Inbound train records, but no outbound records. Why?

[Zulu]

MrNobody said:
Zulu said

Suppose a moron saying that there were 100,000 victims of the 911.
When you state there were actually 2,606, the moron then asks you: "Where are the 97,394 others"?

Funny comparison, but in this case, it is known and accepted that trainload of people were arriving there, let's say 3.000 to 5000 each day.

OK, and how many were arriving at the WTCs each day?

[Hannover]

Zulu said:

I just say that if they died the ITS can generally give the place of the death , the date and the cause. The results of such researches can cause big surprises
That work should be made for all the names of the entrance lists to Auschwitz in order to establish a good figure of what actually happened to most of them. If that task is done, it was not published. If it is not, I ask, why so?

Fact:
Access to the Arolsen ITS archives is given to 'approved researchers only'. So very convenient.

- Hannover

[Balsamo]

Actually the minutiae in that seems irrelevant. There is still a record of the taxi completing his drop off and a receipt of payment. The driver communicates to the dispatcher of the completed job, the dispatcher then notes that this empty cab is available for service. The same would logically apply to trains, trucks, or any form transport service. You need to know where your units are. I seriously doubt that an inquiry by the Wehrmacht as to the availability of desperately needed trains would accept the response of, 'Gee, we don't know what happened to them when they got to ____''.

My remark was referring to the search of Rail Expenses in the Wirtschafts und Verwaltungshauptamt, SS-WVHA SS-Economic and Administration Main Office archives proposed by mrnobody.
I guess they knew along the way where their units were, btw. No need to keep written track of an empty train going back to reload in some of the Gethos.

What's even more funny here is the complete lack of proof that these people were exterminated

.

I have never mentioned this hypothesis in my post but this gives me a chance to ask for your proofs supporting the "transit theory"...
Because, no, it is NOT widely know that the Jews transited through the AR camps...sorry...Too bad the outbound records have vanished, of course. Still on what we have, Treblinka was a terminus stop.

Code: Select all

[b]Very wrong[/b]. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that[b] tons[/b] of Jews were transported out of the camps

Really, from the AR camps ? thank you for sharing your knowledge more precisely.
I am sure you meant thousands - we are talking about people here, not loads of wheat !

And yes, the Germans deloused, fed, and provided shelter

At Treblinka, really ? for the 25.000 persons each weak ? And all this through this tiny Rail Station? through this little camp ?
Again, some details ?
Because, according to you, Treblinka must have been the first 24 hours/a day, 7/7 delousing and laudry machine in History, featuring a restaurant serving 5.000 serves everyday!
Why the hell did the German dismantled the best MOTEL service Europe has ever experianced?

The 'missing' outbound train records are just too convenient

.

Or unconvenient, in this case...

Zulu said

OK, and how many were arriving at the WTCs each day?

I would say that 50.000 thousands were working in both towers ( 400 m high, 63 m large, 110 stories * 2), and in most case, it was the same persons that walked in everyday.
Believe me, i am aware of the reasons you don't believe Jews were killed there. I would like to know what convince you that these small camps could deloused, feed and dispatch 25.000 people (amount of people working in WTC1) to their next destination given the infrastructure of the site ????

[Hannover]

Balsamo, you said:

I guess they knew along the way where their units were, btw. No need to keep written track of an empty train going back to reload in some of the Gethos.

How would they know "where their units were" without outbound records? Oops.
Of course Revisionists, and anyone who actually scrutinizes, know quite well , and I have cited numerous references to people transported out of camps, the numbers are ultimately massive, so your 'empty train' reasoning makes no sense. Obviously after what could have been numerous stops, delivering supplies & people, and picking up people and goods, and then delivering them, there would logically be instances of trains completing their trips and returning to their initial departure points 'empty'.
And how would anyone know the trains returned empty if records weren't kept? Ouch. Looks like a clear cut case of retaining the records of 'empty trains', while hiding or destroying those which were not so 'empty'.
Also, empty or not, there is still many reasons for keeping outbound records; some of those reasons have been posted in this thread, but you ignore them.

you said:

I have never mentioned this hypothesis in my post but this gives me a chance to ask for your proofs supporting the "transit theory"...
Because, no, it is NOT widely know that the Jews transited through the AR camps...sorry...Too bad the outbound records have vanished, of course. Still on what we have, Treblinka was a terminus stop.

So now you want to change the topic to transit camps instead of outbound records. Again, I and others at this forum posted many examples of Jews transited out of Treblinka. Again you ignore them. I guess now you're going to debate the word 'widely'. To those who actually scrutinize the issue, it is widely known.

And wrong again about Treblinka. No mass graves as alleged and there are records indicating that Jews were in fact transported out of Treblinka. Again you go off topic and want to narrow the topic down to Treblinka, which has been handled in multiple threads.

Too bad the outbound records have vanished,

Nice to see you admit that the outbound records have so conveniently vanished.

was stated:

Very wrong. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that tons of Jews were transported out of the camps

you replied:

Really, from the AR camps ? thank you for sharing your knowledge more precisely. I am sure you meant thousands - we are talking about people here, not loads of wheat !

Yes, AR camps. Treblinka, which you brought up, was an 'Aktion Reinhardt' / AR camp. And we see another attempt from you to change the subject. Sorry for the use of 'tons'. Next time I'll try something in Hebrew or Yiddish which you will probably understand better.

and you quoted a previously made staement:

And yes, the Germans deloused, fed, and provided shelter

Indeed, just the sort of wasteful and useless behaviour by those who were supposedly gassing the Jews 'upon arrival' .
But in reality, that is exactly the sort actions and behaviour the Germans would have enagaged in when preparing to transport these Jews to other sites.
and you said:

At Treblinka, really ? for the 25.000 persons each weak ? And all this through this tiny Rail Station? through this little camp ?
Again, some details ?
Because, according to you, Treblinka must have been the first 24 hours/a day, 7/7 delousing and laudry machine in History, featuring a restaurant serving 5.000 serves everyday!
Why the hell did the German dismantled the best MOTEL service Europe has ever experianced?

Disingenuous & false strawman arguments galore, Balsamo. My, my.
Yes, in that they were received through the same "tiny Rail Station" that the storyline itself claims received these "25.000 persons each weak"*. But I assume you do know that there were other facilities at Treblinka. And that is part of standard storyline and is not 'according to me'. And no one said 24/7 other than you.
* sources please.

- Hannover

[The Warden]

Warden said:

I just don't see much reason to have the outbound records in the first place. The camps in question are "last stops". Not because they were extermination camps, but because of the fact the records end there. When a cab driver picks you up, he/she takes you where you need to go, drops you off, and has no clue where you go afterwards. The exterminationists are asking the cab driver where every passenger ever picked up has gone.

It's laughable.

The reasons are numerous. From a basic sense of efficiency of use, to not wanting to provide fuel to the propagandists that were spreading disinformation about them. And the Germans certainly knew about the propaganda tales.

Here are some points in a rather random manner.

As I stated, The Germans would need to know where their trains were. I can't imagine a single train moving along without some sort of records after leaving one stop, then moving to another. Efficient use of the trains including the amounts of fuel, labor force used on the trains, repairs, labor force being transported, train contents, billing information requirements (yes, companies and people had to be paid), etc., would be absolutely critical. And that would involve keeping inbound records and outbound records for accounting purposes.

As has been demonstrated repeatedly here and in multiple Revisionist publications, Jews were transported into camps and out of camps for the purpose of labor and planned resettlement. Any country in the midst of a huge war for it's survival would want to know where their trains were so that the arrival of the trains could be anticipated in a timely manner. Even an empty train would need to be tracked such that the railway officials would know when to anticipate it's return, and when the train could be placed back into service. Pretty basic stuff.

It makes no sense for the Germans to leave behind inbound records but not to maintain outbound records. Knowing fully the false propaganda that was being spread about them and that a lack of outbound records could certainly be used against them. And of course, the propagandists clearly knew this, hence this accounts for the lack of outbound records. So very convenient.

With a massive war raging, trains provided practically everything needed, food, armaments, ammo, troops, workers being taken to labor sites. Empty, partially full, full, whatever, the requirements of knowing where the trains were would be immensely important to the war effort.

Thanks Warden.

- Hannover

I understand the reasons for having knowledge of the trains' whereabouts, but not the prisoners' once they reached the AR camps. To the Germans, the Jews had no value other than service. The trains were far more important to track than the Jews for maintaining infrastructure. There were far more Jews than trains after all. My point being that the Germans didn't track everything on the trains once it reached the destination. If they delivered 500 pounds of potatoes to Treblinka, they didn't track who ate each pound or where every pound of food went. They just knew that Treblinka received 500 pounds of potatoes as per the order. But with prisoners, the order was to get as many as possible out of German occupied territories. So if you're shipping Jews on trains, you record how many, and once they get where they're supposed to be, you record them as delivered and be done with it. Unless you ship them elsewhere due to specific needs such as in the cases you (Hannover) presented. No need to know where Jews went. As you say "Jews went where Jews are".

The cab driver reference was to point out that the driver simply has no idea nor any need to know where the passengers went once they reached their destination. The cabs (trains) however, could be used continuously since they had multiple purposes. The only purpose of the Jews (passengers) was to maintain the production of goods and services to the war effort [in other words, they gave the cabs (trains) purpose]. Otherwise, they left. "Where did they go?" Doesn't matter. They aren't where the exterminationists claim, and I would think it would be a lot easier to find them if they were stationary (being dead in mass graves and all ), than what they're asking for, which is to find Jews who have been moving around with name changes since the war.

[Balsamo]

The Warden,

you post is based a assumptions and as with any assumptions, they are only guessings.

To the Germans, the Jews had no value other than service. The trains were far more important to track than the Jews for maintaining infrastructure.

What Germans ? To the Reichbahn, of course the train were more important than any load as the trains belonged to it. But the SS had nothing to do with the Reichbahn. For them, the load was more important than the trains, because the load was their property. Most Germans did not know or/and care about.

Now depending on which archives are concerned :
- It is normal for the reichbahn not to keep track on a load that had been delivered. Once the mission is complete, the train comes back to its depot or its starting point as forecast.
- As well as for the SS, they would only keep tracks of the load. Once it is delivered, where the train goes from there is not their problem.

BUT, if the plan for the SS was to send those jews elsewhere, it would have implied the participation of the Reichbahn as carrier (transporter) and a new itinary should exists in its archives.
The same for the SS, they would have kept tracks on their "loads of Jews" to make sure their faith. Jewish workers had value - and this is the paradox - as a good jewish workers were rented to private companies for a good price, or reserved for SS companies which were supposed to make profit. The paradox is economic considerations were confronting Racial considerations.
but whatever

Otherwise, they left. "Where did they go?" Doesn't matter.

Of course it matters !i would say it all that matters if one want to propose a "transit camp" narrative. As it matters to adress the issue of the lack of any doucment and archives that could have backed the theory.

[Zulu]

Zulu said

OK, and how many were arriving at the WTCs each day?

I would say that 50.000 thousands were working in both towers ( 400 m high, 63 m large, 110 stories * 2), and in most case, it was the same persons that walked in everyday.
Believe me, i am aware of the reasons you don't believe Jews were killed there. I would like to know what convince you that these small camps could deloused, feed and dispatch 25.000 people (amount of people working in WTC1) to their next destination given the infrastructure of the site ????

So, if I say that 50,000 died on 911, because we know there were usually working there, what would you say?
I believe that the Jews and others who died at Auschwitz are listed on the official death books (Sterbebücher). No "massive gassing" at all occured there.
Most of the Jews have a track at ITS as most of prisoners interned in Nazi camps. Take a name and check its track.

[joachim neander]

Zulu said:

I believe that the Jews and others who died at Auschwitz are listed on the official death books (Sterbebücher).

There are only two small problems with these books:
a) They refer only to registered prisoners, i.e. to the minority of the arrivals who had been taken in and had received a prisoner number.
b) The extant books cover only a small period of the camp's existence.
It is, therefore, impossible to draw from them conclusions about the number of people who died or did not die at Auschwitz. Sorry, but that's logic 101.

[Balsamo]

Zulu said

So, if I say that 50,000 died on 911, because we know there were usually working there, what would you say?

Well, if none of them shows up the next morning i would at least wonder where they gone. If none of those 50.000 did come home that night, i would say yes, they maybe dead or ask the question where are they?

[The Warden]

What Germans ? To the Reichbahn, of course the train were more important than any load as the trains belonged to it. But the SS had nothing to do with the Reichbahn. For them, the load was more important than the trains, because the load was their property. Most Germans did not know or/and care about.

And somewhere in the middle is all the missing documentation that you and the rest of the Holcaustians base their claims on.
A little hypocritical after calling my posts "based on assumptions" and "guessings".
Don't you think?

Now depending on which archives are concerned :
- It is normal for the reichbahn not to keep track on a load that had been delivered. Once the mission is complete, the train comes back to its depot or its starting point as forecast.
- As well as for the SS, they would only keep tracks of the load. Once it is delivered, where the train goes from there is not their problem.

And which archives show where the remains of the claimed dead are if it was in fact an extermination camp?

BUT, if the plan for the SS was to send those jews elsewhere, it would have implied the participation of the Reichbahn as carrier (transporter) and a new itinary should exists in its archives.
The same for the SS, they would have kept tracks on their "loads of Jews" to make sure their faith. Jewish workers had value - and this is the paradox - as a good jewish workers were rented to private companies for a good price, or reserved for SS companies which were supposed to make profit. The paradox is economic considerations were confronting Racial considerations.

Jewish workers had value. The common frail, sickly Jew did not.
Not much reason to track a worthless Jew, as I said in my "assumption", but which you seem to shore up quite nicely.

Of course it matters !i would say it all that matters if one want to propose a "transit camp" narrative. As it matters to adress the issue of the lack of any doucment and archives that could have backed the theory.

And I will ask you again in this thread, as I will in any other:
Using your burden of proof, when will you show the physical evidence of an extermination camp?
You're trying to prove something is one thing by proving it wasn't another.
What should be important to you is finding the remains of 900,000 people which your claim of "extermination camps" is directly based on, along with the missing documents you helpfully pointed out above.

I'd like to know what magic potion you people drink in order to base claims on the same evidence (or lack thereof) which apparently can't be used for the other side of the debate, but seem to be more than sufficient for kangaroo courts and blind faith followers who simply don't need anything more than someone to tell them what to believe.

[The Warden]

There are only two small problems with these books:
a) They refer only to registered prisoners, i.e. to the minority of the arrivals who had been taken in and had received a prisoner number.
b) The extant books cover only a small period of the camp's existence.
It is, therefore, impossible to draw from them conclusions about the number of people who died or did not die at Auschwitz. Sorry, but that's logic 101.

Yet the claims the unregistered prisoners are dead seem to be sufficient enough without records of them ever being there. Once again, the historians like to put people somewhere since they can't show them somewhere else. The police could use this system to solve every unsolved crime in history. All they would have to do is say because someone wasn't in one place, that they must have been where the crime was committed! Yet another illogical argument put to good use in order to satisfy the victims' fan clubs.
In the case of WWII, it's almost as if you don't need to prove anyone was there to prove they're dead, and to boot, you don't even need to show the remains of those people. As long as there is an "evil" German empire to use as a scapegoat for all things unsolved or unexplainable, anyone and everything that went wrong can be blamed on them.

Hmmph. Go figure.

Zulu said

So, if I say that 50,000 died on 911, because we know there were usually working there, what would you say?

Well, if none of them shows up the next morning i would at least wonder where they gone. If none of those 50.000 did come home that night, i would say yes, they maybe dead or ask the question where are they?

HA HA HA!
Yes indeed, if you're not in the U.S., you must certainly be in Australia!
I said so!
For good measure, let's just say they were murdered in the subway because someone dropped poison gas in there.
Never mind the fact there are no remains.
That would screw up the story line.

Shhhhhhhhh.

And that is how the evidential ladder works in the victim industry known as the religion-like Holocaust.

[joachim neander]

@ The Warden:

Yet the claims the unregistered prisoners are dead

Did I ever say that, and particularly in this thread? (Please remember the forum rules: "stick to the subject.")

Is it too difficult for you to realize that you cannot make conclusions about the total number of people who died or did not die at Auschwitz between May 1940 and January 1945, as the Sterbebücher cover only a short period of time and refer only to registered prisoners, who themselves were only a part of those individuals who arrived at the camp? What kind of logic are you using?

[The Warden]

@ The Warden:

Yet the claims the unregistered prisoners are dead

Did I ever say that, and particularly in this thread? (Please remember the forum rules: "stick to the subject.")

Is it too difficult for you to realize that you cannot make conclusions about the total number of people who died or did not die at Auschwitz between May 1940 and January 1945, as the Sterbebücher cover only a short period of time and refer only to registered prisoners, who themselves were only a part of those individuals who arrived at the camp? What kind of logic are you using?

Oh I'm sorry, Neander. Were you "misquoted" again [ viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6534&p=47178#p47178 ], or is this another example of you taking something said as a personal attack?

Perhaps we should start a thread about quote mining on you?

And to answer your question, Neander: The entire point would be that I'm using and asking for a logic that is applied UNIVERSALLY, and not some form of selective reasoning used when no answer is definitive. If the death books can't be used to show a fewer amount of deaths than claimed, then the absence of records can't be used to prove deaths on the other side of the aisle.

Am I asking too much for the Believers to stop making claims on records that don't exist?

[joachim neander]

@The Warden:
Are "Revisionists" prone to address posters who are critical with regard to "Holocaust Revisionism" in a condescending manner?
It is not for the first time that I must remind a "Revisionist" poster to address me either with the name under which I'm posting, or politely (as we in Europe are used to do) with "Mr. ... " or, in my case, "Dr. ... "

[Moderator]

@The Warden:
Are "Revisionists" prone to address posters who are critical with regard to "Holocaust Revisionism" in a condescending manner?
It is not for the first time that I must remind a "Revisionist" poster to address me either with the name under which I'm posting, or politely (as we in Europe are used to do) with "Mr. ... " or, in my case, "Dr. ... "

One of our guidelines says:

You will address the poster only by the name that he/she uses at the Forum.

Joachim Neander, that is the name you have registered yourself under. There is no Mr. or Dr. I also see no reason that Neander cannot be used, it is the last name you use, and does shorten the keying time.
To be sure, as in most forums, there are some creative names used at this forum, and some can be lengthy. Abbreviations are in use here as are shortened versions of various names.
The point of the guideline is to prevent being called a name that you are not registered under, and particularly, not to be called a supposed real name when you have opted to use a pseudonym. Surely you aren't so sensitive that you become upset by the use of your last name 'Neander'.
I suppose we could insist upon British parliamentary language, such as 'the right honourable gentleman from _____ is wearing ladies underwear'.

Condescending language is a difficult call. We see it from all sides here, including yourself i.e.:

(as we in Europe are used to do)

Well, aren't you special.

You complained about The Warden saying:

Yet the claims the unregistered prisoners are dead

by saying:

Did I ever say that, and particularly in this thread? (Please remember the forum rules: "stick to the subject.")

However, in a reply from this thread you said to Warden:

There are only two small problems with these books:
a) They refer only to registered prisoners, i.e. to the minority of the arrivals who had been taken in and had received a prisoner number.

Which certainly implies that you believe "the unregistered prisoners are dead", which is in fact exactly what the storyline claims.

And here you go again:

... Sorry, but that's logic 101.

Very condescending, sir.

Do try to be consistent, Joachim Neander.

Moderator1