I missed this from Mathis aka Thames:
Thames Darwin wrote:There are two problems with your line of argument here. First, of course I'm looking for a pattern -- people don't tend to jump all over the place in their conversations, at least if they're not psychotic. Second, there is no reason to assume that the influence of Berlin in the Protektorat is going to increase by virtue of its autonomy being abolished. To allege so would be to ignore that its autonomy was a joke to begin wiith.
Thanks for accepting you are looking for patterns, I easily jumped in this game and showed the same pattern is here when it comes to the liquidation of autonomy, so using your standard, everything is fine, Berlin is there, you dodged it.
There is nothing strange when Heydrich discussed more topics, that was purpose of his reports, to inform Hitler about situation in protectorate, people regularly discuss more topics and you can´t do anything about it. His November 16 report contains TEN points dealing with various subjects. That is a fact unless you claim the report is a fake. You are again trying hard to make up a problem to have a horse to beat, really stupid problem and acc. to you all people are psychotic including you. Second, autonomy was certainly not a joke when they discussed how to reorganize it meaning a factual liquidation, there is no reason to do it if the autonomy is already a joke and non existing.
Thames Darwin wrote:No. That I didn't mention it earlier proves only that I didn't mention it earlier. The rest is your assumption, which you're welcome to, as well as your "problem," which is yours and not mine.
The rest is a reasonable conclusion based on your sudden change in tactic, it is quite obvious you used that as an ad hoc excuse when your previous argumentation failed and you have been provided with the context and background for the Himmler´s note as you wanted, but unfortunately for you this ad hoc did not help you at all.
Thames Darwin wrote:The topic was ongoing, as noted earlier in this thread, through to 1943 at least. We have agreeement from "orthodox" historiography but not from primary sources. I don't see connection or context, sorry.
We are not discussing 1943, stop dancing around the bush and admit the topic was on the table at the period which is under discussion in relation to Himmler´s phone call notes, this is what you wanted, you got it and now dodging it. Why? Because you obviously assumed there is no evidence so you felt safe when you requested it. In November the topic was on the table and richly discussed but you do not see the context, hm, ok. I do not expect your agreement since this means your fail, but unfortunately for you, others can nicely see the context and orthodox sources are in agreement with me and I am finding funny how you suddenly do not accept orthodox sources you usually treat as gospel. Your denial has been noted.
Thames Darwin wrote:If other historians use the term "liquidate," then say so. If primary sources use the term to refer to the end of autonomy for the Protektorat, then say that too.
Yes, they use, I already said it. Primary sources linked and explained too, including explanation from historians which quote these primary sources. There is not used the term "liquidierung" in the primary documents I cited in relation to our topic, I already said that and explained. What was written in length meant factual end of autonomy, liquidation, as explained. Why are you forcing me to repeat myself?
Thames Darwin wrote:Göring would only be involved on the matter of economics, which I allowed might be the case earlier in this thread. If not, then we can remove him from the discussion.
I still do not understand why are you still writing about Göring, some kind of red herring I suppose.
Thames Darwin wrote:Regarding the Gauleiters, they are introduced by Teichová, not me, but as noted by her, they would be involved in the integration of the Protektorat into the party system. Such information, as noted by Teichová, would pass through Bormann, as head of the party chancellery. There is no reason to think that Himmler somehow enters this discussion, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Remember, the point we're discussing is a phone call btw. Himmler and Heydrich.
Hitler was informed about the topic via Heydrich´s reports sent to Hitler´s private secretary Bormann and Himmler just reported Hitler´s stance on the topic when he telephoned to Heydrich from Hitler´s HQ, simple as that, do not make up problems where are no problems. In the same way as Himmler reported to Heydrich about other three lines, he reported to him about the fourth line. So like it or not, Himmler entered the discussion in the case of all FOUR lines when he called Heydrich.
Thames Darwin wrote:
Bob wrote:Leaving aside other things, here you still act as if the two lines were related which is not the case, each line = one subject.
I have not conceded that point.
And is obvious why, with this admission your whole position collapses, that is why you refuse to admit the obvious, there are no connections between the lines, each line = one subject as kindly explained to you by pictorex who provided what each line means. You have no connection between the lines, so please, stop dodging, and finally admit each line = one subject and end this issue once and for all. If you claim lines are related, show us the connection and back it up with evidence, simple as that. But since you have not provided anything like this, you obviously have nothing.
Thames Darwin wrote:
Bob wrote:And by other things I mean for instance: your argument does not make sense, at the time of allegedly existing extermination policy and alleged order, why just this one single transport of Berlin Jews should be suddenly an exception and not liquidated while all others can be liquidated if there were alleged protests against alleged extermination of Berlin Jews which allegedly caused this one transport to be not liquidated?
I am asking for the moderator's leeway to respond to a direct question.
The statement demonstrates a lack of understanding about the evolution of the policy under discussion. Certainly, by November 30, there was a policy in place for Soviet Jews. It's far less clear whether there was a policy for Reich Jews -- Gerlach says such a discussion didn't come for another two weeks or so. Beyond that, there is the question of where Reich Jews being sent east were supposed to go. This wasn't the best planned program at this point, and local SS and party leaders at the ends of the railways had some say about where the transports ended up. By and large, they went to three places: Lodz, Riga, and Minsk. In Lodz, they went into the ghetto, and most were eventually sent to Chelmno or Auschwitz. In Riga and Minsk, they also went into ghettoes and were eventually shot.
A week or two before this date, however, a transport was re-routed to Kaunas, in Lithuania, and the 5,000 Jews in the transport were shot upon arrival at the Ninth Fort (by Jäger's Einsatzkommado). This upset a lot of people, Lohse among them. Kube, in addition, was already upset about the treatment of Reich Jews in Minsk, and he complained about this point to Lohse in a separate communication (PS-3665 from Nuremberg).
The prevailing explanation for the note is currently (in Browning's 2003 book, for instance) that it was stated not to liquidate the transport in question because they were Reich Jews, tempers were hot on the Eastern Front among some of the SS and party leadership, and a final decision had yet to be made on what to do with Reich Jews once shipped east.
Please, no dodging, here is the point again and this time, try to address it with direct and clear response which solve this issue I pointed out:"And by other things I mean for instance: your argument does not make sense, at the time of allegedly existing extermination policy and alleged order, why just this one single transport of Berlin Jews should be suddenly an exception and not liquidated while all others can be liquidated if there were alleged protests against alleged extermination of Berlin Jews which allegedly caused this one transport to be not liquidated?"
Do you finally understand? Why this ONE single transport from all
transports of Reich Jews should not be liquidated whereas other transports were of no problem including any other further transports? Why one single transport was all of sudden of such problem from all these transports, why they did not said "keine liquidierung" in relation to all Berlin transports? Did you finally get it? Do you know difference between singular and plural? So what was so special about this one transport? Explanation please, evidence please, does not make sense at all. Leaving aside your premises: i.e. existence of extermination of Jews including Berlin Jews = there were protest against extermination of Berlin Jews - require proving as well before you can operate with them as with facts, otherwise = begging the question. But I kindly ignore this for the sake of the argument.
Answer please, still no explanation and I even did not pointed out all problems with your hypothesis like that extermination operation which was allegedly part of the program, including Berlin Jews, caused some subordinates to be upset since they probably missed there is an ongoing extermination operation, and these people forced Hitler and Himmler to stop it (but not all, only in relation to one transport), that sounds really absurd. One can assume that at such situation this would have been considered as a sabotage and the people in question would have been simply replaced by people who have no problem with extermination.
Thames Darwin wrote:
Bob wrote:What was so special about this one transport? Nothing of course, because the fourth line had nothing to do with the third line, the line was obviously not about a transport and that´s why your argument does not make sense like the alleged protests against alleged extermination.
You're begging the question. I haven't conceded the point of the fourth line being unrelated.
That is all very nice that you still repeat how you do not concede it, but what I expect from my opponent is to justify why, some arguments, evidence which justify this stance. Your declarative statement is devoid of any value and is purely opportunistic.
Since other lines do not represent one subject, is clear our lines are not one subject as well, hence each line = one subject, that is the only interpretation which makes sense. Your spurious accusation of fallacy is thus off, based on your denial of that obvious fact since accepting this fact means total collapse of this supposed "criminal trace" as Pressac would put it.Reminder
for you Mathis, each line = one subject, you know it and that is why you limit yourself to your declarative worthless statement since you have no arguments, just nothing, not even refutation and not even own explanation how lines are connected to each other which is an essential premise used for your unevidenced hypothesis which does not even make sense leaving aside missing evidence. Your "Berlin" connection has been addressed previously and above.