Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

[pictorex]

Regarding line three in the Himmler jottings, “Judentransport aus Berlin” this transport is clearly the one that left Berlin on the 27th of November and arrived in Riga on the 30th. It is usually asserted that all of the passengers on the said train were murdered upon arrival in Riga. Such a fate would be in complete contrast to that of the passengers on the very next transport of German Jews to Riga, which originated in Nüremberg on November 29th and arrived at its destination on December 2nd. A deportee on this train, Clothilde Lehmann, left testimony of her experiences, which were reproduced in a book published by Henry Schwab in 1992 (The Echoes that Remain):

The torturous journey took 3 days and 3 nights. Upon arrival the deportees were confined in the concentration camp Kaiserwald, located near Riga, as well as the KZ camps Spilwe and Jungfernhof, as well as the Riga Ghetto. They performed hard labor in forests, construction and other projects under the Wehrmacht supervision until May 1944. With the approach of the Soviet armies the Germans abandoned these camps, transporting the inmate population by ship to KZ Stutthof (Sztutowo), near the port city of Danzig.

Does anyone have an explanation as to why the passengers on the two trains, arriving in Riga from Germany just two days apart, would have been treated in such completely different ways? In the one case mercilessly gunned down upon arrival, in the second resettled in an obviously planned manner in various camps and assigned to perform labour under Wehrmacht supervision?

[Thames Darwin]

Does anyone have an explanation as to why the passengers on the two trains, arriving in Riga from Germany just two days apart, would have been treated in such completely different ways? In the one case mercilessly gunned down upon arrival, in the second resettled in an obviously planned manner in various camps and assigned to perform labour under Wehrmacht supervision?

Gee, maybe the two telephone conversations that took place between them had something to do with it?

[pictorex]

I know you have not conceded that the third and fourth lines are unrelated, but sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate this, and this evidence remains valid even if you do not accept the “dissolution of the Protectorate” interpretation of the fourth line. This means that we have no indication as to what was said in the Nov. 30, 1941 call from Himmler to Heydrich in reference to the transport of Jews from Berlin. However a careful examination of the situation in Riga at the time may provide some clues. According to Max Kaufmann’s memoir entitled “The Destruction of the Jews of Latvia”, originally published by the author in German in 1947, the first transport of German Jews to arrive in Riga originated in Würzburg and Nuremberg; it arrived on the 3rd of December. Kaufmann gives a detailed account of the removal of the Jews from the Riga ghetto culminating on the 30th of November, but does not mention the arrival of any transport from Berlin. In fact he states on page 88 that “the first transport, on 3 December 1941, came from Nuremberg and Würzburg (in Bavaria)”. On page 41 he states:

In the early morning of Saturday, 13 December 1941, the first transports of German Jews to the ghetto arrived at the Skirotava station. Jews had already arrived on 3 December, but they had been sent on to Jumpravmuiza.

Jumpravmuiza is the Latvian name for Jungfernhof. This information is consistent with the testimony of Clothilde Lehmann, who was a passenger on this transport, originating from Nuremberg.
The fact that in his detailed account of the situation in Riga, in large part based on his own experiences and written down within a few years after the events, Kaufmann never mentions the arrival of a transport of over a thousand Jews from Berlin on the last day of November, or in the days that followed, raises the question of whether this transport ever actually arrived in Riga. Perhaps an unexpected delay in the completion of the Jungfernhof concentration camp, which started to function on the 3rd of December, or some other unforeseen circumstance, necessitated a change of destination. Under this hypothesis, line 3 of Himmler’s notes from his telephone call to Heydrich on 30th November 1941 would refer to a change in the destination of the Berlin transport. This would explain the strange omission by Kaufmann noted above, but is thus far only a hypothesis requiring further study.

[Thames Darwin]

However a careful examination of the situation in Riga at the time may provide some clues. According to Max Kaufmann’s memoir entitled “The Destruction of the Jews of Latvia”, originally published by the author in German in 1947, the first transport of German Jews to arrive in Riga originated in Würzburg and Nuremberg; it arrived on the 3rd of December. Kaufmann gives a detailed account of the removal of the Jews from the Riga ghetto culminating on the 30th of November, but does not mention the arrival of any transport from Berlin. In fact he states on page 88 that “the first transport, on 3 December 1941, came from Nuremberg and Würzburg (in Bavaria)”. On page 41 he states:

In the early morning of Saturday, 13 December 1941, the first transports of German Jews to the ghetto arrived at the Skirotava station. Jews had already arrived on 3 December, but they had been sent on to Jumpravmuiza.

Jumpravmuiza is the Latvian name for Jungfernhof. This information is consistent with the testimony of Clothilde Lehmann, who was a passenger on this transport, originating from Nuremberg.
The fact that in his detailed account of the situation in Riga, in large part based on his own experiences and written down within a few years after the events, Kaufmann never mentions the arrival of a transport of over a thousand Jews from Berlin on the last day of November, or in the days that followed, raises the question of whether this transport ever actually arrived in Riga. Perhaps an unexpected delay in the completion of the Jungfernhof concentration camp, which started to function on the 3rd of December

The transport would never have been seen by Kaufmann because the Jews never entered the ghetto. They were marched to Rumbula directly from the train station. See, e.g., Ezergailis, pp. 237-290

[Moderator]

Thames Darwin:

The transport would never have been seen by Kaufmann because the Jews never entered the ghetto. They were marched to Rumbula directly from the train station. See, e.g., Ezergailis, pp. 237-290

Please gives us specifics as to what Ezergailis claims.

Thanks, M1

[Thames Darwin]

Thames Darwin:

The transport would never have been seen by Kaufmann because the Jews never entered the ghetto. They were marched to Rumbula directly from the train station. See, e.g., Ezergailis, pp. 237-290

Please gives us specifics as to what Ezergailis claims.

Thanks, M1

I had tried to post something earlier, but it occurs to me that this essay by Eugene Holman, which recaps much of what Ezergailis wrote and adds a few important sources, is even better. Hannover, I believe you will recognize an old friend among the correspondents on this thread. I will add here only that Ezergailis notes the above assertion on the camp at Jumpravmuiza being established a few days later and the subsequent shipments of Reich Jews going there (p. 357).

The Berlin transport is mentioned first on November 28, when it leaves Berlin; Holman writes that it arrives in Riga, specifically at the Skirotava station, on the night of November 29/30. At 6 a.m. the following morning, the Jews are marched from the train station directly to Rumbula, where they are shot by Friedrich Jeckeln's Einsatzgruppe A -- specifically Rudolf Lange's Einsatzkommando -- about two hours before any Jews from the ghetto arrived.

What I like about Holman's essay is not only that it lays out the events in a straight narrative, but also this bit in defending against the charge of the lack of physical evidence:

- if you march 24,000 people ten miles along a public road to a killing
site, shooting stragglers along the way, there were about 1,000 on each of
the two days,
- if some of the 1,700 soldiers and policemen involved are known by name,
- if you have the schedule and routing list for the train that delivered
1,000 Berlin Jews to the Rumbula site a few hours before the massacre and
have were never seen again,
- if the news made the international news the same evening,
- if the stench from the partially decayed bodies being burned was a fact
of life in Riga for several months in August 1943,
- if you have eyewitness testimony from perpetrators [I posted only one],
from a few intended victims that managed to escape [I posted only one], as
well as from several people who witnessed the people being marched to the
site [I didn't post any, but they exist] and heard the shooting [I made
reference to testimony given by the station master at Rumbula, there are
other similar statements], all independently corroborating this complex
event,
- if you have bone fragments and other obvious human remains at the
killing site [the exhumation was partially and sloppily done], as well as
the mass grave of the 2,000 killed stragglers in the Jewish cemetery in
Riga, and,
- if you have the collective memory of the greatest mass murder ever
committed in Latvian history borne by people still alive today who lost
their parents, relatives, and friends 59 years ago as well as by some of
the German and Latvian perpetrators, some of whom are also still alive
today,
- if you have supporting documents showing that SS-Obergruppenführer
Jeckeln was ordered to liquidate the Riga ghetto as part of a more robust
overall policy towards dealing with the Jewish problem as well as records
of the various stages in the actual planning of the operation in the form
of calls to meetings, orders to local policemen, etc., etc.,

then you have as much documentation of the historical factuality of the
mass murder of 25,000 Jews at Riga as we have for the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln, the Battle of Verdun, or the sinking of the Lusitania

Here's the whole essay and subsequent thread:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.rev ... H6T7a5_pcJ

[Hannover]

Get serious, Thames Darwin, there is no physical evidence shown here. Of course, there is none to show.

There are no verifiable excavations shown.

There are no verified human remains shown.

Show us this alleged "mass grave of the 2,000 killed stragglers in the Jewish cemetery"?

Who are "some of the 1,700 soldiers and policemen involved [that] are known by name"?

Where are the alleged:

documents showing that SS-Obergruppenführer Jeckeln was ordered to liquidate the Riga ghetto as part of a more robust overall policy towards dealing with the Jewish problem as well as records of the various stages in the actual planning of the operation in the form of calls to meetings, orders to local policemen, etc., etc.

Show them, do not make empty phantom claims that they exist.

then you have as much documentation of the historical factuality of the mass murder of 25,000 Jews at Riga as we have for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the Battle of Verdun, or the sinking of the Lusitania

Laughable. There is no documentation or physical evidence for "the mass murder of 25,000 Jews at Riga" whatsoever.
Why can't you show it if it exists?

All we see is some guy, Holman, allegedly making claims, assertions that would be laughed out of a legit court of law.
The Holman gambit is classic 'holocaust' schlock, 'I lack proof, but trust me anyway'.

And it's noted your subject change & dodge of pictorex and Bob's explanation for your unfounded claims about the Himmler note.
Your last post is right up there with your previous claim of mass graves:
Alleged "mass graves" according to T. Darwin / Andrew Mathis

This is too easy.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[pictorex]

Thames Darwin’s lengthy quotation does not refer to the Berlin transport, but to the liquidation of the Riga ghetto. The claims regarding the fate of the Berlin transport that he presents can be found in just about any standard history book. Erzegailis is not a primary source, but perhaps he refers to one. If so, I hope Thames Darwin tells us what it is. The point I tried to make is that unlike recent historians, Kaufmann lived through the events in Riga and set down what he saw and what he heard in a book published in 1947, i.e., before the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials. His failure to mention the Berlin transport is striking. It is hard to understand how the arrival of a thousand Jews from Berlin, the very first Reich Jews to arrive in Riga, and their murder shortly thereafter could have been kept secret from the local population. To me the omission is so striking that the hypothesis of the transport not having arrived in Riga at all needs to be seriously considered, unless the contrary can be demonstrated on the basis of primary sources.

[Thames Darwin]

The point I tried to make is that unlike recent historians, Kaufmann lived through the events in Riga and set down what he saw and what he heard in a book published in 1947, i.e., before the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials. His failure to mention the Berlin transport is striking. It is hard to understand how the arrival of a thousand Jews from Berlin, the very first Reich Jews to arrive in Riga, and their murder shortly thereafter could have been kept secret from the local population. To me the omission is so striking that the hypothesis of the transport not having arrived in Riga at all needs to be seriously considered, unless the contrary can be demonstrated on the basis of primary sources.

Well, I disagree. If everyone who knew about that transport who would or could tell Kaufmann about it never returned to the ghetto, then it makes perfect sense. In fact, if the Berlin Jews arrived at Rumbula before the first Jews from the ghetto did, then the ghetto Jews probably never knew about them either before they themselves were killed.

[Hannover]

There were no killings as alleged, Thames. Proof of that is the complete lack of necessary physical evidence. You continue to ignore that fact.
Just because someone falsely believes in something doesn't make it true, recall the 'proven', and mandated 'fact' of witchcraft. It was believed because 'everyone knew it was true'. The 'holocaust' storyline is no different.

And true to form, you dodged pictorex's specific point:

It is hard to understand how the arrival of a thousand Jews from Berlin, the very first Reich Jews to arrive in Riga, and their murder shortly thereafter could have been kept secret from the local population.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[borjastick]

Thames Darwin:

The transport would never have been seen by Kaufmann because the Jews never entered the ghetto. They were marched to Rumbula directly from the train station. See, e.g., Ezergailis, pp. 237-290

Please gives us specifics as to what Ezergailis claims.

Thanks, M1

I had tried to post something earlier, but it occurs to me that this essay by Eugene Holman, which recaps much of what Ezergailis wrote and adds a few important sources, is even better. Hannover, I believe you will recognize an old friend among the correspondents on this thread. I will add here only that Ezergailis notes the above assertion on the camp at Jumpravmuiza being established a few days later and the subsequent shipments of Reich Jews going there (p. 357).

The Berlin transport is mentioned first on November 28, when it leaves Berlin; Holman writes that it arrives in Riga, specifically at the Skirotava station, on the night of November 29/30. At 6 a.m. the following morning, the Jews are marched from the train station directly to Rumbula, where they are shot by Friedrich Jeckeln's Einsatzgruppe A -- specifically Rudolf Lange's Einsatzkommando -- about two hours before any Jews from the ghetto arrived.

What I like about Holman's essay is not only that it lays out the events in a straight narrative, but also this bit in defending against the charge of the lack of physical evidence:

- if you march 24,000 people ten miles along a public road to a killing
site, shooting stragglers along the way, there were about 1,000 on each of
the two days,
- if some of the 1,700 soldiers and policemen involved are known by name,
- if you have the schedule and routing list for the train that delivered
1,000 Berlin Jews to the Rumbula site a few hours before the massacre and
have were never seen again,
- if the news made the international news the same evening,
- if the stench from the partially decayed bodies being burned was a fact
of life in Riga for several months in August 1943,
- if you have eyewitness testimony from perpetrators [I posted only one],
from a few intended victims that managed to escape [I posted only one], as
well as from several people who witnessed the people being marched to the
site [I didn't post any, but they exist] and heard the shooting [I made
reference to testimony given by the station master at Rumbula, there are
other similar statements], all independently corroborating this complex
event,
- if you have bone fragments and other obvious human remains at the
killing site [the exhumation was partially and sloppily done], as well as
the mass grave of the 2,000 killed stragglers in the Jewish cemetery in
Riga, and,
- if you have the collective memory of the greatest mass murder ever
committed in Latvian history borne by people still alive today who lost
their parents, relatives, and friends 59 years ago as well as by some of
the German and Latvian perpetrators, some of whom are also still alive
today,
- if you have supporting documents showing that SS-Obergruppenführer
Jeckeln was ordered to liquidate the Riga ghetto as part of a more robust
overall policy towards dealing with the Jewish problem as well as records
of the various stages in the actual planning of the operation in the form
of calls to meetings, orders to local policemen, etc., etc.,

then you have as much documentation of the historical factuality of the
mass murder of 25,000 Jews at Riga as we have for the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln, the Battle of Verdun, or the sinking of the Lusitania

Here's the whole essay and subsequent thread:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.rev ... H6T7a5_pcJ

Lots of 'ifs' going on here but not many facts TD.

[hermod]

As far as I know, at that time, the word "liquidation" was synonymous with "killing" only when used by the Soviets.

Online etymology dictionary:

liquidate (v.)
1570s, "to reduce to order, to set out clearly" (of accounts), from Late Latin or Medieval Latin liquidatus, past participle of liquidare "to melt, make liquid or clear, clarify," from Latin liquidus (see liquid).

Sense of "clear away" (a debt) first recorded 1755.

The meaning "wipe out, kill" is from 1924, possibly from Russian likvidirovat.

Related: Liquidated; liquidating.

liquidator (n.)
1825, agent noun in Latin form from liquidate.

liquidation (n.)
1570s, noun of action from Late Latin liquidare (see liquidate); originally as a legal term in reference to assets; of inconvenient groups of persons, 1925 in communist writings.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none

Are there reliable German quotes of that time with the words "liquidation of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia" or something similar? Or was Himmler talking about the liquidation of the assets of the Jews just deported from Berlin and expelled out the Reich (as in Theodor Herzl's plans*)?



* "I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. " (Herzl's diary)

[Dresden]

hermod said:

"As far as I know, at that time, the word "liquidation" was synonymous with "killing" only when used by the Soviets"

And when used to accuse the Germans of mass-murder, it was actually just another example of "projection".

[Hannover]

That 'liquidation' meant murder is absurd. Google it and see:

http://www.liquidation.com/

One million businesses have used Liquidation.com to buy surplus inventory from the world's largest retailers.

http://www.losangelesliquidators.com/

At LOS ANGELES LIQUIDATORS we strive to provide a great customer service experience!
With our 15 plus years in the business we have seen just about every situation. We will be prepared to help you with yours!
We boast a huge network of downstream buyers! This will allow us to provide you with the best offer out there!

Yes, the 'holocaust' Industry is desperate in the extreme.

All this and not a single enormous mass grave as alleged can actually be shown, not one.

- Hannover

[Bob]

I missed this from Mathis aka Thames:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.