Short Version of Korherr-Report

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hotzenplotz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:09 pm

Short Version of Korherr-Report

Postby Hotzenplotz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:33 am)

The long version of the Korherr-Report has been discussed here before. Since it lists "evacuations" seperately from deaths, it is, in itself, not incriminating, but seems to corroborate the revisionist belief that there was a programme of mass-deportation, but not exermination.

e.g. here:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2085

However, one month later, Korherr supposedly prepared upon Himmler's request a shorter version which was to be shown to Hitler. The long version ends thus:

korherr (long version) wrote:"Insgesamt dürfte das europäische Judentum seit 1933, also im ersten Jahrzehnt der nationalsozialistischen deutschen Machtentfaltung, bald die Hälfte seines Bestandes verloren haben."

"In total, European Jewry should have lost since 1933 - ie in the first decade of national-socialist rule - almost half of its population."

The number of Jews in Europe given for 1937 is 10,3 million; there is no number given for 1933. Still, half the population should be around 5 million.

Most of these 5 milion Jews have, as is detailed in the report, emigrated or have been evacuated. Only a comparatively small part of the total loss supposedly is due to death.

The short version includes this same sentence, but adds afterwards:

korherr (short version) wrote:"Davon ist wieder nur etwa die Hälfte, also ein Viertel des europäischen Gesamtbestandes von 1937, den anderen Erdteilen zugeflossen."

"Only half of these, ie a quarter of the total European population of 1937, have been added to ["have flowed into"] the other continents."

Which obviously means that about 2,5 milion have died. But if that many had died as of 12/31/1942, then around 5 million dead at the end of the war doesn't look like an exaggeration.

Therefore, my questions:
What do we know of the origin of the report's short version? Is there any chance it has been tampered with? Korherr lived long enough to dismiss the notion that "Sonderbehandlung" (special treatment) in his report referred to killings.

Korherr's letter to the SPIEGEL newspaper (in German):
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Ko ... 50777.html

But it seems nobody asked him about the last sentence of the short version. Maybe he died before the short version was "discovered"?

Or can anyone think of a benign interpretation of that last sentence?

Both versions of the report, as well as some somewhat suspicious letters mentioning it, can be found here:

http://www.ns-archiv.de
(in German; google for English version of long version; English version of short version may not be available.)

H

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10182
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:08 am)

Briefly, a couple of points.

- Why would there even be a shorter 6 1/2 page version? The original is only 16 pages. A 6 1/2 page summary of a document that is perhaps 160 pages makes sense, but of 16 pages ... fishy.

- Note the differences in page 1 of each. The longer version appears to be official Der Inspecteur fur Statistik, Reichsfuhrer SS stationary, see left top with runes, etc. On the alleged 'short version' this is completely lacking.

long version:
Image
'short version':
Image

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2449
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:39 am)

I don't think a statistician, would leave a quarter of the people in "limbo-land" Ie not mention what happened to them.

It's already ridiculous that they supposedly used terms like "special handling." But here he doesn't even say "the other quarter has received special handling." The idea that he wouldn't say anything at all on a top secret document is hard to believe.

User avatar
Hotzenplotz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:09 pm

Postby Hotzenplotz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:05 pm)

I agree it's a bit fishy. Even more fishy is Himmler's commenting letter that the report would be useful for "camouflage purposes" in later times.

But if if there was, in fact, a short version of the report, it is possible that just the last sentence, which changes everything, has been added.

There's a problem though: I didn't think of it before, but the incriminating sentence is mentioned already in Reitlinger's Final Solution (although ascribed to the long version) which was published when Korherr was still alive. Why didn't he protest, if it is forged? Maybe he didn't know about the report's short version?

Another possibility: Korherr claimed most or all of the text was delivered to him by the SS. So maybe he thought after the war that at the time he was preparing the report for Himmler, he just overread the sentence.

Or maybe he didn't care and just wanted to be left alone.

It's a shame that nobody asked him about this sentence, though. Is it known whether any relatives are alive?

By the way, Eichmann in his prison-memoirs also claims that "Sonderbehandlung" in the Korherr-report could not be equated with liquidation but with deportation and killing of some. If this is correct then the report's last sentence becomes illogical, since there would be no basis at all for the claim that a quarter of European Jewry had already perished.

H

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10182
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Korherr letter to Der Spiegel on "Special treatment" (Sonderbehandlung)

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:18 pm)

Why didn't he protest, if it is forged? Maybe he didn't know about the report's short version?

Why would he have read Reitlinger to have known about it?

Since the claim is that "special treatment" (sonderbehandlung) in the report means mass murder, the entire matter is rendered false by Korherr himself when he refuted that silly claim and the absurd assertions about his statistics.
Here:
Korherr letter to Der Spiegel, n.28, 7/1977, p72-74: http://fpp.co.uk/History/General/Korher ... 50777.html
The well-known, racially persecuted writer H.G. Adler, previously resident in Prague, now in London, wrote in the foreword to the second edition to his extraordinary book Theresienstadt 1941-1945 in 1960:
"It has definitely been determined that the designation of Dr. Korherr as SS-statistician...is not true, because he never belonged to the SS and has been rehabilitated insofar as his behaviour in the National Socialist years is concerned."

Unfortunately, Der Spiegel is publishing the claim of the English historian Irving that in the spring of 1942, at Himmler's order, I calculated the number of Jewish victims. In fact, these figures along with the text were delivered to me in completed form by the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) with the order that not one word or figure was to be changed.

The statement that I had claimed in this regard that more than a million Jews had died as a result of special treatment in the camps in German-occupied Poland and in the Warthegau is also incorrect. I have to protest against the word "died" in this context.

It was precisely the term "special treatment" (sonderbehandlung) that motivated me to inquire of the RSHA by telephone what this term meant. I received the answer that it referred to Jews who would be settled in the District of Lublin.
Dr. Richard Korherr
Braunschweig

And as usual, the methods as to how these Jews were supposedly murdered are scientifically impossible. And there are no mass graves and human remains as claimed.

Another 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' argument.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2449
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:56 pm)

Regarding the idea that official reports might contain vague, indirect references to killing Jews, I recently saw chapter 21 of the movie "One Third of the Holocaust" which deals with the same topic.

http://zamphir.litek.ws

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Postby Breker » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:28 pm)

from Hotzenplotz:
Which obviously means that about 2,5 milion have died. But if that many had died as of 12/31/1942, then around 5 million dead at the end of the war doesn't look like an exaggeration.

It seems peculiar how the Korherr Report is cited for it's very specific numbers supposedly murdered, and now in this alleged short version, we see a specific reference to 2,500,000 obvious dead. Then we see an alleged Himmler commenting letter stating rather frankly that this would make for splendid camouflage. All these are less than subtle.
The question begging to be asked is why would the Germans use the less than direct code word 'sonderbehandlung' when supposedly talking about exterminating the Jews when all around we're told we see frank admissions of extermination? The claims about the Korherr Report and alleged surrounding documents obviously contradict each other.
Breker

User avatar
Hotzenplotz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:09 pm

Postby Hotzenplotz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:26 pm)

One problem not only the short (henceforth: Korherr II), but also the long version (Korherr I) raises is that the evacuees are counted as missing from Europe although the Nazis could not have them deported out of Europe, ie beyond the Ural mountains. Yesterday, for a second, I almost believed "it" again... and I suddenly viewed those amusing stories about SS-men tearing babies into pieces by their own hands (and the like) from quite a different angle.

Almost. Reitlinger in appendix I of the Final Solution says that Korherr, inquiring about the meaning of "Sonderbehandlung", was told that it referred to deportation to Lublin and to the Russian border areas which did not count as part of Europe.

At first glance, this doesn't seem to be a very convincing explanation, but it is strengthened by two facts:

In the long version of the Korherr-report, we read that the evacuations "[werden] hier zu den Abgängen gerechnet" [here are counted among those having gone off], which seems to indicate that it's only a nominal loss, as Mattogno has pointed out somewhere. Perhaps they were in labour gangs or in ghettos in the east waiting to be brought out of Europe (Madagaskar?) after the war and were thus counted as having been brought to the Endlösung.

(One common argument of believers is that the evacuated Jews can't be in ghettos because the ghettos are listed separately in the report. But this argument fails, since the ghettos in Russia/Belorussia/Baltic countries/Ukraine are not listed, and we know there were ghettos in these areas.)

Secondly, the Wannsee protocol clearly disconfirms the extermination hypothesis.
wannsee wrote:In the meantime the Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the German Police had prohibited emigration of Jews due to the dangers of an emigration in wartime and due to the possibilities of the East.

The "possibilities of the East" obviously must refer to deportation. Killings can be done anywhere. Furthermore:
wannsee wrote:The beginning of the individual larger evacuation actions will largely depend on military developments.

- obviously because deportations to Russia could only take place if Germany controlled a large enough part of Russia. Killings in death camps would not depend on military developments.

Also, consider this:
wannsee wrote:State Secretary Dr. Bühler stated that the General Government would welcome it if the final solution of this problem could be begun in the General Government, since on the one hand transportation does not play such a large role here ...
.
Transportation in the GG does not play such a large role because, quite evidently, it's close to Russia. Death camps, on the other hand, could be errected wherever they're needed.

Also, it is not disputed there were transports to the East. So why aren't these mentioned in the report, if "evacuation" really means "killing in death-camps"?

A look at the railway network makes evident that transports out of the GG to Russia would have passed by the so-called death camps. And just where these camps were situated, the rail gauge changed (from European to Russian), and the evacuees thus had to switch trains...

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2237

Thus we've got every reason to conclude that "evacuations" means just what it says. Still, I admit the last sentence of Korherr II sounds a bit strange. It could very well be forged in an attempt to facilitate a reinterpretation of the Wannsee-document and Korherr I which otherwise would refute the extermination thesis. The alleged letter from Himmler to Kaltenbrunner would also fit into this scheme.

Korherr claimed in correspondence with Reitlinger that he had never understood the meaning of his numbers (Reitlinger, appendix 1, footnote). But there's no indication Reitlinger asked him about that all-important last sentence of Korherr II. So maybe Korherr didn't know a second version was supposed to have been written by him.

edit: grammar etc.
Last edited by Hotzenplotz on Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2449
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:46 pm)

A key point is that the Germans after the war didn't have anyone advocating for them, and the people that walked into their archives were dishonest.

When you think of people that had their hands on original German documents after the war, I think of the following.

1) Raul Hilberg: worked in German documents office after the war. His standard work on the holocaust is completely dishonest. See chapter 1 of the movie "One Third Of The Holocaust."
http://zamphir.litek.ws

2) Colonel John Amen: Asst. Nuremberg Prosecutor and also head of Nuremberg Interrogations. A major player in the documents. Yet he has Hoess sign a confession that he killed 3 million Jews at Auschwitz which no historian today believes. So he's obviously dishonest.

3) That American Assistant prosecutor whose name escapes me (Dunn?) who is shown in a US govt. archives photo holding a shrunken human head, which somewhere Hannover pointed out is clearly purloined from an ethnographic museum.

4) David Irving's documentation of German-Jewish man who quickly gained US citizenship and then quickly rose to Nuremberg prosecutor. His name escapes me,(Keller? Kesler???) but Irving documents via photostat info, how he got rid of documents.
------------
If they doctored air photos, then they could have doctored text documents. That would be easier. Germar Rudolf points out a recorded speech by Himmler is fake because of the recording equipment used. Basically doctoring text documents is about the only thing they could do halfway believable. And even then you're seing an odd sentence at the very end of the document.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10182
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:58 pm)

Korherr claimed in correspondence with Reitlinger that he had never understood the meaning of his numbers (Reitlinger, appendix 1, footnote). But there's no indication Reitlinger asked him about that all-important last sentence of Korherr II. So maybe Korherr didn't know a second version was suppossed to have been written by him.

Thanks for this info.
Surely Reitlinger would have mentioned his questioning of Korherr about the alleged 'short version'. Of course, if Reitlinger didn't like Korherr's response, he may well have omitted it. Reitlinger is lacking in ethics on every aspect of the so called 'holocaust', no surprise there.

What we have is an obviously fraudulent short version which is simply lacking in any support.

What real German documents say:
Schlegelberger document
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=534

Image
translation:
"Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."

supported by The Luther Memo:
http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vppgluther.html

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests