topics and you accept this, hence fourth line is obviously fourth topic and you just nonsensically connect the fourth line with the third claiming we have one topic here. This alone suffices to demolish your theory and you have provided ZERO evidence that the last two lines are connected in one topic. What you are trying here is pathetic, you do this only in order to support your belief, so you arbitrary connect together what you find convenient despite the context which refutes such absurd approach.

Fourth line refers to the situation in Protektorat as backed up by the fact that Heydrich reports from the period in question addressed to Hitler prove this urgent topic was on the table and richly discussed and that from the discussion was clear the suggested measures will result in factual liquidation of the Czech autonomy, a conclusion backed up by historians i provided since you like so much orthodox sources, but obviously only when convenient. Hence "keine liquidierung", no liquidation of the Czech autonomy as obviously discussed and Himmler reported it to Heydrich together with other three topics. That is afaik the only credible and backed up interpretation available with no problems. You were the one who requested to see the the matter was urgent and under discussion in the period in question, you got it and now your are dodging inventing all possible excuses to run away from your fail when you assumed there is no evidence and hence you felt quite safe with your request. You are so desperate that you even started debate about the meaning of the term liquidation to which you previously had no objection when pictorex informed you about his hypothesis. But when I provided the sources you assumed do not exist, BOOM, all of sudden the word has only two possible meanings and is impossible that can be related to liquidation of autonomy and you want to make people believe you previously "forgot" to point out this detail, sure! As if not absurd enough, you used strategy in which you want to make people believe that is impossible for Himmler to discuss situation in Protektorat. This is all what you have in your sleeves? These are your arguments? More on the liquidation below.

Simple as that. If you do not accept that explanation, so be it, does not change the fact the four lines are four subjects which alone suffices to demolish your theory.

Regarding the remainder of your arguments (and I use nested quotes so I don't have to shuffle back through pages of material to figure out what I'm responding to), it would seem you either doubt or don't understand that Kube and Lohse had specific issues with shooting Reich Jews. Here's what I'm talking about:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/german/ ... ilieu.html

Lohse had lodged similar complaints. In response to the complaints, specifically about the shooting of a batch of Jews in Kovno, Himmler attempted to stop the liquidation of the latest shipment of Reich Jews to Riga. By the time the phone call we're discussing happened, it was too late. The proof for that, by the way, is the phone call of December 1, on which the topic of Riga Jews comes up again, not to mention his radio message to Jeckeln that same day, which I believe is among the Bletchley Park decrypts. Irving also has an eyewitness account of the Aktion.

The letter (dated December 16, 1941, thus 16 days after the Himmler´s phone call to Heydrich!!!),courtesy of MGK:

“My Dear Hinrich,

I wish to ask you personally for an official directive for the conduct of the civilian administration toward the Jews deported from Germany to Belorussia. Among these Jews are men who fought at the front [during World War I] and have the Iron Cross, First and Second Class, war invalids, half- Aryans, even three-quarter Aryans. Up to now only 6,000 to 7,000 Jews have arrived, of the 25,000 who were expected. I am not aware what has become of the others. In the course of several official visits to the ghetto I noted that among these Jews, who differ from the Russian Jews in their personal cleanliness, there are also skilled workers capable of doing five times as much in a day as Russian Jews.

These Jews will probably freeze or starve to death in the coming weeks. They present a terrible threat of disease for us, as they are naturally just as much exposed to the twenty-two epidemics prevalent in Belorussia as we Reich-Germans [Reichsdeutsche]. Serum is not available for them.

On my own responsibility I will not give the SD any instructions with regard to the treatment of these people, although certain units of the Wehrmacht and the police already have an eye on the possessions of the Jews from the Reich. Without asking, the SD had already simply taken away 400 mattresses from the Jews from the Reich, and has also confiscated various other things. I am certainly a hard [man] and willing to help solve the Jewish question, but people who come from our own cultural sphere just are not the same as the brutish hordes in this place. Is the slaughter to be carried out by the Lithuanians and Letts, who are themselves rejected by the population here? I couldn’t do it. I beg you to give clear directives [in this matter], with due consideration for the good name of our Reich and our Party, in order that the necessary action can be taken in the most humane manner.”

The letter cited by you says nothing about your claimed protests against extermination of Berlin Jews, I see concerns about the bad sanitary etc. conditions which may affect these people and which are likely to die because of these conditions and they posed risk because of diseases and because they had no serums for them. Kube thus considered a possibility of euthanasia but was clearly reluctant to do it because these people were closer to him so he suggested that others should do it instead but he did not know what to do and requested a directive, that´s all. He obviously knew nothing about alleged extermination since the bad conditions were clearly the cause of this situation as he clearly stated. So how he could protest against something he knew nothing about? Why are you making things up when Kube clearly stated what is the cause of the situation? Not an alleged extermination, but bad sanitary conditions, danger of diseases and lack of serums which forced him to consider an euthanasia. Cut the nonsenses Mathis, who do you want to trick? MGK addressed your supposed evidence in their book, pp. 338ff, the conclusion:

"The killing of the deportees was therefore a mere possibility, dictated by a sort of euthanasia policy, for which Kube expected “an official directive” from Lohse, whose answer is not known. Evidently Kube was not aware of any Jewish extermination order by Hitler."

You transformed this into the protest against extermination of Berlin Jews. You are distorting the meaning of the document as is typical for people of your ilk. In fact, this document evidences people were not subjected to extermination after their arrival, you shot yourself in the foot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your alleged "complaints theory" debunked with just a few problems pointed out by me and which you dodged:

1)Himmler´s alleged order to no liquidate this one transport implies existence of practice of liquidation of transports, otherwise there is no need to issue such "stop" order. All what I asked was to explain why this one single transport was allegedly ordered to be not liquidated when all other transports of Berlin Jews (shipped previously or even on the same day or in the following days) were not ordered to be spared like the one transport under discussion and were thus allegedly liquidated. What was so special about this one transport? Does not make sense at all, it´s rubbish, and why? Because the fourth line has nothing to do with the third, your holocaustic interpretation is clearly false leaving aside you cannot prove there was some practice of liquidation/extermination in the first place, you are just acting as if this assertion is proven!

2)Extermination operation which was allegedly part of the program, including Berlin Jews, caused some subordinates to be upset since they probably missed there is an ongoing extermination operation, and these people forced Hitler and Himmler to stop it (but not all, only in relation to one transport), that sounds really absurd. One can assume that at such situation this would have been considered as a sabotage and the people in question would have been simply replaced by people who have no problem with extermination. Hence no stopping of extermination of one single transport, but simple replacement of people who dared to protest against this operation and sabotaged it. Additional point. You asserted that this replacement eventually happened which is not the case AFAIK since not Kube and not even Lohse were replaced because of this alleged sabotage. You made that up and is easy to understand why you are dodging it.

Regarding your primary source(s) using "liquidate" in a purely political and non-economic or murderous sense, as I said, I went back through this thread and couldn't find the sources. So if you'd be so kind as to post them here again, then perhaps we'll have something to discuss further. Your dismissing them as "irrelevant" is not a point in your favor; having literally never heard the word used in the sense you or pictorex or whoever is trying it here, I'm going to need to see context.

I have not said that primary sources, i.e. Heydrich´s reports I pointed out, used this term, stop making things up, I explicitly said this word is not there, hence the contrary of what you assert and what you allegedly looked for in the thread despite me stating explicitly and several times that primary sources I used do not contain this word! And I explained why is this irrelevant. So do you have some serious comprehension reading problem?

As for the meaning of the term liquidate, you asserted:

I read French and German both

[...]

Liquidate means to kill or to turn assets into cash.

Which is patently false, here are several examples of the use of the term. This one modern non holocaustic example refers to liquidation of the border[1]:

"Der tschechisch-bayerische Grenzraum kam in einer relativ sehr kurzen Zeit (20 Jahre) schon in das dritte von der Grenzfunktion abhängige Regime. Von der Barrierenfunktion (vor 1990), über Kontaktfunktion (1990-2004) allmählich bis faktischer Liquidation der Grenze als die unterschiedliche politisch-ökonomischen Systeme teilende Linie (2007)."

This refers to liquidation of Protektorat[2]:

"Insbesondere der Gauleiter von Niederdonau, Hugo Jury, war an einer beschleunigten Liquidation des Protektorats interessiert."

This refers to liquidation of student unrest/riots in 1939[3]:

"im ganzen Protektorat herrschte seit der Liquidation Studentenruhen im Herbst 1939 völlige Ruhe und Sabotageaktionen sowie Widerstandsbewegungen waren unbekannte Begriffe."

Thomas Dalton quotes "survivor´s"examples referring to liquidation of ghetto or labor camp:

"Holocaust survivor Thomas Buergenthal (2009: 49) writes of his experience in the Kielce ghetto: “The ghetto was being liquidated or, in the words bellowing out of the loudspeakers, Ausseidlung! Ausseidlung! (‘Evacuation! Evacuation!’).” And later he comments, “After the liquidation of the labor camp…” (p. 56). Clearly the word means, and meant, something other than killing."

(my emphasis)

So if we follow your "understanding of German", then the border, Protektorat, student unrest/riots, ghetto or labor camp were either killed or turned into cash! You either lied and do not understand German or you lied about the meaning of the term, take your pick, you are a liar in both cases and is no wonder you dodged this issue too when you simply repeated your false assertion about two meanings of the term despite me pointing out this is not true, you can liquidate autonomy of course. I doubt you understand at least one language, including your native.

Pack it in, you are full of it.

[1]Jaroslav Dokoupil et al., Euroregion Böhmerwald / Bayerischer Wald-Unterer Inn / Mühlviertel, version 1.0, Plzeň, 2014, p. 28.
[2]Miroslav Kárný, Deutsche Politik im "Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren" unter Reinhard Heydrich, 1941-1942, Metropol-Verlag, 1997, p 34.
[3]Wilhelm Dennler, Die Böhmische Passion, Dikreiter Verslagsgesellschaft, 1953, p. 55.

[Hannover]

Concerning this alleged letter from Kube to Lohse under discussion here, where can we see the original letter for review? I have only seen claimed English 'translations'.

I note that Yad Vashem also has only English text, not the original letter:
http://www.yadvashem.org/about_HOLocaus ... oc185.html

Thanks, Hannover

[Bob]

By the way, a clarification, the ghetto or labor camp examples of the word liquidation are not included in Mathis´ "understanding of German" of course although I included them in the sentence, they belongs to "understanding" of his native language which is supposedly English. That is why I said that I doubt he understands at least his own native language.

[Bob]

Another reason why I suspect Mathis does not understands English is the way he interprets the Kube´s letter making people believe Kube protested against extermination of Reich Jews in order to support his flawed theory when in reality it was Kube himself who came up with an idea to apply an euthanasia because of reasons explained above. His problem was to carry out such action and asked if others should do it, he was concerned about the humane way how to solve it, but he did not know and wanted a directive.

How is possible to debate with someone like Mathis when he is not even able to correctly read and understands one single translated document? Or is he lying through his teeth hoping nobody is going to read links he pasted and that I do not know the document in question? Ridiculous.

[Thames Darwin]

You mad, bro?

I have a lengthy response in the offing but if you want me to keep playing, watch your tone with me, please.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Concerning this alleged letter from Kube to Lohse under discussion here,

Alleged!? First time you've heard of it?

where can we see the original letter for review?

Jerusalem.

I have only seen claimed English 'translations'.

I note that Yad Vashem also has only English text, not the original letter:
http://www.yadvashem.org/about_HOLocaus ... oc185.html

You note incorrectly then. The YV has the original letter. Yad Yashem Archive, file ref: JM 3455 (according to Christopher Browning).

Here's the first page of it taken from Max Weinreich, Hitler's Professors, from the Google Books' freeview; the 2nd page isn't part of the freeview.

What do you make of it Hannover. Is it fake? A laughable fake even?