The Jews Went to Work? Organization Todt

[SanityCheck]

The Nazi leadership were no different to the Bolsheviks, shaped by the First World War and political violence afterwards.

Except the Bolsheviks (Jews, primarily) sought global conquest and the removal of all national borders whereas Germany sought independence and respect for national borders. Bolshevism led to some of the greatest misery for its citizens in history, whereas Germany brought about one of the most prosperous economic turnarounds of all time. One built its structures to align total subservience to the state (and ultimately to Jewry), the other advocated "strength through joy" and upheld its promises to its people.

Oh, ultra-nationalists and fascists are indeed just the same as communists for thinking political violence is an acceptable means of solving political, social and economic problems. Anti-communists have been no slouches at slaughter, either, just look at Indonesia in 1965-6.

They are not the same. And given the threat to societies today is far more on the Bolshevism/Jewry side of things, you might want to reconsider your allocation of sympathy. This is not a slippery slope to harming Jewish people (which I think most here including myself have not advocated); it's a wake-up call that a supremacist cult seizing institutions globally (or tacitly enabling those within their tribe who do this) is not your friend, 'Holocaust' or not.

Totalitarian assholes from anywhere on the political spectrum are totalitarian assholes.

[Callafangers]

Totalitarian assholes from anywhere on the political spectrum are totalitarian assholes.

Yes, being "assholes" is always a problem, no doubt. But lacking context can certainly make anyone look like an asshole.

Hypothetically, if Germany had a parasitic cult infiltrating its institutions and turning the nation against its people, what would that look like? And is there a "nice" way to solve this problem? How would that look, if not exactly like 1930s Germany (facilitating expulsions, limited exclusion from private sector and public life, international appeals, etc.)?

Do you suppose it is mere coincidence that the violence in Germany and its territories (against Jews, etc.) escalated only as the threat of violence and actions thereof ramped up against the German people (largely due to international Jewry's efforts to increase pressure upon Germany)?

All of this is a detour from the main topic of the thread, of course, so I think we'll avoid much of a deep dive here, but I am genuinely curious to know your take on this.

[EDIT: Perhaps best continued here: viewtopic.php?t=144 ]

[bombsaway]

You were trying to interpret GG as not being in Europe because then you could argue the Jews never left its geographic vicinity it seems. Just crazy given how unambiguous Korherr is when describing the population drop. They were in Europe, and then they weren't.

He describes how they left, bombsaway, and in this description, he indicates this as their being "sifted through the camps in the GG". How they left is that they are being sifted through the camps in the GG.

So the idea is that the GG is Europe (you were mistaken to say otherwise) but those camps aren't, or since they're in the process of being moved out, they are counted as outgoing no matter how many are still actually in the GG?

Ok this is an argument I can follow, though still unevidenced. With the not in Europe thing I totally lost you.

[Stubble]

I don't walk away from Dr SC posts laughing my ass off.

I take it back

If the T4 personnel could kill 100,000 pscyhiatric patients and KZ inmates in Germany and Austria, then the T4 personnel transferred to the GG together with hundreds of Trawnikis could kill 1.5 million Jews.

This is a blatantly ridiculous statement.

It really isn't, since the two operations were only one order of magnitude apart. If T4 had merely bumped off 633 people before part of the personnel were shipped to Poland to kill 1.5 million, that would be several orders of magnitude apart.

The Third Reich presided over the deaths of around 2 million Soviet POWs up to spring 1942, so basically the start of what became Aktion Reinhardt. 10s of 1000s were killed as commissars, thousands by the frontline troops, thousands more in the rear, 35,000 in concentration camps - so-called Aktion 14 f 14, paralleling and overlapping with Aktion 14 f 13.

250,000 of those Soviet POWs died in the Government-General by April 1942. Up to July 1942, 80,000 Jews had died in the Warsaw ghetto; starvation in the POW camps was worse, it killed a larger proportion.

Arad doesn't count more than 200,000 killed in Belzec and Sobibor in the first half of 1942. That, too, set a precedent for the second half of 1942 when a million were deported.

As I keep on stressing, a pure expulsion would have resulted in potentially as many fatalities from starvation and exposure as died in the camps, since there's no evidence of food being available for such a mass of people on the arrival end.

If they had experience gassing people from t4, why did they reinvent the wheel 3 separate times Sir?

These people were not 'masters of death' 'hardened in the crucible of t4'. They were cooks and truck drivers and stuff.

[Stubble]

I disagree with 10%, you are lowballing the capacity of the graves as a cope.

What is a 'hard' number here.

[...]
If you think 90% passed through then some evidence beyond the exceptions noted above is really, really needed.
[...]

Agreed. Hence I'm looking to solve 'where'd they go'.

So far as the water as a murder weapon, how much do you know about pump technology from the 30's and 40's? The room could have been filled or emptied in about 60 seconds and time to death is around 7 minutes tops.

I take your point though, and exploring this particular in this already otherwise morbid subject is not the best use of our time. I stand by my point however, it would be rather cavalier to homicidally gas people with hydrogen cyanide gas in an occupied building. The prospect is not just dangerous for the condemned, but also the staff. Hydrogen cyanide gas is not something that is just super safe to work with and ventilation size and times for safe operation far exceed what was available in the morgues.

[bombsaway]

What is a 'hard' number here.

[...]
If you think 90% passed through then some evidence beyond the exceptions noted above is really, really needed.
[...]

Agreed. Hence I'm looking to solve 'where'd they go'.

What if after 20, 30 years of diligent search no such evidence is forthcoming?

[Callafangers]

What is a 'hard' number here.

[...]
If you think 90% passed through then some evidence beyond the exceptions noted above is really, really needed.
[...]

Agreed. Hence I'm looking to solve 'where'd they go'.

Putting aside for a moment whether the evidence is indeed still "out there", let me ask the following:

• Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the motive to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?
• Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the means (as global superpower networks) to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?
• Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the opportunity to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?
• If yes to the above, is there evidence of the victorious powers (with their networks) ever acting in alignment with these motives, means, and opportunity?

If motive, means, opportunity and a pattern of action isn't enough to validate an interpretation that global superpowers have implemented a campaign of evidence destruction and fabrication to shape and redefine national affinities post-war, I'm really not sure what is.

If such a campaign has taken place, it makes perfect sense that certain evidence (e.g. Jewish movement, locations) should be missing from available records. It would be very strange for such records to be located at all, in such a scenario.

[Stubble]

[...]
If you think 90% passed through then some evidence beyond the exceptions noted above is really, really needed.
[...]

Agreed. Hence I'm looking to solve 'where'd they go'.

Putting aside for a moment whether the evidence is indeed still "out there", let me ask the following:

• Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the motive to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?
• Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the means (as global superpower networks) to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?
• Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the opportunity to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?
• If yes to the above, is there evidence of the victorious powers (with their networks) ever acting in alignment with these motives, means, and opportunity?

If motive, means, opportunity and a pattern of action isn't enough to validate an interpretation that global superpowers have implemented a campaign of evidence destruction and fabrication to shape and redefine national affinities post-war, I'm really not sure what is.

If such a campaign has taken place, it makes perfect sense that certain evidence (e.g. Jewish movement, locations) should be missing from available records. It would be very strange for such records to be located at all, in such a scenario.

I'm optimistic.

Either way, there is insufficient grave space.

[Callafangers]

I'm optimistic.

Either way, there is insufficient grave space.

Agreed and acknowledged, I do appreciate that you're finding the time and willing to make the effort (I probably would have made a career out of it by now, if ever feasible). I mainly just wanted to break it down for others (and any visitors) who might not have asked those questions.

[Nessie]

... let me ask the following:

• Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the motive to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?

No, since every European country carried at least some blame or contribution, from the British cutting off ways Jews could escape, to Lithuanians killing them. Have you been anywhere in Europe? Tucked away in museums that cover WWII, and histories about the country during the war, there are acknowledgements of its involvement in the Holocaust. Every country carries some form of shame or responsibility. Why would they accept that, if it was a hoax? What is the benefit of that, to them?

You clearly have an ignorant, so-called revisionist simplistic belief, that only Germany was involved in the Holocaust.

[*] Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the means (as global superpower networks) to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?

[*] Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the opportunity to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?

They had neither the means, the opportunity nor the motive to hide millions of liberated Jews and pretend the Nazis had murdered them.

[*] If yes to the above, is there evidence of the victorious powers (with their networks) ever acting in alignment with these motives, means, and opportunity?[/list]

All of Europe was in denial about their various roles in the Holocaust and their contributions to the deaths of their citizens. That was the main reason why the Holocaust was not big news until decades after the war. There is no evidence that nations cooperated, during the Cold War, to further a hoax that was a source of shame to them.

If motive, means, opportunity and a pattern of action isn't enough to validate an interpretation that global superpowers have implemented a campaign of evidence destruction and fabrication to shape and redefine national affinities post-war, I'm really not sure what is.

If such a campaign has taken place, it makes perfect sense that certain evidence (e.g. Jewish movement, locations) should be missing from available records. It would be very strange for such records to be located at all, in such a scenario.

You think like a conspiracist, desperate to find a conspiracy. Your desperation is so great, you suspend the need for evidence, for yourself, not anyone else and claim a hoax that would be far harder to pull off, than the murder of millions of Jews, by the Nazis, with A LOT of cooperation from the rest of Europe.

[Callafangers]

No, since every European country carried at least some blame or contribution, from the British cutting off ways Jews could escape, to Lithuanians killing them. Have you been anywhere in Europe? Tucked away in museums that cover WWII, and histories about the country during the war, there are acknowledgements of its involvement in the Holocaust. Every country carries some form of shame or responsibility. Why would they accept that, if it was a hoax? What is the benefit of that, to them?

You clearly have an ignorant, so-called revisionist simplistic belief, that only Germany was involved in the Holocaust.

Oh, that's a convenient interpretation, Nessie, reminding us that we must ALL bow to Jews -- not just Germany.

They had neither the means, the opportunity nor the motive to hide millions of liberated Jews and pretend the Nazis had murdered them.

Uhh, yes they did. Germany had Jews under their control, not Allies generally, so to portray Germany as a 'special evil' required portraying excesses specifically against Jews.

All of Europe was in denial about their various roles in the Holocaust and their contributions to the deaths of their citizens. That was the main reason why the Holocaust was not big news until decades after the war. There is no evidence that nations cooperated, during the Cold War, to further a hoax that was a source of shame to them.

It was "not big news" because it was bogus and Jewish-Hollywood had not yet effectively traumatized its audiences with enough hogwash and propaganda.

You think like a conspiracist, desperate to find a conspiracy. Your desperation is so great, you suspend the need for evidence, for yourself, not anyone else and claim a hoax that would be far harder to pull off, than the murder of millions of Jews, by the Nazis, with A LOT of cooperation from the rest of Europe.

You seem to forget that the 'Holocaust' is clearly the 'conspiracy theory' between us, as made abundantly clear on this thread based on the rule set of a neutral, well-respected scientist and philosopher: viewtopic.php?t=308

[Nessie]

No, since every European country carried at least some blame or contribution, from the British cutting off ways Jews could escape, to Lithuanians killing them. Have you been anywhere in Europe? Tucked away in museums that cover WWII, and histories about the country during the war, there are acknowledgements of its involvement in the Holocaust. Every country carries some form of shame or responsibility. Why would they accept that, if it was a hoax? What is the benefit of that, to them?

You clearly have an ignorant, so-called revisionist simplistic belief, that only Germany was involved in the Holocaust.

Oh, that's a convenient interpretation, Nessie, reminding us that we must ALL bow to Jews -- not just Germany.

It is not an "interpretation". It is evidenced that the Nazis received a lot of assistance in pretty much every country they occupied or were aligned to. That makes your claim they have all combined to conspire to make themselves also complicit in the Holocaust all the more incredible.

They had neither the means, the opportunity nor the motive to hide millions of liberated Jews and pretend the Nazis had murdered them.

Uhh, yes they did. Germany had Jews under their control, not Allies generally, so to portray Germany as a 'special evil' required portraying excesses specifically against Jews.

Europe had collapsed in 1945. Nations did not have enough food for themselves, and they did not have the resources to hide millions of Jews. Germany had no motive to support the Holocaust.

All of Europe was in denial about their various roles in the Holocaust and their contributions to the deaths of their citizens. That was the main reason why the Holocaust was not big news until decades after the war. There is no evidence that nations cooperated, during the Cold War, to further a hoax that was a source of shame to them.

It was "not big news" because it was bogus and Jewish-Hollywood had not yet effectively traumatized its audiences with enough hogwash and propaganda.

No, it was because many people did not want to acknowledge their support and cooperation, or failure to prevent.

You think like a conspiracist, desperate to find a conspiracy. Your desperation is so great, you suspend the need for evidence, for yourself, not anyone else and claim a hoax that would be far harder to pull off, than the murder of millions of Jews, by the Nazis, with A LOT of cooperation from the rest of Europe.

You seem to forget that the 'Holocaust' is clearly the 'conspiracy theory' between us, as made abundantly clear on this thread based on the rule set of a neutral, well-respected scientist and philosopher: viewtopic.php?t=308

No Holocaust denial is the bogus conspiracy. The Nazis did conspire, with many others, all across Europe, to murder Jews.

[HansHill]

It really isn't, since the two operations were only one order of magnitude apart. If T4 had merely bumped off 633 people before part of the personnel were shipped to Poland to kill 1.5 million, that would be several orders of magnitude apart.

The Third Reich presided over the deaths of around 2 million Soviet POWs up to spring 1942, so basically the start of what became Aktion Reinhardt. 10s of 1000s were killed as commissars, thousands by the frontline troops, thousands more in the rear, 35,000 in concentration camps - so-called Aktion 14 f 14, paralleling and overlapping with Aktion 14 f 13.

250,000 of those Soviet POWs died in the Government-General by April 1942. Up to July 1942, 80,000 Jews had died in the Warsaw ghetto; starvation in the POW camps was worse, it killed a larger proportion.

Arad doesn't count more than 200,000 killed in Belzec and Sobibor in the first half of 1942. That, too, set a precedent for the second half of 1942 when a million were deported.

As I keep on stressing, a pure expulsion would have resulted in potentially as many fatalities from starvation and exposure as died in the camps, since there's no evidence of food being available for such a mass of people on the arrival end.

You seem to be banking on a sort of "scalable efficiency" argument - and inheritence of operational and procedural know-how and elbow grease from A-T4 -> AR allowed the AR camps to somersault their way to the arcade machine high score.

Except you are ignoring an entire array of differences between the two operations, rendering this as nothing but a non-sequitur. The alleged killing methods were completely different (functionally speaking), along with the equipment involved, the logistics, the turnaround / timelines, throughput, the target victims along with expected demeanor and discretion levels, use of constraints / deception - and all of this is before even mentioning the disposal methods, and in the case of AR the re-disposal and re-re-disposal methods.

I'll be fair to you and say you haven't completely ignored scale since you mentioned it in passing, but somehow that's even worse, because you've breezed completely past the challenging part by stating "oh well it's only one measly order of magnitude" (!!)

You're a smart chap so I'll save you the embarrassment of me having to remind you that achieving an instantaneous 10x in any complex industrial or military operation on an international scale like this, is anything but trivial and certainly not taken for granted.

And so no, it's a complete non-sequitur for all these reasons, before even mentioning, as Stubble has told you on the merits of the staff members alone, which looks a lot more like competent staff being shuffled around a theater of operations than what you are suggesting. Any scalable efficiencies inherited from one operation to the other would be of the expected kind, that is, the kind of which a staff force tend to accrue moving from role to role in the course of their career.

In fact i think CSC found a few of these bad boys on the course of her digs at Treblinka:

[HansHill]

Totalitarian assholes from anywhere on the political spectrum are totalitarian assholes.

Did i accidentally log into Reddit? What even is this?

[SanityCheck]

Putting aside for a moment whether the evidence is indeed still "out there", let me ask the following:

• Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the motive to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?
• Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the means (as global superpower networks) to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?
• Did the victorious powers and their networks in general have the opportunity to portray a 'Holocaust' (and accompanying Jewish disappearances) post-war?
• If yes to the above, is there evidence of the victorious powers (with their networks) ever acting in alignment with these motives, means, and opportunity?

If motive, means, opportunity and a pattern of action isn't enough to validate an interpretation that global superpowers have implemented a campaign of evidence destruction and fabrication to shape and redefine national affinities post-war, I'm really not sure what is.

If such a campaign has taken place, it makes perfect sense that certain evidence (e.g. Jewish movement, locations) should be missing from available records. It would be very strange for such records to be located at all, in such a scenario.

I think you're working backwards from your desired conclusion, and also projecting your present attitudes onto the past.