Bob wrote:Not settled, already pointed out, scroll back.
I guess once I read the Nov. 16 report, I'll know for sure.
Bob wrote:Yes, and then follows a list in which you can see that only Wolfsschanze worked as FHQ in that period. Using logic, is clear that FHQ cleraly meant one specific place otherwise how could you deliver the document if FHQ could meant number of places? I see no problem, I still do not understand your irrelevant comments about Wolfsschanze and where was Bormann when the main issue is the reports were delivered to Hitler so I will not waste more time by addressing if Bormann was at Berlin or Wolfsschanze, that´s just irrelevant.
It isn't irrelevant. Depending on the content of the Nov. 16 report, the rate at which such a report would go from Prague to Berlin (if that's where Bormann was -- this was, after all, where his office was) to Wolfsschanze (if that's where Hitler was the entirety of the period from Nov. 16 to Nov. 30), and any other matters to arise between Hitler and Heydrich in the interim, whether Hitler could even be responding to the Nov. 16 report by Nov. 30 is up in the air.
See above. I do not dispute more places were referred to as FHQ during the entire history, my point is that one specific place was referred to as FHQ in the reports from Heydrich sent through Bormann to Hitler.
But you haven't proved that.
Information which is irrelevant to the discussed issue, reports were for Hitler, so is irrelevant if Bormann was at Berlin or at Wolfsschanze, in both cases the reports were sent to Hitler because they were for Hitler.
Where is your concrete proof that all human beings use a toilet since this is your basic assumption? I saw people not using toilets for their "needs", so you are clearly wrong. So Where is your concrete proof! No such proof? Only logical assumption? Got my point?
Yes, you're using "go to the toilet" quite literally. I wasn't.
It can be used, I am just applying logical assumption like you, assumption that like other people, Hitler et al. discussed issues with each other and did not bother to create a concrete proof for this simply because there was no reason to do it. So if a concrete proof is missing at this time, you cannot use it as a justification why to dismiss or undermine the hypothesis because there is a reasonable reason why such proof may not exist.
But there is. There is rather a large volume of documentation on administrative matters regarding virtually every area of Third Reich affairs, including for the Protekorat. You yourself posted a link to the National Archives in Prague with literally thousands of documents for the period -- and as I'm sure you're aware, the most important documents aren't even posted online yet. On top of this, we have daily phone logs and diary notes from Himmler, not to mention Bormann's diary, Hitler's appointment books, etc. People were always writing things down. That there is a significant absence of material on the topic of the autonomy of B&M between Nov. 16 and Nov. 30 is a problem for your case, like it or not.
I do not think this goes against the most evidenced case, i.e. the revisionist case. You are asking for concrete proof for every tiny bit of information for this hypothesis which is nonsensical approach, what you can expect are bits which can be put together in one picture using logical assumptions in the case which can hardly leave some proof. You are asking for proof for every tiny bit of information while you accept any unfounded claim if convenient for your case, that is my observation of your approach, so I think your approach is purely opportunistic, not serious and not honest.
Literally every word of the above approach I would apply directly to the revisionist case and very directly to the case you're making here. Every. Single. Word.
Supposed sheer volume of traces is no problem, all such traces can be explained and backed up in non criminal way or in a way having nothing to do with extermination theory.
If you read each trace in isolation, then sure you can. The problem is that no sane historian builds a case in that manner.
And as you know, where such explanation and doubts exist, then this should be in favor of accused.
Would for revisionism that history were a court case.
Still no evidence the fourth line is related to the third whereas there is evidence the line is not related at all like the previous lines, previous lines are separate topics, so logically fourth line as well
There is zero logic in your conclusion.
First, I continue to dispute the idea that the fourth line is independent given the conclusion you offer. I concede it's possible but until I'm able to examine the evidence myself, I can't possibly concede that it's definite.
Second and more importantly, the idea that the fourth line is separate from the third line because the third line is separate from the second and the second separate from the first begs the question of whether that's how Himmler himself intended the entry. It assumes that Himmler made entries in the fashion you suggest, but I proved to you with the entry on Berger and Hofmann that he clearly didn't. He made that entry the next day. It does you no favors to ignore this point.
please, do not repeat yourself as this force me to repeat too and I really hate repeating myself over and over again. The only reason why are you link them together is the word liquidierung which you find convenient for your case because for you this automatically means "kill" and because it means kill then it must refer to the third line about transport. If there was "keine Äpfel", you would not connect them together at all, merely the presence of the word liquidierung is the reason why are you doing it, the same fallacious approach used by for other words like "sonder" etc.
Apples and oranges.
You concede that "Liquidierung" can mean "killing." We know that several of the contemporaneous transports were shot -- most notably those arriving in Kaunas in the previous week. "Äpfel" holds no such connotation. Moreover, "sonder" as in "Sonderbehändlung" or "Sonderaktion" isn't used fallaciously; it's used in context. If you want to start a thread on that topic, then fine.
What we have here is begging the question ignoring there is other explanation, backed up.
I don't think you know what that term actually means.
Your theory addressed
and refuted, scroll back
It's adorable that you're so confident in your arguments.
afaik you have not presented any arguments to my points refuting your theory which does not even make sense leaving aside missing evidence.
Your inability to apply logic and to concede a point I've disproved isn't my problem.
I am not demanding like you, leaving aside missing evidence, the big problem for me is that your theory does not make sense whereas my explanation does make sense and is backed up in documents.
No, it isn't. You have zero documents indicating an ongoing conflict. You've shown none and referred to none, other than the Nov. 16 letter. You have the letter, I presume. Post it here if it says what you say it does.
I have a mound of documents on the problematic nature of the transport in question and its liquidation, not the least of which is a note on the very next day in the same source. You have nothing even remotely approaching that level of corroboration. Throw in the interrogrations of Jeckeln and Lohse while you're at it. Jeckeln was summoned by Himmler immediately and they met four days later.
My argument is not only interesting and backed up, but there is actually no counter argument although you tried really hard to complain about every tiny bit you though will help you to dismiss the hypothesis.
I haven't dismissed it. I've made it clear what I would want to see by way of proof -- some documentation of an ongoing conflict. If it's in the Nov. 16 report, then show it here.
As i said, I do not have an idea what Himmler wanted regarding the third line, there is no hint, so I will not waste time by speculating or addressing your responses to these irrelevant speculations.
If there is a more plausible explanation for the telephone note, then it's up to you to respond. Your refusal to do so is noted.
You can disagree, but the fact is the document is cited only because of this "issue", never saw it mentioned for other issue related to so called holocaust.
That's just a breathtakingly naïve remark. You clearly don't have the sheerest idea how much ink has been spilled over the transports going east from the Reich during the period under debate. It's an object lesson in how much research revisionists ignore or aren't even aware of. I took it upon myself to read the relevant pages from Angrick's Riga book; his theory is that the order on this transport actually came from Heydrich and that Hitler had nothing to do with it. So I'm sure you'd like to believe that it's settled, but it isn't. Even among the historians holding the majority view, the details aren't settled. Jesus: Even Mattogno and Butz both concede that "Liquidierung" refers to this transport.
I think I am finished with this, no more repetitions please. If I find something new, I am going to post it of course.
You can start with the content of the Nov. 16 report that supports your point of view.To summarize, you claim that there was much pending in Heydrich's planning after his Nov. 9 meeting. The only document we have in the interim between Nov. 9 and Nov. 30 is the Nov. 16 report, which you claim supports your case. I claim that the matter was settled on Nov. 9.
If you have evidence from the Nov. 16 report, then let's see it.