'Keine Liquidierung' note debunked by Butz

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
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9893
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

'Keine Liquidierung' note debunked by Butz

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:05 pm)

As a set-up:
This note has been discussed here before:
'Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2143

Also mentioned in this article below is Walter Bruns, his 'recorded conversation' I have debunked here:
'The bogus Bruns document'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=15
for more see:
on Irving's bogus 'overheard conversations'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4454
and:
also see:
'Bruns admits confession was fake'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1311

Read below as Dr Arthur Butz provides a general debunking of the exterminationist viewpoint of Himmler's 'Keine Liquidierung' note.

- Hannover

REVISIONIST VIEWPOINTS
http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vpabliquid.html

Keine Liquidierung

by Arthur R. Butz

Sept. 5, 2008

The 1977 publication of David Irving's fine military history, Hitler's War, provoked an uproar over what should have been a marginal point but which, with ironic collaboration between Irving and his critics, has become the central point of the book.

Irving claimed that Hitler knew nothing of physical extermination of the Jews until late in the war, and had even acted to thwart any such development. As evidence of the latter, Irving produced Heinrich Himmler's personally handwritten and very brief notes on a telephone conversation Himmler had on Nov. 30, 1941 with Reinhard Heydrich, who was in Prague at the time.[1] In his left column Himmler noted that the conversation was with Heydrich at 1:30 PM. On the right there are four lines that read as follows:[2]

Verhaftung Dr. Jekelius

Angebl[icher] Sohn Molotow.

Judentransport aus Berlin.

Keine Liquidierung.

Image

In English:

Incarceration Dr. Jekelius

Alleged son Molotov.

Jewish transport from Berlin.

No liquidation.


A transport of Jews left Berlin on Nov. 27, and arrived in Riga during the night of Nov. 29-30.[3] Irving interpreted this brief note as evidence that Hitler had ordered that the Jews on the transport in question must not be killed, and that Himmler was therefore transmitting a Hitler order. Originally, Irving believed that the telephone conversation took place after Himmler had lunch with Hitler, but in fact the lunch with Hitler was after that conversation.[4] Irving's interpretation of this note is also the generally accepted interpretation: it was in some sense an order that the Jews on this transport should not be killed.

Irving's critics immediately saw the logical flaw. If Hitler had to specifically order that Jews on a single transport not be killed, then is it plausible that Hitler would not have suspected that Jews' lives might be in danger, from his subordinates, in other circumstances? This is the objection that caused me to refer earlier to Irving's interpretation of Himmler's note as "illogical".[5] For revisionists, the interpretation raises additional problems because it suggests that large-scale killings of Jews were in some sense the norm.

Revisionists are not the only people who, while accepting this interpretation, have problems with it.[6]

Irving recently made a speaking tour of the USA, and I went to his July 1 dinner meeting in Chicago.[7] Based on what I heard, Irving is still, 31 years later, highlighting his original interpretation of the "Keine Liquidierung" note, and the related "Bruns document". They were the central elements of the little lecture he gave.[8] As I recall, Irving's oral account added a verb or two to Himmler's note but there are no verbs, infinitives, or imperatives there. Indeed there is no reason to assume that, in relation to the "Judentransport", Himmler had received or was transmitting an order by Hitler or anybody else, though that may have been the case. Examination of Himmler's notes for the days preceding and following the conversation with Heydrich does not yield any clarification of the matter.[9]

I said nothing during Irving's talk, as I considered the venue unsuited to such debate. However I have long had an alternative interpretation of "Keine Liquidierung" that I ran past Germar Rudolf in 2005. He asked me to write it up for his journal but his deportation aborted that little project. Here I shall present my interpretation and then show that it fits the context.

Both German and English are ambiguous on what the "liquidation" in Himmler's note applies to. Irving and, it seems, all his critics, assume the liquidation applies potentially to the Jews on the transport. I think it applies to the transport itself, so that the liquidation is to be understood in the sense of "cancellation" or "disbandment" of the transport.

I confirmed with Germar that the German word has the same flexibility in this respect as our "liquidation".

Himmler was either reporting to Heydrich that the transport had not been canceled, or in some sense discussed the fact with him. Why should they take time to note such a fact?

There are both a general reason and a specific reason. A 1995 paper by Witte[10] related how deportations of Jews to such eastern territories as the Germans then controlled had been suspended in March 1941. After the attack on the Soviet Union in June, vast new eastern territories opened up so the question of resuming deportations of the Jews arose again. Apart from the general ideological imperative to remove the Jews, there was an argument that they were a security risk in German cities subjected to British air raids. A more convincing consideration was that apartments were needed for Germans who had been bombed out by the air raids. However there were powerful arguments against deportations, above all the military needs which were straining the German rail system. I add that there were always Germans who opposed the deportations for moral or personal reasons.

Witte says Heydrich stressed that the military needs must have priority over deportations of Jews.[11] In any case the controversy went back and forth. A mid-October decision by Hitler in favor of deportations caused them to resume.

Thus any transport of Jews in late 1941 was potentially a matter of controversy. This is a general explanation of why Himmler and Heydrich may have discussed the Nov. 27 transport on the phone, noting that it had not been canceled.

There is a more specific explanation. In the deportations of 1941/42, Riga in Latvia was selected as the destination of the Jews from the Reich and Bohemian Protectorate. However in the Fall of 1941, as the deportations started, Riga was not prepared to receive the transports so they were diverted to Kovno (Kaunas) in Lithuania. The first five transports destined for Riga departed the Reich Nov. 15-23 and were diverted to Kovno.[12]

Thus in late November there must have been controversy over the wisdom of these transports, and calls for their suspension or cancellation. The transport of Nov. 27 from Berlin was the first destined for Riga that actually went there, and that is why "no liquidation" of this transport could have been worth specific discussion between Himmler and Heydrich.

I believe that this interpretation is in logical accord with the facts and creates no fundamental mysteries.

The remaining part of this subject is what happened to the Jews when they reached their eastern destinations, which Irving's remarks about Walter Bruns related to. I limit myself here, however, to interpreting "Keine Liquidierung". Those interested in the Bruns matter can consult Irving's posted remarks and Robert Faurisson's comments.[13]


[1] David Irving, Hitler's War, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1977, pp. 332,505. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Note301141b.html

[2] See also Peter Witte et. al., eds., Der Dienstkalendar Heinrich Himmlers 1941/42, Hans Christian Verlag, Hamburg, 1999, p. 278.

[3] Christopher R. Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution, Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, and Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, 2004, p. 396.

[4] http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Note301141.html and Witte, 1999, op. cit..

[5] Smith's Report, no. 135, Jan./Feb. 2007, p. 6. http://www.codoh.com/review/revjailing.html

[6] cf Browning, op. cit., pp. 396f.

[7] Irving held another meeting in Chicago on Sept. 5, billed as perhaps his last event ever in the USA. As the tab was $20 at the door and $140 for dinner, I didn't go.

[8] Irving said that the Dr. Jekelius referred to in Himmler's note was somebody who was stalking Hitler's sister.

[9] Witte, 1999, op. cit. .

[10] Peter Witte, "Two Decisions Concerning the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Question': Deportations to Lodz and Mass Murder in Chelmno", Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, Winter 1995, pp. 318-345.

[11] Witte, 1995, p. 320.

[12] Browning, op. cit., p 395. Also Wolfgang Scheffler at http://www.volksbund.de/schon_gelesen/s ... tation.asp

[13] http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Bruns/index.html . See also the 1992 exchange between Robert Faurisson and Irving: J. Hist. Rev., vol. 13, no. 2, March/April 1993, p. 25; http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n2p14_Irving.html
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Wahrheit
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:42 pm

Postby Wahrheit » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:43 pm)

Hannover wrote:Irving and, it seems, all his critics, assume the liquidation applies potentially to the Jews on the transport. I think it applies to the transport itself, so that the liquidation is to be understood in the sense of "cancellation" or "disbandment" of the transport.

[...]

Himmler was either reporting to Heydrich that the transport had not been canceled, or in some sense discussed the fact with him. Why should they take time to note such a fact?


I am very disappointed by Butz's work here, as it seems so out-of-touch with the historical evidence.

What kind of twisted logic provides for Himmler to speak to the overseer of the Einsatsgruppen of how a transport had "not been canceled" on Nov. 30, more than three days after its departure? He certainly would have known had it been cancelled, and well before its original departure date. In addition, the timing of the conversation between Heydrich and Himmler was several hours after the transport had already been machine-gunned to death.

Before we can even begin to take Butz seriously here, one would need to see a documented instance when "liquidierung" was used to refer to the cancellation or disbandment of a transport. He has shown no such instance.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9893
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:24 pm)

Wahrheit wrote:I am very disappointed by Butz's work here, as it seems so out-of-touch with the historical evidence.

What kind of twisted logic provides for Himmler to speak to the overseer of the Einsatsgruppen of how a transport had "not been canceled" on Nov. 30, more than three days after its departure? He certainly would have known had it been cancelled, and well before its original departure date. In addition, the timing of the conversation between Heydrich and Himmler was several hours after the transport had already been machine-gunned to death.

Before we can even begin to take Butz seriously here, one would need to see a documented instance when "liquidierung" was used to refer to the cancellation or disbandment of a transport. He has shown no such instance.

And what "historical evidence" would that be? Please show us.

Show us your proof that the occupants were "machine-gunned to death."

Show us any proof that trainloads of Jews were murdered, there would be trainloads of physical evidence if true.

In lieu of the complete lack of proof for 'exterminations' as alleged, Butz's offering seems well founded.

And of course:
from 'Scheiffler-Weiss German and English Dictionary', 1981:

liquidierung: to wind up pending affairs

"Keine Liquidierung" therefore equals no winding up, not ended, not cancelled.

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

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:29 pm)

Butz's German seems to be very limited indeed, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with such a far-fetched "theory". One doesn't liquidate trains or transports, neither in English nor in German.

If "Dr Jekelius" is indeed Erwin Jekelius, why would he have been apprehended? At the time, he was director of the Vienna Spiegelgrund asylum.

http://www.spiegelgrund.at/de/Image/258 ... 0;start=0;

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:14 pm)

Wahrheit:
You have ignored the "set-up" by Hannover where he refers you to threads which deal with most of the points you just posted and I deleted.

I remind you:
This note has been discussed here before:
'Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2143

Also mentioned in this article below is Walter Bruns, his 'recorded conversation' I have debunked here:
'The bogus Bruns document'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=15
for more see:
on Irving's bogus 'overheard conversations'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4454
and:
also see:
'Bruns admits confession was fake'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1311

If you feel you can add to those threads than please do so.

As for Jeckeln which you referred to, that too has been covered:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=169
Please post to that thread if you can respond to points made there.

Let's not simply repeat what has been already been dealt with.
Last edited by Moderator on Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9893
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:56 pm)

Vlad wrote:Butz's German seems to be very limited indeed, otherwise he wouldn't have come up with such a far-fetched "theory". One doesn't liquidate trains or transports, neither in English nor in German.

If "Dr Jekelius" is indeed Erwin Jekelius, why would he have been apprehended? At the time, he was director of the Vienna Spiegelgrund asylum.

http://www.spiegelgrund.at/de/Image/258 ... 0;start=0;

Vlad,
The German dictionary says what it says.

And it's the Believers who claim that this particular train was the exception to a rule which supposedly says that trainloads of Jews were murdered, as in 'liquidated'. Butz is simply providing a more reasonable translation of the German. The translation of 'eine liquidierung' holds up when a German dictionary is consulted.
As for a Dr Jekelius, 'alleged son of Molotov'; take note that Molotov had no such son.
Perhaps you are saying that you think the curious note is bogus ... ?

for more on Jekelius and this note:
'Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2143

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

Wahrheit
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:42 pm

Postby Wahrheit » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:12 am)

Hannover wrote:And of course:
from 'Scheiffler-Weiss German and English Dictionary', 1981:

liquidierung: to wind up pending affairs

"Keine Liquidierung" therefore equals no winding up, not ended, not cancelled.


Some of the most awkward German wording I have ever seen when supposedly applied to a transport unit. I believe the definition you cite has more in line with a financial aspect, rather than being applicable here. Stronger case can be made if you found a wartime dictionary suitable for your purposes, as the financial system has greatly grown since WWII until 1981, publication date of your dictionary.

Anyway, we still do not have a single case where such wording has been used in describe the cancellation of a transport. Certainly in the German history of railway use, as well as other modes of transportation, a case would exist if Butz's theory was really plausible. I have searched for such a case online, but have been unable to find one.

As Vlad has pointed out, Butz's theory is based a very flawed and incoherent understanding of the word.

User avatar
jnovitz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:40 pm

Postby jnovitz » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:20 am)

I always find problematic when the word "liquidate" appears in German documents.

The meaning of liquidate = to kill is a very recent one. Cf this link
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none
liquidate
c.1575, "to reduce to order, to set out clearly" (of accounts), from L.L. liquidatus, pp. of liquidare "to melt, make liquid or clear, clarify," from L. liquidus (see liquid). Sense of "clear away" (a debt) first recorded 1755. The meaning "wipe out, kill" is from 1924, possibly from Rus. likvidirovat.


If this meaning was imported from Russian then it can only have been in a satirical or ironical sense. In much the same way we might talk about "collateral damage" meaning killing of civilians.
This is because in 1929 Stalin was using quite publically as the title of one of his pamphlets.

"Werke
Band 12
ZUR FRAGE DER POLITIK DER LIQUIDIERUNG
DES KULAKENTUMS ALS KLASSE "

Now in practice this might have involved a lot of killing but I very much doubt that was the meaning Stalin wished to convey when he published this article for a foreign audience.

Hence Liquidation in Soviet usage would have involved the elimination of a class or social structure but not, or at least not in official discourse, the physical elimination of people.

Anti-Soviets in Western countries would have seized on the use of this word and said it was just a euphenism to kill. ie the use of the word "Liquidate" would have connotations of Bolshevism, hypocrisy and deceit. So it would be odd for anyone to be using it in reference to their own actions in the same way we would not expect a pentagon spokesman to say "and in Collateral damage we killed 50 school children".

Given that these notes are short jogs to the memory by Himmler, there is no reason to assume that Keine Liquidierung refers to the Jewish transport in the line above. Anymore than the 1 December entry of "Lady secretaries, executions in Riga" implies that lady secretaries were being executed in Riga or alternatively performing executions. In the same way Himmler could have being refering to the liquidation or winding up of just about anything.


However its possible that the two are connected. And if they are the connection is very simple and involves the use of Liquidation in its most common, financial sense.

If I can quote from "Robbery and Restituition: The Conflict over Jewish Property in Europe" ed Dean et al.
pages 37-8

The Decree on the Utilization of Jewish Property of 3 December 1938 introduced the liquidation or forced sale of all other Jewish commercial establishments....

In the case of emigration, Jews after 1938-1939 were in fact plundered by the German Reich. After stripping the person of citizenship, any assets unsold fell to the possession of the Reich. This was a measure made obligatory by the 11th Decree to the Reich Citizehnsip Law of 25 November 1941. The assets of deported Jews were also taken over by the Reich.


Given this transport occured just one or two days after the promulgation of this Law authorising the liquidation of the assets of deported Jews it seems probable that "Keine Liquidierung", if indeed it does refer to this transport, simply makes reference to the take over of the financial and property assets of the deported Jews, particularly in relation to the just passed decree.

Perhaps it means that there had been no liquidation of assets yet, despite the law being passed and that should be seen to. Perhaps it was a reminder that the legal instruments now existed to despoil these deportees. Or perhaps it means that the liquidation of the assets of these Berlin Jews should be postponed for a time.

Or perhaps its something completely different, a totally new subject in the conversation.

Either way, its not worth wasting too much time on these two words.

grenadier
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:07 am

Postby grenadier » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Nov 02, 2008 1:13 pm)

Hello Wahrheit, long time no see, lad!
I've never dedicated too much to this note thing because I agree with Jnovitz that its not worth wasting too much time on these two words.
Butz interpretation stands or falls on whether or not liquidation can be applied to the transport as cancellation. I'm out of my depth there but if it CAN, then I find his interpretation valid.
For now I'd just like to focus on one of the pieces of contextual evidence you offered, the overheard conversation of Bruns. You seem to put a lot of faith into that while I don't. It sounds to me like like a load of BS.

It's my understanding that Bruns made his alleged statements(does the audio exist?) outdoors with his speech captured by mics hidden in bushes, and it's 1940s technology we're talking about here. If he had made his statements in a quiet little room with a mic hidden near his face the story would be more believable. Even today it is far from easy to clearly capture a conversation with mics, do a little research on this and you'll see. Interestingly, a reader of Irvings site had this to say about the alleged recorded conversation, just a few bits:

Lastly, I have been a professional Film cameramann for many years and
one of the biggest challenges making movies is getting the sound right, thats why most sound is dubbed in afterwards. Hiding microphones in shrubs and trees sounds pretty neat but I dont buy it.....If it worked Filmmakers would use it, but we don't...If two or more People are walking / talking we have mikes following them all the time, even with modern professional mikes a turn of the head can lose the audio. Two men walking and having a private, half-whispered conversation needs a
dedicated on-the-job-sound-man
.
[...]Once again I must stress how primitive sound equipment was in 1944-45. The British first captured German AEG tapedecks towards the middle of the war, before that they had huge unwieldy metal decks etc as big as bathtubs...the sound quality was not good...getting multiple microphones plugged in was an act of God.


Another thing, don't you find it at least odd, that the Allies had these dudes, Bruns and most EG leaders in custody but never used them to locate at least some of these alleged massive mass graves in the East?
I DO.

Basically I agree with Jnovitz in regards to these notes, logs,etc, when he writes:
Given that these notes are short jogs to the memory by Himmler, there is no reason to assume that Keine Liquidierung refers to the Jewish transport in the line above. Anymore than the 1 December entry of "Lady secretaries, executions in Riga" implies that lady secretaries were being executed in Riga or alternatively performing executions. In the same way Himmler could have being refering to the liquidation or winding up of just about anything.


I find your interpretation W, murder, to be possible, but no more possible than a buch of other theories. BTW, do you believe this to be an instance of mass murder or do you subscribe to the notion the EG went about hunting and killing all joos they could find resulting in zirka 1 M murdered(shootings and gassings in gas vans)?

Best regards!

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:17 pm)

Hannover wrote:The German dictionary says what it says.

Butz wouldn't need a dictionary if he had some decent grasp of German. Will anyone who agrees with his outlandish interpretation show us an example of a liquidated train, please?

grenadier
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:07 am

Postby grenadier » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:57 pm)

Jnovitz appears to be really on to something when he wrote:

I always find problematic when the word "liquidate" appears in German documents.

The meaning of liquidate = to kill is a very recent one. Cf this link
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none


I have just spoken to a German friend of mine, who is a lot older and was a kid during the war. I asked him about it and here's what he's told me:

In my German dictionary for foreign words "Keysers Fremdwörter Lexikon", under Liquidation-liquidieren not one word about killing, and that is how I remember it. The word comes from liquid, flüssig and is used, in Germany, to describe a financial status, to this day, Ich bin nicht flüssig means I'm broke. And that is all the dictionary says, it talks about dissolving a company. [...]The above mentioned Lexikon was printed in 1962, I have nothing older.


This would support Jnovitz explanation while weakening both Butz and the official, murder thesis as well.
It's important to keep in mind that all languages are "living things" that keep evolving and changing. Therefore, my German dictionary, a 2006 publication refers to Liquidation and liquidieren only in the sense of killing but it was not so in the 40s.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Postby neugierig » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:29 pm)

Many moons ago we had a discussion on this on the "other" forum and I also quoted from Keysers Fremdwörter Lexikon, and yes, no mention of murder. Even looking at the newer Brockhaus, a common German dictionary, we read
1. liquidieren,
1) abrechnen, berechnen.
2) auflösen (z. B. ein Geschäft).
3) vernichten.

with vernichten, eliminating, as the last choice. Ditto for the Duden, although they want money for the whole definition and my account has expired.

I am certain that jnovitz is right, if anything it refers to Jewish finances. I was born in 1937 in Germany and can not remember that word being used in combination with murder. Having said that, it is a long time ago

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9893
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:44 pm)

Vlad wrote:
Hannover wrote:The German dictionary says what it says.

Butz wouldn't need a dictionary if he had some decent grasp of German. Will anyone who agrees with his outlandish interpretation show us an example of a liquidated train, please?
Yep, the German dictionary says what it says, but Vlad has a problem. That problem is the bizarre belief that trainloads of Jews were exterminated when there is no such proof.

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

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:37 am)

jnovitz wrote:In the same way Himmler could have being refering to the liquidation or winding up of just about anything.

Anything that can indeed be liquidated. Trains you can't.

Hans Frank's Diensttagebuch shows him using liquidieren both in a financial context (p. 464) and in referring to Poles he wants to get rid of (p. 212).

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9893
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:07 am)

That would be the same diary that Hans Frank was denied access to for his defense at Nuremberg. Hmm.

Once again, Vlad is left with his own "get rid of", rather than any proof for 'extermination' of Jews.

And if Vlad and Wahrheit think trains can't be 'liquidierung' then their entire argument is shot down since the note refers to a train and liquidierung. So do they think the note is bogus?

- 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: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests