Where Specifically Do [Revisionists] Think the Reinhardt Jews Went?

[fireofice]

Curious,

So is your claim that the formation of Prussian Blue is a necessary consequence of repeated HCN exposure?

If so, you are mistaken. The delousing chamber in "Barrack X" of Dachau has no Prussian blue stains . This proves that exposure to HCN does not necessarily result in the formation of Prussian Blue.

....

That would depend on the material that is disposed. There are several conditions that lead to the formation of prussian blue. If they are not given, than formation of prussian blue is unlikely.

E.g. the conditions in the morgues of Krema II and Krema III would have been ideal for the formation of Prussian Blue, if it was used as alleged.
It is unlikely to happen with older buildings and if it isn't of the appropriate type of building material. But you can read this up in the respective literature. Only after you have done this, it can become worthwhile to debate it.

Rudolf explicitly addresses this in his book:

From the remarks of a Polish team of researchers who conducted investigations on behalf of the Auschwitz Museum, we also know that the disinfestation chamber in the Auschwitz Main Camp is stained with a blotchy blue (Markiewicz et al. 1991, 1994). To my knowledge, only the Zyklon-B-disinfestation chambers at the Buchenwald and Dachau camps (Degesch circulation chambers) exhibit no blue pigmentation, probably because first of all the walls were professionally coated with a paint impermeable to gas and water, and facilities of this type were moreover operated with heated dry air. Warm, dry walls, however, don’t tend to absorb hydrogen cyanide and to accumulate them as cyanide salts, as we shall see further below.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf pages 182-183

The walls of the supposed homicidal gas chambers on the other hand would be wet.

[Archie]

Curious,

So is your claim that the formation of Prussian Blue is a necessary consequence of repeated HCN exposure?

If so, you are mistaken. The delousing chamber in "Barrack X" of Dachau has no Prussian blue stains . This proves that exposure to HCN does not necessarily result in the formation of Prussian Blue.

....

That would depend on the material that is disposed. There are several conditions that lead to the formation of prussian blue. If they are not given, than formation of prussian blue is unlikely.

E.g. the conditions in the morgues of Krema II and Krema III would have been ideal for the formation of Prussian Blue, if it was used as alleged.
It is unlikely to happen with older buildings and if it isn't of the appropriate type of building material. But you can read this up in the respective literature. Only after you have done this, it can become worthwhile to debate it.

Rudolf explicitly addresses this in his book:

From the remarks of a Polish team of researchers who conducted investigations on behalf of the Auschwitz Museum, we also know that the disinfestation chamber in the Auschwitz Main Camp is stained with a blotchy blue (Markiewicz et al. 1991, 1994). To my knowledge, only the Zyklon-B-disinfestation chambers at the Buchenwald and Dachau camps (Degesch circulation chambers) exhibit no blue pigmentation, probably because first of all the walls were professionally coated with a paint impermeable to gas and water, and facilities of this type were moreover operated with heated dry air. Warm, dry walls, however, don’t tend to absorb hydrogen cyanide and to accumulate them as cyanide salts, as we shall see further below.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf pages 182-183

The walls of the supposed homicidal gas chambers on the other hand would be wet.

Right. The chamber walls at Dachau were coated with a special paint. The Birkenau walls were not and no one even claims this. So it's not relevant point.

It is true that there are conditions that can affect the formation of Prussian blue (PH, moisture, iron, etc). Germar Rudolf has discussed these conditions at considerable length. Greene responded but Rudolf rebutted most of his points pretty convincingly and I don't think Greene was able to answer. If Matt wants to say anything meaningful here he will need to pick things up where Greene ran out of steam.

I had the same Dachau question myself at one point.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13651&p=99662&#p99662

[Hektor]

.....

Right. The chamber walls at Dachau were coated with a special paint. The Birkenau walls were not and no one even claims this. So it's not relevant point.

It is true that there are conditions that can affect the formation of Prussian blue (PH, moisture, iron, etc). Germar Rudolf has discussed these conditions at considerable length. Greene responded but Rudolf rebutted most of his points pretty convincingly and I don't think Greene was able to answer. If Matt wants to say anything meaningful here he will need to pick things up where Greene ran out of steam.

I had the same Dachau question myself at one point.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13651&p=99662&#p99662

Richard Green first builds an argument (which is laudable, albeit I disagree with them), but when Rudolf shows the argument doesn't fly, Green gets nasty:
https://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Evasions.html

It boils down to them realising that they are caught out not having empirical evidence to support their claims, but essentially presupposing their conclusion (1 mil Jews gassed in Auschwitz) and then try to harmonize this with the empirical situation. It's the paradigm overwriting any evidence, if necessary.

It's clear that they took note of Revisionist arguments within the Holocaustian Community in the 1990s. They never admitted, but I think they realized on a more sublime level that their Auschwitz tale wasn't factual history and that the physical evidence, documents, even testimony would show this to an objective observer.
So they quickly deal with it on the Auschwitz web site:
https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/ho ... ar-rudolf/

But the emphasis on homicidal gassing is gone for good, it seems. They still will tell the story of course, but I haven't seen a lot of publishing on this for quite a while now. Rather keep the emotions going to maintain the Myth. It never was about the empirical reality anyway.... It never is, when the goal is propaganda.

[HistorySpeaks]

I am no expert on the conditions in which HCN exposure causes the formation of Prussian Blue. But clearly the fact that repeated exposure to HCN does NOT necessarily result in this (as is shown by Dachau and apparently also—according to Rudolf—Buchenwald delousing chambers) undermines the revisionist arguments in this regard. It becomes a conditional argument rather than a straightforward one; and we don't exactly know what the relevant conditions for the formation f Prussian Blue are.

One important difference between the homicidal gas chambers and the delousing chambers is the fact that the former were hosed down by the Sonderkommando after gassings. (We have good Sonderkommando testimony for this practice regarding kremas II and III at least; Filip Müller testifies to this practice regarding Krema V, but Mattogno, argued that his book is partially plagiarized, so you guys likely will not accept even a peripheral citation to it.)

The practice of hosing down the cremas after gassing matters tremendously because HCN is water soluble.

[Hektor]

I am no expert on the conditions in which HCN exposure causes the formation of Prussian Blue in brick and mortar. But clearly the fact that repeated exposure to HCN does NOT necessarily result in this (as is shown by Dachau and apparently also - according to Rudolf - Buchenwald delousing chambers) undermines the revisionist arguments in this regard. It becomes a conditional argument rather than a straightforward one; and we don't exactly know what the relevant conditions for the formation f Prussian Blue are.

The ph-Value within mortar or concrete matters. The ph is higher in fresher, younger buildings than in older ones. So it is likely to form in younger buildings (or freshly restored ones) than in older ones.

Formation of prussian blue indicates exposure to HCN.
No formation, no proof the building was exposed. Plain and simple.
The conditions with the Krema-Morgues was that those were new buildings. Hence prussian blue formation was likely, especially when used as alleged.

One important difference between the homicidal gas chambers and the delousing chambers is the fact that the former were hosed down by the Sonderkommando after gassings. (We have good Sonderkommando testimony for this practice regarding kremas II and III at least; Filip Müller testifies to this practice regarding Krema V, but Mattogno, to my mind persuasively, argued that his book is partially plagiarized, so you guys likely will not accept even a peripheral citation to it.)
The practice of hosing down the cremas after gassing matters tremendously because HCN is water soluble.

You assume that the 'Sonderkmommando'-testimony was truthful. There is no reason to simply assume that. In fact all the characters presented as witnesses in this regard... were noticeably pathological liars. One can review them making testimony in Lanzmann's Shockumentary Shoah. But people are apparently so shocked by what they are telling, they don't notice what they are dealing with there.

And yes, there is a probability of cross-pollination between the witnesses. They virtually all members of former concentration camp inmates and on meetings will share their stories. There may also be a presence of psychologists that manage those encounters... Ultimately it boils down to witness coaching. And virtually most of the longer testimony for 'Holocaust'-related trials appear as if the witnesses were coached rather intensively. I'm mostly familiar with the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in this regard. And I can listen to the testimonies in German, while the other language testimonies have interpreters.

Most of the cast of characters was present at that trial. There is vast amounts of hours of testimony, most dealing with the background. So it's a piece of work to listen with attention there. In toto the narrative assumed by the court is 'not believable', they still based guilty verdicts of it. But interestingly most of that was based on alleged actions by the guards and Kapos that they undertook privately and where not ordered or even allowed to do by the administration at the time. There were of cause political reasons for having that trial and having guilty verdicts. The nature of the evidence was of such a kind, that the case would have been dismissed. But, if the German prosecutors would have done that, there would have been a huge scandal at the time. And that's what the government wanted to prevent at all cost. They wanted to appear as 'dealing with the past' as that was what occupational powers wanted as well. There was also a number of GDR witnesses, all hardened Communists. One was even a minister for Industry. Funny enough, they were interned as Jews AND Communist AND considered criminals, yet none of them was gassed even once. In fact they got medical treatment at the German taxpayers expense while being in Auschwitz. One said he was taken elsewhere to work after being there.

The vast majority of the testimony doesn't have anything to do with homicidal gassings. It is circumstantial at best. In total it was rather meager. But most people know the summary of the verdicts at best. And of course they believe that a German court would have worked efficiently and reliably with the matter, which adds to the credence in their minds.

[HistorySpeaks]

One note I should make: while Mattogno does persuasively show that the book attributed to Müller was plagiarized, it is not at all clear that Müller is responsible for this plagiarism. It could have been his German translator, as an HC article on this matter argues: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... -book.html

Hence I have edited my original post to remove the plagiarism charge against Müller , since I do not believe that has been shown. We can agree however that the book is a highly dubious source.

Nevertheless, and to get us back on point, we have strong testimonial evidence that Kremas II and III were hosed down.

[HistorySpeaks]

One note I should make: while Mattogno does persuasively show that the book attributed to Müller was plagiarized, he has not proven that Müller is responsible for this plagiarism. It could have been his German translator, as an HC article on this matter argues: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... -book.html

Hence I have edited my original post to remove my endorsement of Mattogno's plagiarism charge against Müller , since I do not believe that he has proven this. We can agree however that Mattogno has shown this book to be a highly dubious source. That and not aspirations about Müller's character is what matters.

Nevertheless, and to get us back on point, we have strong testimonial evidence that Kremas II and III were hosed down.

[Whodunnit?]

Where Specifically Do Exterminationists Think the Eastern Ethnic Germans Went?

Warning: Any failure to provide the specific postwar addresses and phone numbers of the 12-15 million displaced Volksdeutsche proves the extermination of six million of them during the germanophobic expulsion of WWII.

Are we supposed to believe that the Soviets were dumb enough or careless enough or truth-loving enough to provide or even archive German documents debunking their own atrocity propaganda on the German occupation of Eastern Europe during "The Great Patriotic War"? Are we supposed to believe that the Soviets couldn't do what the Israelis did with the memory of Palestine's natives?

This is a great answer to a question that in my opinion is either naive or tries to take advantage of the audience's naivity. This question is like asking for a smoking gun after someone has been acquitted of a murder charge. It is self-explanatory that if someone tries to get away with murder, he gets rid of the evidence. If the Holocaust is fake, then the fakers have to be the Soviet-, US- and UK-governments. Arguments that make it look like "the jews fooled Stalin", or that this is a result of accounting errors and other coincidences, are IMO not credible. No, this is would be an operation much too large for anybody else but states that had just conquered a shell-shocked world.

If someone asks for a motive, then in my opinion it should start with refering to Hitler's testament:

"They shall continue the struggle, against the enemies of the fatherland, faithful to the great Von Clausewitz. In one manner or another in the course of history, the seeds for a bright resurrection of the National Socialist movement and for the realization of a true community of the people will grow out of the sacrifice of our soldiers and out of my solidarity with them in death"

So Hitler thought that a nation will survive any physical destruction if the people keep their pride. This had to be prevented. It's an old maxim of colonialism that if you want to rule over a foreign people, you have to break their pride and turn your subjects against each other. Only proud and confident people want to be their own masters, and only united people can muster a defense. So in my opinion, the main motives would be 1) Reeducate all Germans, and turn them from a stubborn people that always wanted to go their "Sonderweg", their own way, into what they are today - a broken people who are no threat to anybody, and for the sake of believing that they were liberated persecute their own compatriots in case they threaten this stabilizing belief, 2) cut all positive memory to fascism or national socialism in all Europeans, so that Hitler's prediction doesn't come true, and of course 3) create the "good war"-narrative, which overshadows the allied atrocities, and forbids to question the post-war regime. One must asssume that on the part of some actors, like the Polish, there was also some vindictiveness to it.

Eventually, it's importance for the legitimacy of the post-war political order increased so much that a point was reached where it can't run without it. This wasn't intended from the start. A lot of those responsible probably thought that they will do this for a generation until the Germans are pacified and everybody has calmed down.

Now whether this is true or not, Keith Woods recently made a twitter-thread about how the narrative got legs:
https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status ... 1886909441

As I have pointed out several times, this lead to a stupidification of politics, and more and more people are getting weary of it. If this would be true, the smoking gun-question would be self-explanatory

[fireofice]

As if we've never heard the "the walls were hosed down" argument before. Again, from Rudolf's book:

Furthermore, the opinion is occasionally expressed that the homicidal gas chamber was hosed down with water after every gassing. This assertion forgets that it would have taken many hours before the “gas chamber” could have been cleared of bodies (they had to be cremated, which is time-consuming and lasts many days, after all), that the hydrogen cyanide does not merely sit on the surface of the wall, but rather, due to its extremely high diffusion capacity, penetrates deeply into the wall within a few hours, and that a water hose would be of no assistance in this regard, quite apart from the fact that such an action would have had the effect of causing the consequently wet walls to adsorb even more hydrogen cyanide during the next hypothetical gassing. In addition, the samples taken from the ceiling, which was certainly not hosed down, likewise show no reproducible cyanide concentrations.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf page 360

Also see:
viewtopic.php?t=4600
viewtopic.php?t=3706

[Hektor]

....

This is a great answer to a question that in my opinion is either naive or tries to take advantage of the audience's naivity. This question is like asking for a smoking gun after someone has been acquitted of a murder charge. It is self-explanatory that if someone tries to get away with murder, he gets rid of the evidence. If the Holocaust is fake, then the fakers have to be the Soviet-, US- and UK-governments. Arguments that make it look like "the jews fooled Stalin", or that this is a result of accounting errors and other coincidences, are IMO not credible. No, this is would be an operation much too large for anybody else but states that had just conquered a shell-shocked world.
....

That's the beautiful thing with fictitious, monstrous accusations where it is assume that the 'accused made all the evidence vanish'. You can repeat them over and over again.... And people assume that 'even if the figures are to high' that at least 'a smaller figure will be true'... And even if one accusation doesn't fly, simply make up new ones... this gets you around double jeopardy.
And the aim isn't 'justice' anyway, but to keep accusation circulating in the media and the awareness of people.

The governments involved had all propagandistic motives to frame the Germans with atrocities. And the situation during the last month of WW2 was actually ideal to catch snippets that could be used for atrocity propaganda. And they did of course do so... In there enthusiasm they however forgot that people could find out that what was on the footage were actually victims of their own atrocious warfare methods prior to this. But if they keep up the initiative, people won't really question that so the myth can be perpetuated. And any author exposing the swindle, will be a "Nazi that wants to gass six million Jews".... That way it is a closed loop system that relies on circular reasoning. The routine looking like this:
* Assertion "The Nazis committed unique atrocities".
* Conclusion "The Nazis are uniquely evil".
* If somebody doesn't believe this he must be a Nazi sympathizer and is evil is well.
* Evil people will lie to deceive us enlightened folks.
* Hence the story must be true, because no honest, serious historian ever questioned it.


Allied governments got a justification for there mode of warfare and also for engaging in it for so long. This spared them being questioned by their own populations and cemented the then present elites in power. Communists used it as a way to discredit their enemies, since NS was virulently anti-communistic. Jewish organizations used it to push Zionism, cash in in compensation, and also control their own rank and file with that scare narrative.

There is various other beneficiaries from this. And there are various actors busy pushing the narrative. A whole Holocaust Industry had been established. Full of charlatans that were able to make great careers out of it. It is also mostly corporately organized, which helps to make everything look legit, if somebody is asking.

Too look through it a good grasp on logic and rather broad background knowledge is necessary, which few people do have. And some may only have stumbled about it and realised that something is odd with the narrative. So via mass distribution and mass indoctrination the narrative can be kept afloat for a longer period... Once it fails, the thing will be 'old news anyway'... Virtually nobody will care. And those ripped off, can't fight back anyway, since their own governments were part of the scam often without even realizing this.

[HistorySpeaks]

I am going to try to bring us back on track to the OP and talk a bit about resettlement and how the two major potential destinations in the occupied USSR can be briskly rule out as destinations of resettlement for the Reinhardt Jews.

The two major administrative regions of the occupied USSR were the Reichskommissariat Ostland, or RKO; and the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, or RKU. Neither could have been the receptacle of the 1.4 million Reinhardt Jews.

We know that only 72,000 Jews were in RKO as of July 1943 (this figure was confirmed by Gauleiter Meyer in a Conference on a conference of the East Ministry from 13 July 1943).

As to RKU, Hitler stated in a meeting with Keitel and Zeitzler on June 1943 that (quoting Erich Koch, the head of RKU) "the Jews are all gone" from Ukraine.

Also concerning RKU, the journalist Dr Hans-Joachim Kausch reported, following a two-week tour of RKU in June 1943, that substantially all of the 1.1 million Jews of RKU had been "liquidated without remainder." Kausch further remarked that he only encountered four Jews—all tailors in a penal camp of the SD—in his tour of the RKU.

The sources for my claims in the preceding paragraph are as follows:

72,000 Jews in RKO as of July 1943 is from NO-1831 in NMT XIII, p. 1016, and I found it cited in the HC Whitepaper on Aktion Reinhardt, p. 262. See http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... caust.html
I found Hitler's quote to Keitel and Zeitzler on p. 266 of the HC White Paper.
Kausch's report can be found in Max Weinrich's book Hitler's Professors (1999), pp. 165-66.

I should note that Kausch's figure of 1.1 million killed is an overestimate, although not by too much.

[fireofice]

As to RKU, Hitler stated in a meeting with Keitel and Zeitzler on June 1943 that (quoting Erich Koch, the head of RKU) "the Jews are all gone" from Ukraine.

The full quote:

“He said: Here, I lose 500,000 Jews. I must take them away, because the Jews are the element of revolt. But in my area, actually, the Jews were the only tradesmen. Now they want to set up high schools and grammar schools, thereby building here, a national Ukrainian state, that should in the future, fight against Russia. I am not even in a position to have the worker, who must work here, have his boots repaired. I can’t do that because the tradesmen are no longer here. The Jews are all gone. What is more important, that I train the Ukrainians how to mend boots, or that I send them high schools so that they can build up the Ukrainian state?”

Mattogno comments:

The sentence “The Jews are all gone” stands in contrast with the need to “take away” the Jews, who were evidently still present. Moreover, the language is not that of extermination.

So we can safely disregard any documentation about how any areas are "free of Jews". This is clear evidence that Nazis were exaggerating the number of Jews they were deporting out of Europe. And this can also be applied to the "1.4 million Jews" that were supposedly deported out too. We can't even be sure if that many were deported at all. Here's a previous thread I posted making the same point:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14517

Auschwitz is similar in this regard. I find it absolutely implausible that 400,000 Hungarian Jews were deported there. Other revisionists disagree, but I find Arthur Butz makes an excellent case for that in his book "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century". He thinks the Auschwitz deportation documents have thus been forged. I'm not completely convinced of that, it could just as well be authentic yet incorrect and exaggerated. Regardless, it's still more plausible than the extermination story. Here's an article where he argues further for that position, which I find completely convincing:

https://codoh.com/library/document/on-t ... n-jews/en/

And it's a bit hypocritical of you to accept "1.4 million Jews deported" based on Nazi documents, but then reject what they say about what actually happened, which was deportations to the east alive.

In a speech in Bad Tölz, before SS-Junkers on November 23, 1942, Himmler said:

“The Jewish question in Europe has also completely changed. In a Reichstag speech the Führer once said: Should Jewry instigate an international war to the extermination of the Aryan peoples, then it is not the Aryan peoples who will be exterminated but Jewry. The Jew is evacuated from Germany; today he lives in the east and works on our roads, railroads, and so on. This process has been carried out consistently, but without cruelty.”

On November 18, 1943, in a speech given in Krakow before SS leaders and officials of the General Gouvernement, Himmler spoke of:

“[…] these 16 million foreign peoples, whose numbers were once made even larger by an enormous number of Jews, who of course now have emigrated or been brought to the east. […]”

On December 16, 1943, in a speech in Weimar given before the commanders of the Kriegsmarine (German navy), Himmler maintained that:

“Such and so many Jews were brought to the east. Migrations of peoples that we have given great names to in history have taken place at this breakneck speed. […]”

Treblinka—Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? by Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf pages 255 & 256

This lines up with what the "Final Solution" is said to be:

March 1942:
"...The Fuehrer has repeatedly declared to him [Lammers] that he wants to see the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until after the war."

August 21, 1942:
"The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much.

https://codoh.com/library/document/hitl ... luther/en/

So according to this, even by August 1942, the Final Solution was evacuating Jews out of Europe alive. We know this because it is called "unalterable" even at that time. If he changed his mind at that point, he wouldn't have called it "unalterable" without leaving the caveat that it has indeed been altered. Yet the orthodox story is that the Final Solution was killing all Jews. This is proven false by this document.

If you don't accept these documents which utterly disprove your holocaust position, then you have no basis to say any Jews were killed just by looking at deportation documents or how many Jews were in certain areas.

Also concerning RKU, the journalist Dr Hans-Joachim Kausch reported, following a two-week tour of RKU in June 1943, that substantially all of the 1.1 million Jews of RKU had been "liquidated without remainder." Kausch further remarked that he only encountered four Jews—all tailors in a penal camp of the SD—in his tour of the RKU.

Yeah I'm sure Jews would just be willing to completely out themselves in public under an anti-Semitic regime.

[HistorySpeaks]

Fire -

Obviously a big "traditionalist" contention is that 'evacuation to the East', 'transportation to the east' 'resettlement of Jews' and similar language were (like Sonderbehandlung) euphemisms for killing Jews.

We're not saying these were euphemisms in every instance (like Sonderbehandlung, there are cases where these term was used non-euphemistically and non-homicidally). But from the Einsatzgruppen Reports to the First Posen speech, there are numerous instances where 'resettlement in the east' or 'evacuation to the east' are blatant euphemisms for murder.

Don't forget that Korherr only referred to resettlement as a euphemism for Sonderbehandlung (the main Nazi code word for killing) in his report. The first draft of the Korherr Report did not mention the Reinhardt Jews having left europe via resettlement, but mentioned them having left europe by being subject to special treatment. After he wrote this draft Korherr was instructed to euphemize "special treatment" to 'transported . . . to the RUssian East.'

[Hektor]

If a word is used a thousand times you will occasionally find that it is used in a way that deviates from the normal meaning.

With Evacuation and Sonderbehandlung this is possible as well. But just because something is possible doesn't mean it is the case.

Evacuation and Resettlement are what documentation is full of. Naturally exterminationists would like to have it be the codeword as to have documentary evidence for the Holocaust. That's why they push that line. I mean those historians working with documents will probably know that the documentary evidence for 'the Holocaust' isn't overwhelmingly. Now they can see that there were policies with regards to Jews no doubt. They also can credibly claim that some Jews were killed/died. But what they can't do is demonstrate documentary evidence that proves the extermination program. So it's convenient to say that common words have some sinister meaning. But there is an issue with this. If there was a 'code language'. all codewords should always mean the same so those involved would would all know how to use and read it.

But when there are instances when the word meant what it says, the codeword conspiracy theory implodes.

[HistorySpeaks]

Obviously, if a word (be it "special treatment" "evacuation" or "resettlement") is sometimes used euphemistically and other times literally, we have to look into the particular context of a usage.

In terms of Korherr's claim that the Jews were 'transported to the Russian East,' the problem is that we have zero evidence (train records, infrastructure, economic activity, food imports, etc) of Reinhardt camp Jews being resettled. And as I noted, the demographic information we have from RKU and RKO rule out those two main administrative regions as resetlement destinations for the 1.4 million.

At a more basic level, Korherr's claim makes no sense; his report is about the reduction in the JEwish population of Europe, and the Germans never controlled any Asian territory of the USSR. (the North Caucasus is in Eastern Europe, and the Germans considered the Urals as the border between Asia and Europe.) Unless we want to believe that the Germans snuck across (or got permission to cross) the front to drop off 1.4 million Jews in Siberia?