German Labour camps - shocking truth decrypts / Jew transits

[chim-pa]

it's not a train outbound document.

Maybe not in the strictest sense of the word, but unfortunately we do not seem to have that many records available. As Mattogno writes, "Railway documents dealing with the deportation of Jews from Warsaw are unfortunately extremely rare". I assume the same applies to all trains to and from Treblinka.

makes mincemeat of your innuendo.

Sorry? What was my "innuendo"? Maybe you are reading too much between the lines.

[Hektor]

...
Here is one document that mentions trains coming back empty:


....

Interesting that the document talks about "Umsiedler" meaning Re-settlers. So there is documented evidence of the purpose of the deportations.

[astro3]

Bob – Thanks for correcting my careless mistake. Concerning the number given for Treblinka, You say, ‘the error is on the British side, just a typo.’

Please go back to previous page under ’Hoefle Telegram’ and view the two decrypts I have copied out, from the two different documents ‘HW 16/66’ and ‘HW 16/23’. Note how the immediately preceding texts are quite different. Thus this message has been DECRYPTED TWICE both times in January 1943. Hence the numbers cannot have been just a typing error!

Then, go to the totals of Russians, Poles and Jews per month for Auschwitz (page 1) which I’ve copied out every three months. Through this key period we’re talking about, see how the number of Jews increases by several thousand per three months. OK? Auschwitz was a lot larger than Treblinka. So, is it likely that five thousand per day were arriving at Treblinka with such enormously smaller numbers arriving at Auschwitz?

Lastly, note how the ‘totals’ there given are not the sum of the other three columns, they never match up. So something is going on here that we don’t quite understand. All I’m saying is, that 71,355 looks like an intentional figure for arrivals at Treblinka.

[Bob]

Bob – Thanks for correcting my careless mistake. Concerning the number given for Treblinka, You say, ‘the error is on the British side, just a typo.’

Please go back to previous page under ’Hoefle Telegram’ and view the two decrypts I have copied out, from the two different documents ‘HW 16/66’ and ‘HW 16/23’. Note how the immediately preceding texts are quite different. Thus this message has been DECRYPTED TWICE both times in January 1943. Hence the numbers cannot have been just a typing error!

Yes the text is different, but I think I can provide you with explanation. Also, in your versions on previous page, there are more typos or differences, for better comparison of all versions here they are together with reported reference.

Firstly the official messages with reproduced documents so we can be sure that what we see is the real text from original documents and without any more typos caused by someone else. From the David Irving´s website and from the article dated July 20, 2011. I marked as blue differences between the two messages:

HW 16/65 (Public Record Office)

(h) A.A. Courses. The Luftwaffe is holding training courses for members of
the Flakwaffe in the first quarter of 1943. SS. Pz. Gren. Div. “Wiking” is
urged to take full advantage of this opportunityas new units with special
weapons will be formed in the very near future. (356d9-15).

(i) Einsatz REINHARDT. SS und Pol.fuehrer LUBLIN sends the Befehlshaber der
Sipo KRAKAU a report on Einsatz REINHARDT for the 14 days up to 31.1.42.
Increase to 31.12.42: L12761, B 0, S515, T 10335, altogether 23611. Totals on
31.12.42: L24733, B 434508, S 101370, T 71355: altogether 1274166 (355a 13).



Photographed reference


HW 16/23 (Public Record Office)

GPDD 355a 2.
12. OMX de OMQ 1000 89 ? ?
Geheime Reichssache! An das Reichssicherheitshauptamt, zu
Händen SS Obersturmbannführer EICHMANN, BERLIN ... rest missed..

13/15. OLQ de OMQ 1005 83 234 250
Geheime Reichssache! An den Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspol.,
zu Händen SS Obersturmbannführer HEIM, KRAKAU.
Betr: 14-tägige Meldung Einsatz REINHART. Bezug: dort.
Fs. Zugang bis 31.12.42, L 12761, B 0, S 515, T 10335 zusammen
23611. Stand... 31.12.42, L 24733, B 434508, S 101370,
T 71355, züsammen 1274166.
SS und Pol.führer LUBLIN, HOEFLE, Sturmannführer.

Now your versions astro3, I marked as orange only your own typos or differences (but not differences like missing points, spaces, brackets or special letters like “ü”) when compared to the original documents, I included even your message under letter g):

HW 16/66 (Public Record Office)

g) Norway The Reichskomissar has refused to allow a conference of the Germanische Landdienst or the recruiting of 200 men for a Ski camp. Instead a Wehrertuechtigungslager for 17 yr olds is proposed as a means of producing volunteers for the Waffen SS.

h) A.A. Courses The Luftwaffe is holding training courses for members of
the Flakwaffe in the first quarter of 1943. SS. Pz. Gren. Div. “Wiking” is
urged to take full advantage of this opportunity as new units with special
weapons will be formed in the very near future. (356d9-15).

i) Einsats REINHARDT. SS und Pol.fuehrer LUBLIN sends the Befehlshaber der
Sipo KRAKAU a report on Einsatz REINHARDT for the 14 days up to 31.1.42.
Increase to 31.12.42: L127621, B 0, Ss515, T 10335, altogether 23611. Totals on
31.12.42: L24735, B 434508, S 101370, T 71355: altogether 1274166 (355a 13).

HW 16/23 (Public Record Office)

12. OMX de OMQ
Geheime Reichssache! An das Reichssicherheitshauptamt, zu
Händen SS Obersturmbannfuhrer EICHMANN, BERLIN ... rest missed.

13/15 OLQ de OMG
Geheime Reichssache! An den Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspol.,
zu Händen SS Obersturmbannfuhrer HEIM, KRAKAU.
Betr: 14-tägige Meldung Eintatz REINHART. Bezug: dort.
Fs. Zugang bis 31.12.42, L 12761, B 0, S 515, T 10335 zusammen
23611. Stand... 31.12.42, L 24733, B 434508, S 101370,
T 71355, züsammen 1274166.
SS und Pol.führer LUBLIN, HOEFLE, Sturmannführer.

You also missed important reference number stated in the original German “version” of the Höfle´s telegram.

Now the explanation for two different versions of this message, is quite simple, David Irving said:

THEN, as my readers know, Steve Tyas mentioned he had more recently found another wartime British document referring to [see above HW 16/65] , and summarising, the Höfle document.

[...]

Under III Miscellaneous in one of the monthly summaries in this piece is this concluding paragraph, after paragraphs (a) through (h):

So what we have here is not the different or second decrypted version, but only a summarized version of the previous original and again - with even more typos, 31.1.42 instead of 31.12.42 or probably even the reference to original documents is given wrong too - 355a 13 instead of 355a 2 - or here I am maybe wrong and number 13 has nothing to do with the reference and then the reference 355a is correct. This is obviously only some report summarizing various decrypted messages from various periods + reference number in brackets, and Höfle´s telegram is included in this report. Thus there is not a complete and exact transcript of the original message, but only a summarized version for superiors and this message follows after the others which are again clearly only summarized versions of some original decrypted messages, you even provided previous message marked as (g). For this reason, this version is in English language. When you look closely at the style of these summarized versions, you can notice that it really looks like a short story of some more complex message.

I think this mystery is resolved, there aren´t two decrypted versions of the same telegram.

Concerning the number given for Treblinka, You say, ‘the error is on the British side, just a typo.’

Yes, I think that this explanation is still valid.

Then, go to the totals of Russians, Poles and Jews per month for Auschwitz (page 1) which I’ve copied out every three months. Through this key period we’re talking about, see how the number of Jews increases by several thousand per three months. OK? Auschwitz was a lot larger than Treblinka. So, is it likely that five thousand per day were arriving at Treblinka with such enormously smaller numbers arriving at Auschwitz?

I think that most of the camps were larger than Treblinka II, but the only purpose of Treblinka II camp was to transit people to the East (or in some cases to other camps), maybe this explains why so many people went through this camp in comparison to much larger camps? Maybe they wanted to have people - which went through Treblinka - in some specific location that could be best reached via this camp and for this reason they transported so many of them through this camp in this period. Belzec or Sobibór were small too, but lot of people went through as well.

Lastly, note how the ‘totals’ there given are not the sum of the other three columns, they never match up. So something is going on here that we don’t quite understand. All I’m saying is, that 71,355 looks like an intentional figure for arrivals at Treblinka.

In the original correctly reproduced documents, all totals are correct and they match up, but in the case of number 1274166 one must bear in mind that there is a typo. We can only wonder why - in the report mentioned above - there isn´t some message for superiors with an explanation for this problem, maybe this was clear to all or they believed that message is correct and number was incorrectly reported by Höfle, who knows.

I consider as an impossibility that the correct number is 71,355, and Höfle´s (and the others) arithmetic was so poor or that nobody was able to spot this gross error resulting in 642,200 fictional re-settlers and they all repeated the same wrong numbers.

[Hannover]

it's not a train outbound document.

Maybe not in the strictest sense of the word, but unfortunately we do not seem to have that many records available. As Mattogno writes, "Railway documents dealing with the deportation of Jews from Warsaw are unfortunately extremely rare". I assume the same applies to all trains to and from Treblinka.

makes mincemeat of your innuendo.

Sorry? What was my "innuendo"? Maybe you are reading too much between the lines.

Nothing to do with "in the strictest sense", a schedule is simply not an outbound record. No getting around it.
And bingo! By quoting Mattogno, you've confirmed that the outbound records have gone missing, my point for a long time.

IMO, you implied that there were outbound records by posting a schedule which you did not label a schedule. Also, you did not address the information about the schedule and Treblinka that were contained in links given.

- Hannover

[Hektor]

...IMO, you implied that there were outbound records by posting a schedule which you did not label a schedule. Also, you did not address the information about the schedule and Treblinka that were contained in links given....

There for sure WERE outbound records, just that the document shown isn't one. Such records may be of value in order to clarify what happened to deportees AFTER they were brought to Treblinka. There is good evidence that they've been sent over the border from there, but we still need more information to illustrate that.

[chim-pa]

And bingo! By quoting Mattogno, you've confirmed that the outbound records have gone missing, my point for a long time.

There are no inbound records either, apart from, if you accept it as such, Hoefle telegramm.

[Breker]

And bingo! By quoting Mattogno, you've confirmed that the outbound records have gone missing, my point for a long time.

There are no inbound records either, apart from, if you accept it as such, Hoefle telegramm.

Very wrong. For one, Danuta Czech, whose book on Auschwitz (Auschwitz Kalendarium) uses these records and erroneously cites them as proof that those on the trains were largely gassed. You are forgiven, you are rather new at this.
B.

[chim-pa]

And bingo! By quoting Mattogno, you've confirmed that the outbound records have gone missing, my point for a long time.

There are no inbound records either, apart from, if you accept it as such, Hoefle telegramm.

Very wrong. For one, Danuta Czech, whose book on Auschwitz (Auschwitz Kalendarium) uses these records and erroneously cites them as proof that those on the trains were largely gassed. You are forgiven, you are rather new at this.
B.

As far as I know, we were discussing Treblinka, not Auschwitz. But as I did not make that clear enough in my message, you are forgiven.

[Hektor]

And bingo! By quoting Mattogno, you've confirmed that the outbound records have gone missing, my point for a long time.

There are no inbound records either, apart from, if you accept it as such, Hoefle telegramm.

Very wrong. For one, Danuta Czech, whose book on Auschwitz (Auschwitz Kalendarium) uses these records and erroneously cites them as proof that those on the trains were largely gassed. You are forgiven, you are rather new at this.
B.

Deportation list and train records are frequently used as proof of gassing. Instead they only are proof for deportation. The rest is innuendo.

[Breker]

As far as I know, we were discussing Treblinka, not Auschwitz. But as I did not make that clear enough in my message, you are forgiven.

Well, being a novice I guess you can't be blamed for not knowing that Hilberg cites trains records TO Treblinka in his oddly titled farce, ''Destruction of the European Jews'. I do believe you are now surrounded.
B.

[chim-pa]

Well, being a novice I guess you can't be blamed for not knowing that Hilberg cites trains records TO Treblinka in his oddly titled farce, ''Destruction of the European Jews'.

Wonderful. Perhaps you could show us some of those records you claim exist?

[Breker]

Well, being a novice I guess you can't be blamed for not knowing that Hilberg cites trains records TO Treblinka in his oddly titled farce, ''Destruction of the European Jews'.

Wonderful. Perhaps you could show us some of those records you claim exist?

I cited two very accessible sources, it is now incumbent upon you to do show us that those citations are wrong. We do find it peculiar that a believer such as yourself now doubts Raoul Hilberg and Danuta Czech, who certainly 'claim those inbound records exist'.
B.

[chim-pa]

I cited two very accessible sources, it is now incumbent upon you to do show us that those citations are wrong.

Well, for a starter, instead of just claiming you already did it you could cite those documents you think support your claims and give proper citations with page numbers. Then you could tell us about their provenance, and show us those documents. Now you have only told us a name of one book you claim proves there are inbound records for Treblinka.

We do find it peculiar that a believer such as yourself now doubts Raoul Hilberg and Danuta Czech, who certainly 'claim those inbound records exist'.

I find it peculiar that at this kind of forum something Hilberg has allegdly said is taken at face value.

Meanwhile, maybe this amuses you:

[Breker]

I cited two very accessible sources, it is now incumbent upon you to do show us that those citations are wrong.

Well, for a starter, instead of just claiming you already did it you could cite those documents you think support your claims and give proper citations with page numbers. Then you could tell us about their provenance, and show us those documents. Now you have only told us a name of one book you claim proves there are inbound records for Treblinka.

We do find it peculiar that a believer such as yourself now doubts Raoul Hilberg and Danuta Czech, who certainly 'claim those inbound records exist'.

I find it peculiar that at this kind of forum something Hilberg has allegdly said is taken at face value.

Meanwhile, maybe this amuses you:

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... aybill.jpg

Sorry chim-pa, you are behaving in an odd manner. The inbound records are well known, and accepted by all sides in this debate. I suggest you resign yourself to that fact.
I have a good idea, go to http://www.codoh.com and search 'trains records', and there we are, a plethora of references for you.
Oh sure, all Revisionists accept that Hilberg used inbound train records, as did Czech, it's just the false assumptions about them that revisionists do not accept. That's the way it is, chimpa.

And what is that piece of paper you posted? Looks like something 'Sobibor', off topic, but then you are reaching. I'll play along. And translation please. You know what? I'll post it as a new thread, could be fun.
B.