Define exactly what "to the east" means

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Reviso » 5 years 9 months ago (Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:59 am)

Dolma wrote:
I hope you all see what I'm trying to get at here.


Sorry, Dolma, perhaps I'm not very smart, but I don't guess what you mean.
R.

Dolma
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Dolma » 5 years 9 months ago (Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:58 pm)

Revisio, this is what I said in the opening thread

I'm sure everyone here knows that the orthodox holohoax storyline is Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were "the end of the line" for jews.


Revisio, what is the reason given by the court historians for the Germans using up all the time, energy, money and other precious resources transiting jews as far east as Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka, rather than killing them where or somewhere near where they found them?

Does the proven fact that jews were transited beyond the so-called "pure extermination centers" conflict with or coincide with the orthodox holohoax storyline?
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Reviso » 5 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:36 am)

Dolma wrote:Does the proven fact that jews were transited beyond the so-called "pure extermination centers" conflict with or coincide with the orthodox holohoax storyline?


Well, do you mean this : "According to the official historians, the reason why the nazis brought the Jews to remote locations (Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor) was that is was easier to exterminate them far from the German people; but then, why didn't the nazis deport these Jews to locations even more eastward ?"

It is an argument. But is'nt it possible to official historians to reply that Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor were sufficiently remote ?
R

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2497
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby borjastick » 5 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:57 am)

Not sure what you are really saying on this subject Reviso. You seem to be laying a trail of breadcrumbs without letting us know where they go.

The Germans wanted to get rid of all jews from the sphere of what would eventually be the German territory after the war was won. I don't think Germany realistically expected to occupy Russia, had they won the war, so anywhere deep into Russian land would be sufficient.

The location of Treblinka etc was perfect for this process as it was far enough east to be well on the way but limited by the physical restraints of logistics of train supply and of course the Bug River and track gauge etc.

So let me ask you what you actually think is the reason(s) for this. What do you think is the answer to what the 'east' actually meant?
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Reviso » 5 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:47 am)

borjastick wrote:So let me ask you what you actually think is the reason(s) for this. What do you think is the answer to what the 'east' actually meant?


I think that the thesis of the transit camps is highly plausible, all the more so as, if I'm not wrong, there are known cases where survivors themselves said that they were transferred from these camps to other locations. The existence of German concentration camps in the Sovietic territories conquered by the Germans (dixit Rudenko) also gives plausibility to the thesis.

But Dolma seems to think that there exists an argument stronger than plausibility, a sort of absurdity in the claims of official historians about the reason why the nazis deported Jews to Treblinka etc. I would be very interested by such an argument (even if plausibility is already good), and that is why I asked him to be more explicit. I tried to guess his argument, but what I found ("If the reason was to act far fom the German people, why not even further, then ?") doesn't seem very convincing to me. I don't discuss about the facts (were these camps transit camps ?) but about the argument.
R.

Dolma
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Dolma » 5 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:20 pm)

Revisio

Well, do you mean this : "According to the official historians, the reason why the nazis brought the Jews to remote locations (Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor) was that is was easier to exterminate them far from the German people; but then, why didn't the nazis deport these Jews to locations even more eastward ?"


...

I think that the thesis of the transit camps is highly plausible, all the more so as, if I'm not wrong, there are known cases where survivors themselves said that they were transferred from these camps to other locations. The existence of German concentration camps in the Sovietic territories conquered by the Germans (dixit Rudenko) also gives plausibility to the thesis.

But Dolma seems to think that there exists an argument stronger than plausibility, a sort of absurdity in the claims of official historians about the reason why the nazis deported Jews to Treblinka etc. I would be very interested by such an argument (even if plausibility is already good), and that is why I asked him to be more explicit. I tried to guess his argument, but what I found ("If the reason was to act far fom the German people, why not even further, then ?") doesn't seem very convincing to me. I don't discuss about the facts (were these camps transit camps ?) but about the argument.


No Revisio, I did not mean all of what you just said.

Revisio, you seem to be reading far too much into this here. This really is very simple. Let me back up and ask you just one quesiton - a question that you didn't answer earlier:

I'm sure everyone here knows that the orthodox holohoax storyline is Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were "the end of the line" for jews. With that said

Revisio, does the proven fact that jews were transited beyond the so-called "pure extermination centers" conflict with or coincide with the orthodox holohoax storyline?
Last edited by Dolma on Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

Dolma
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Dolma » 5 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:27 pm)

Revisio

I think that the thesis of the transit camps is highly plausible...


Just "highly plausible" huh? Mmmmmmm.

Getting more specific here (and maybe this will help you Revisio), and concentrating on the north for now

If "the final solution" was an extermination pogram and not a forced emigration program, then, if a line were drawn on a map from Stuttof to Treblinka to Sobibor to Belzec - what possible reason would the Germans have had for transiting even a single jew so much as an inch beyond that line?
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby hermod » 5 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:57 pm)

@ Dolma

IMO there are 3 answers: a minimal "to the east", an intermediary "to the east" and an optimal "to the east".

The minimal "to the east" was reservations and ghettoes in the east like the Lublin reservation, the Transnystria reservation and the big Polish ghettoes. The minimal "to the east" was mainly before mid-1941 and it was conceived as a temporary solution before Germany's victory and the final expulsion of Europe's Jewry to somewhere else (probably Madagascar).

« Meanwhile, the war against the Soviet Union has allowed us to dispose of new territories for the final solution. Consequently, the Führer has decided to displace the Jews not towards Madagascar but towards the East. Thus, there is no longer any need to consider Madagascar for the final solution. » - Franz Rademacher, leader of Referat D III or Judenreferat ("Jew Unit") of the German Foreign Affairs Ministry from 1940 to 1943, Feb. 10th 1942, Nuremberg Doc. NG-3933.

The intermediary "to the east" was beyond the 1939 German-Soviet line of demarcation (i.e. the Bug river) which was also the former border between the German-Austrian world (Hitler was 30 years old when that world dislocated) and the Russian world. IMO that line was the Eastern limit of what Hitler regarded as "the German sphere of influence". As soon as the Eastern front opened, Hitler used that new opportunity to expell many Jews not needed for the German war effort out of the German sphere of influence. I think a map of Europe in 1914 could help to understand what Hitler regarded as the German sphere of influence. Hitler was a man of the late 19th century and the early 20th century. The former German and Austro-Hungarian empires were probably what he regarded as the German sphere of influence (not to confuse with Hitler's German Reich itself).

The optimal "to the east" was simply as far as possible from the German Reich and the German sphere of influence. That "to the east" of course depended on the moves of the Eastern front. That's where the special concentration camps for prisoners unfit for work (see Rudenko's words) are an explanation. That makes perfect sense: if you regard something as harmful to you and your people, you want to see that thing as far as possible from your borders.
Last edited by hermod on Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

Dolma
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Dolma » 5 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:08 pm)

I understand that hermod, and I thank you for your input, but my question is (concentrating on the north for now):

If "the final solution" was an extermination pogram and not a forced emigration program, then, if a line were drawn on a map from Stuttof to Treblinka to Sobibor to Belzec - what possible reason would the Germans have had for transiting even a single jew so much as an inch east beyond that line?
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Reviso » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 10, 2014 3:06 am)

Dolma, you use now as an argument the proven fact that some Jews were deported to the east from Treblinka etc. but in a preceding post, you wrote :

"I hope you gents understand, but this thread isn't about the camps in the east per se, but the line that seperates east from west.
Remember now, I'm not talking about what the Germans considered the line to be, I'm talking about the line that is to be used to prove that the holohoaxers are lying through their teeth when they say that jews were transited hundreds of miles to remote secret locations so they could be murdered in homicidal gas chambers in the specialy constructed "pure extermination centers" - and not an inch farther.
Remember, that is the excuse given when asked why the jews weren't killed where they were found. So there is no reason at all, if the orthodox story is true, that a jew would have been transported an inch beyond one of the so-called "pure exterminaion centers."
So one can draw a line from Treblinka to Sobibor to Belzec - that is the easy part to figure out. But what I'm asking here is:
Where should the line north from Treblinka be drawn and where should the line south from Belzec be drawn?
I hope you all see what I'm trying to get at here."

It seems to me that it is rather different fom what you say now, and that the implicit argument in this older post is : "If remote secret locations were necessary, why not an inch farther?"

Now, the lesson to be learned from this little incident is perhaps : don't be allusive, don't be elusive, don't say "I hope you all see what I'm trying to get at here", express plainly your ideas and so misunderstandings will be avoided.
R.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby hermod » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:43 am)

Dolma wrote:my question is (concentrating on the north for now):

If "the final solution" was an extermination pogram and not a forced emigration program, then, if a line were drawn on a map from Stuttof to Treblinka to Sobibor to Belzec - what possible reason would the Germans have had for transiting even a single jew so much as an inch east beyond that line?


I see only 3 possible reasons:

- The Germans had planned to expand their historical sphere of influence to the north and east. War bloodshed gives such rights. Pre-WW2 History vastly demonstrated that. Nothing abnormal or unusal in that. But I don't think that's what the Nazis had planned because they didn't stop repatriating the Baltic Volkdeutsche (Heim Ins Reich operation) during the war on the eastern front. That would have been stupid to evacuate ethnic Germans from lands they would have planned to take for themselves and colonize after victory.

- They needed forced laborers in that area for their war effort (building roads, etc.). Only valid for the Jews "fit for work" of course.

- The Jews transited beyond that line were Jews expelled from the German sphere of influence once and for all as announced by Hitler even before WW2 started. They were part of the Nazi territorial final solution of the Jewish problem.
Last edited by hermod on Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

Dolma
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Dolma » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:57 pm)

Revisio

Sorry, Dolma, perhaps I'm not very smart, but I don't guess what you mean.


Revisio, it's highly plausible that you are smart enough. I tried to help you understand by asking you this simple question :

Does the proven fact that jews were transited beyond the so-called "pure extermination centers" conflict with or coincide with the orthodox holohoax storyline?


But you refused to answer it, so I asked you again:

Revisio, you seem to be reading far too much into this here. This really is very simple. Let me back up and ask you just one quesiton - a question that you didn't answer earlier:

I'm sure everyone here knows that the orthodox holohoax storyline is Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec were "the end of the line" for jews. With that said

Revisio, does the proven fact that jews were transited beyond the so-called "pure extermination centers" conflict with or coincide with the orthodox holohoax storyline?


I'll try to help you understand Revisio, but if you continue refusing to answer simple questions that are designed to help you understand, then the problem lies with you. So Revisio, I'll try to help you one more time by asking you for the third time:

Revisio, does the proven fact that jews were transited beyond the so-called "pure extermination centers" conflict with or coincide with the orthodox holohoax storyline?

(I'll give you a hint here Revisio - your answer will be one of the two choices provided within the question - all you have to do is choose one or the other.)
Last edited by Dolma on Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

Dolma
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Dolma » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:05 pm)

hermod

Dolma wrote:

my question is (concentrating on the north for now):

If "the final solution" was an extermination pogram and not a forced emigration program, then, if a line were drawn on a map from Stuttof to Treblinka to Sobibor to Belzec - what possible reason would the Germans have had for transiting even a single jew so much as an inch east beyond that line?



I see only 3 possible reasons:

- The Germans had planned to extend their historical sphere of influence to the north and east. War bloodshed gives such rights. Pre-WW2 History vastly demonstrated that. Nothing abnormal or unusal in that. But I don't think that's what the Nazis had planned because they didn't stop repatriating the Baltic Volkdeutsche (Heim Ins Reich operation) during the war on the eastern front. That would have been stupid to evacuate ethnic Germans from lands they would have planned to take for themselves and colonize after victory.

- They needed forced laborers in that area for their war effort (building roads, etc.). Only valid for the Jews "fit for work" of course.

- The Jews transited beyond that line were Jews expelled from the German sphere of influence once and for all as announced by Hitler even before WW2 started. They were part of the Nazi territorial final solution of the Jewish problem
.


Thank you hermod, those were all good answers - but to the wrong question. You answered this question:

If "the final solution" was a forced emigration program and not an extermination pogram, then, if a line were drawn on a map from Stuttof to Treblinka to Sobibor to Belzec - what possible reason would the Germans have had for transiting even a single jew so much as an inch east beyond that line?

But the quesiton I asked was:

If "the final solution" was an extermination pogram and not a forced emigration program, then, if a line were drawn on a map from Stuttof to Treblinka to Sobibor to Belzec - what possible reason would the Germans have had for transiting even a single jew so much as an inch east beyond that line?
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

Dolma
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:30 pm

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby Dolma » 5 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:26 pm)

Perhaps another simple question will help clarify things here (concentrating on the north for now):

If "the final solution" was an extermination pogram and not a forced emigration program, then, if a line were drawn on a map from Stuttof to Auschwitz - what possible reason would the Germans have had for transiting even a single jew so much as an inch east beyond that line?
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2497
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Define exactly what "to the east" means

Postby borjastick » 5 years 9 months ago (Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:57 am)

Dolma his name is Reviso not Revisio. If you weren't so condescending and spelled his name correctly he might answer your obtuse question. You are being deliberately vague and misleading. You want an answer to a probably irrelevant question but don't state your position first, therefore a level of mistrust exists around you. Simples.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 8 guests