Goebbels' diaries and Nizkor's manipulations

[Balsamo]

Bob

But you have just created a time paradox, he did not know that Germany will lost the war and his personal diary will be used as some evidence about alleged extermination and every word will be twisted as much as possible to some criminal meaning.

As he was no more involved with ñilitary operations than with the jewish policy, as well as he was a pure fanatic, he could still dream of a German victory in 1942...and even in 1943 only if the Fuhrer would listen to him (he didn't), but frankly my humble opinion is that Germany lost the war, or at least the hope to win it, in december 41...But that is another subject, though crucial...}
I have the feeling that you rely on a time paradox...this generation of men did not have the same vision and thoughts as ours.

often hear from TV news like - high taxes will liquidate small businessmen...new measurements prepared by government will liquidate families with two or more children....mayor wants to liquidate illegal gypsy settlement...and etc. Do I need to be worried about some secret extermination or not?

Ok for small businesses...and that means there no longer exist
Ok for Gypsies settlement and that means there will no longer be there
But i would ask for a source regarding the families

Ok i leave it there for tonight

[Bob]

As he was no more involved with ñilitary operations than with the jewish policy, as well as he was a pure fanatic, he could still dream of a German victory in 1942...and even in 1943 only if the Fuhrer would listen to him (he didn't), but frankly my humble opinion is that Germany lost the war, or at least the hope to win it, in december 41...But that is another subject, though crucial...}
I have the feeling that you rely on a time paradox...this generation of men did not have the same vision and thoughts as ours.

As I said, he obviously didn´t know that Germany are going lost the war three years later, so is absurd to ask why he didn´t explain every term he used in the way which does not allow any criminal twisting by victors.

Ok for small businesses...and that means there no longer exist
Ok for Gypsies settlement and that means there will no longer be there
But i would ask for a source regarding the families

You do not have a problem to grasp a context and meaning of this word in these cases, but for some reason , in the case of diary, you explain this word only in a sinister way despite my exhaustive backed up explanations and refutations.

I again noticed you did not answer my questions, here they are for the last time I hope and please, do not dodge, this is CODOH. You can find the context on previous pages:

Can you provide me with evidence for your claim that 60% of these people will lost their life and that was the meaning of that passage?

My simple question for you, do you consider as barbaric the aspects of deportation listed by me?

[Breker]

I believe Bob has mentioned this most basic point, but I will reiterate it here. If Goebbels meant that 60% of the Jews under discussion were to be "exterminated", where is the proof for such a sweeping claim? Prove to the world that that did occur. And always a rainstorm on the exterminationist's parade, where are the corpses? We must often keep matters simple.
B.

[chim-pa]

This invention works with a basic premise that extermination of Jews was known to public or to “some peoples” thanks to some rumors, these people not specified by Browning for some unknown reason believed these unknown rumors, considered them as truth and they were allegedly upset so Himmler was worried about how they will accept more murdered German Jews as opposed to extermination of Russian Jews. Right?

Problem here is that Browning does not specify who protested. In his Origins of the Final Solution, he seems to argue that foremost reason for stopping the deportations was protests presented by the high officials in Ostland, plus some protests presented by Wehrmacht officers. Those protests obviously would have been more important than some complaints from low-ranking officers, as those were the people needed for implementing the policies in that area. We of course know Himmler's remark in his Dienstkalender in 30.11.41 on Jews from Berlin, "keine Liquidierung". Exact reasons for that statement are, as far as a I know, unknown.

Finally, Göbbels contradicts even Browning, he clearly said that only concentration or evacuation is considered, thus if these peoples were determined for extermination sooner or later, evacuation would not have been mentioned by Göbbels.

What Goebbels writes does not contradict the intention to "liquidate" them later, as he speaks of current situation and actions that can be put in operation "quickly". His words visioning later developments refer to liquidation, "they know that defeat also means for them personal liquidation".

No sources, no documents

Well, it is an interview, one rarely uses documents when interviewed.

But orthodox sources speaks about implemented policy in this period.

I do not think they speak of full implementation.

[Bob]

Problem here is that Browning does not specify who protested. In his Origins of the Final Solution, he seems to argue that foremost reason for stopping the deportations was protests presented by the high officials in Ostland, plus some protests presented by Wehrmacht officers. Those protests obviously would have been more important than some complaints from low-ranking officers, as those were the people needed for implementing the policies in that area. We of course know Himmler's remark in his Dienstkalender in 30.11.41 on Jews from Berlin, "keine Liquidierung". Exact reasons for that statement are, as far as a I know, unknown.

No problem, I provided refutation for different examples of these peoples, what I said is relevant to your examples as well.

High officials in Ostland? How these unknown officials were involved in alleged extermination according to you?

Wehrmacht officers? How they were involved in alleged extermination which was according to Himmler and historiography allegedly exclusively in the hands of the SS?

"Keine Liquidierung" has nothing to with with previous entries as is clear since entries are separated and they are not connected to each other in the sense of the context and each of them refer to unique subject, but exterminationists connect the last two entries together which is the basic flaw. What this liquidation means is explained here, feel free to read till the end of the thread.

What Goebbels writes does not contradict the intention to "liquidate" them later, as he speaks of current situation and actions that can be put in operation "quickly". His words visioning later developments refer to liquidation, "they know that defeat also means for them personal liquidation".

This liquidation has nothing to do with killing as explained. Your next quote from his diary is again contradicting and nonsensical, if the defeat in the war means that Jewry will be exterminated, than is clear that they did not want to exterminate them during the war as is stated in historiography, but this liquidation will follow after the war, and again - this means their complete removal from Europe as again stated by him in the diary when he clearly stated that 11 milion of them will be left after the war and they will be removed from Europe continent, maybe on Madagascar.

Well, it is an interview, one rarely uses documents when interviewed.

He does not have anything no matter if this is interview or regular book, no documents for such story exist. But feel free to refute me.

I do not think they speak of full implementation.

Can you tell me what means full implementation if not construction of 4 out of 4 alleged pure extermination camps, ongoing extermination in 3 out of 4 alleged pure extermination camps + alleged ongoing extermination and preparations in Auschwitz? (Majdanek is probably not relevant, myth of this camp is dead, albeit not officially admitted of course.)

[chim-pa]

High officials in Ostland? How these unknown officials were involved in alleged extermination according to you?

I do not think I mentioned them being involved in extermination, but that, according to Browning, they protested the deportation because, for example, in Lodz Uebelhoer saw that the economy of the city cannot bear anymore newcomers, as there were not enough houses etc.

Wehrmacht officers? How they were involved in alleged extermination which was according to Himmler and historiography allegedly exclusively in the hands of the SS?

General Braemer, who objected according to Browning the deportation of German Jews to Ostland, was in charge of security at that area and saw bringing more Jews to the area as a security threat.

"Keine Liquidierung" has nothing to with with previous entries as is clear since entries are separated

I see that in no way clear, but that is one possible interpretation.

if the defeat in the war means that Jewry will be exterminated, than is clear that they did not want to exterminate them during the war

Not at all clear either.

He does not have anything no matter if this is interview or regular book, no documents for such story exist.

Maybe, have to look when have more time. Veracity of this statement was not the issue in the first place, but we may of course discuss this further later.

Can you tell me what means full implementation if not construction of 4 out of 4 alleged pure extermination camps, ongoing extermination in 3 out of 4 alleged pure extermination camps + alleged ongoing extermination and preparations in Auschwitz?

Well, for example, if you look at Kalendarium of Auschwitz, you see that no Jews from France were selected when arriving Auschwitz but all of them were taken into the camp. Selections started only in August 1942.

[Bob]

I do not think I mentioned them being involved in extermination, but that, according to Browning, they protested the deportation because, for example, in Lodz Uebelhoer saw that the economy of the city cannot bear anymore newcomers, as there were not enough houses etc.

Firstly, we are debating murdering/extermination, because Browning´s fictional story is about peoples allegedly upset because of murdering, not because of deportations.

Secondly, I am sorry, I noticed it just now, but your interpretation of Browning´s fictional story is flawed from the beginning, he clearly said, that “some people” were “upset” after rumors about murdering “came back to Germany”, thus these people cannot be your “high officials in Ostland, plus some protests presented by Wehrmacht officers”, but only people in Germany. Sorry that I wasted your time with answering my questions which are obviously irrelevant.

General Braemer, who objected according to Browning the deportation of German Jews to Ostland, was in charge of security at that area and saw bringing more Jews to the area as a security threat.

Irrelevant, see above, we are not debating deportations, but murdering. Probably no revisionist have problem with the fact that there were some complains about to much transported people or something like that, but this isn´t the point of Browning´s fictional sinister story, right?

I see that in no way clear, but that is one possible interpretation.

No, this is clear, otherwise I challenge you to find connection between the all entries to demonstrate that they refers to each other, now is clear that are separated, four lines, four subjects, each with different background and context. Please, post your evidence to relevant thread, I guess we are a little off topic enough.

Not at all clear either.

This is clear, fel free to re-read his passages. You also omitted the rest of my quote, here is my comment again:

“Your next quote from his diary is again contradicting and nonsensical, if the defeat in the war means that Jewry will be exterminated, than is clear that they did not want to exterminate them during the war as is stated in historiography, but this liquidation will follow after the war, and again - this means their complete removal from Europe as again stated by him in the diary when he clearly stated that 11 milion of them will be left after the war and they will be removed from Europe continent, maybe on Madagascar.”

Thus obviously - not physically liquidated/murdered, not during the war, not after the war.

Well, for example, if you look at Kalendarium of Auschwitz, you see that no Jews from France were selected when arriving Auschwitz but all of them were taken into the camp. Selections started only in August 1942.

Firstly, see one of my previous comments with reference to Kalendarium (Auschwitz Chronicle) and Auschwitz.

Secondly, you missed my part about alleged pure extermination camps.

So my question again - Can you tell me what means full implementation if not construction of 4 out of 4 alleged pure extermination camps, ongoing extermination in 3 out of 4 alleged pure extermination camps + alleged ongoing extermination and preparations in Auschwitz?

[chim-pa]

Secondly, I am sorry, I noticed it just now, but your interpretation of Browning´s fictional story is flawed from the beginning, he clearly said, that “some people” were “upset” after rumors about murdering “came back to Germany”, thus these people cannot be your “high officials in Ostland, plus some protests presented by Wehrmacht officers”, but only people in Germany.

Actually I made comments on the basis of his work Origins of the Final Solution, not on his interview, which does not include enough details for proper discussion. Interview was one example of main stream historians dealing with the case of the German Jews as an exception.

No, this is clear, otherwise I challenge you to find connection between the all entries to demonstrate that they refers to each other

They are from one single phone conversation, so assuming they are not connected, is something I think needs verified, not the other way around. Himmler's message sent next day to Jeckeln could of course be related to this, in it H. forbids any unauthorized actions and asks Jeckeln to meet him.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/images/0 ... W16_32.jpg

Thus obviously - not physically liquidated/murdered, not during the war, not after the war.

I'm sorry, but I do not see that ruling out liquidations during the war.

Secondly, you missed my part about alleged pure extermination camps.

I just took one example. Tell me your opinion of that, if you disagree.

[Bob]

Actually I made comments on the basis of his work Origins of the Final Solution, not on his interview, which does not include enough details for proper discussion. Interview was one example of main stream historians dealing with the case of the German Jews as an exception.

But you presented here his interview dealing with murdering, not with deportations, please, stick with it. If interview does not include enough details, then you cannot use it I think, but anyway, the part in question is wrong and fictional.

They are from one single phone conversation, so assuming they are not connected, is something I think needs verified, not the other way around. Himmler's message sent next day to Jeckeln could of course be related to this, in it H. forbids any unauthorized actions and asks Jeckeln to meet him.

This is not assumption, this is clear from the document. Is up to you to show connections to demonstrate that they are connected.

I'm sorry, but I do not see that ruling out liquidations during the war.

I am not sure if I can explain it even more simpler, but i am going to try it.

If 11 milion Jews still presented in Europe must be concentrated and after some time after the war they will receive some island, maybe Madagascar, then is obvious that the possibility or intention to exterminate them during the war is ruled out otherwise there would not have been 11 milion Jews after the war. If they wanted to exterminate them after the war, this passage would not have been there at all.

If defeat of Allies in the war will result in personal liquidation of Jews as opposed to their victory, then is clear that their victory will not result in their personal liquidation, but if they wanted to exterminate them during the war or if they already exterminated them during the war, then the Jews will be liquidated no matter if they are going to win the war or not, thus this part is nonsense from the point of holocaust logic. Secondly, why he mentioned that Jews are determined to bring victory in this war otherwise they will be personally liquidated if he already knew that there is only one best possibility - liquidation during the war - thus their victory or success is clearly not possible, only defeat, thus again nonsensical. Thirdly, if they will be exterminated during the war, then victory for the Germany will not result in personal liquidation of Jews, they will be already liquidated.

So as I said, these passages don´t have anything with alleged extermination, they perfectly fit evacuation and complete removal from Europe as stated by him. Thus obviously - not physically liquidated/murdered, not during the war, not after the war.

I just took one example. Tell me your opinion of that, if you disagree.

But I expect to refute the whole point if you disagree, not only one example related only to Jews from France which does not change the validity of my point. You are claiming, that alleged extermination policy was not implemented and you based i on a few transports of Jews from France in Auschwitz. But my point is of course based on completely different and much larger evidence from official historiography. Now your case of Auschwitz.

-Firstly, Danuta Czech reports gassings in alleged Bunker 1, and gassings in Krematorium I, already provided. Is also claimed that in this period Auschwitz was chosen as an extermination site because of a new planned Krematorium II which served as a catalyst.[1] As pointed out by Mattogno, according to Rudolf Höss, this took place already in the summer of 1941, and for this task, he requested new Krematoria, they were adapted for genocidal purposes and for the final solution of the Jewish question and after approval from Himmler they began construction, before the completion, they erected provisional gas chambers, this took place in 1941 or in early 1942 since new Krematoria were according to him planned to be completed in 1942.[2] Thus he refutes you completely.

-Secondly, your claim about start of selection for Jews from France dated "only" in or from August is refuted by Danuta Czech, for example, on July 21 1942, 375 Jews from Drancy are killed in the gas chambers after selection.[3] i.e. 17 days after the official start of selection on the unloading ramp [4] and till this date the peoples were allegedly gassed without the selection on the ramp or they were registered in the camp, thus gassing without selection is even worse, right? If the Jews from France were not allegedly gassed before this official start has nothing to do with implementation as the other Jews were allegedly gassed upon arrival according to Czech. And how many transports from France came to the Auschwitz during these 17 days between July 4 and July 21? Only one single transport with Jews from France on July 19, 1942, 809 men and 119 women.[5] Thus after the selection officially started on July 4, only one transport with Jews from France was registered in the camp, the next transport was immediately affected by selections and people were gassed. Your point is thus flawed and you based it on one single transport accepted to camp without alleged gassing or selection.

In the first six months of 1942 I counted only five transports (correct me if i am wrong) which reached Auschwitz from France (March 26, June 7, June 24, June 27, June 30), thus only one single transport again reached Auschwitz in the period in question and you based conclusions on it, i.e. - transport was not selected or gassed = alleged policy of extermination not implemented - while ignoring that allegedly thousands of Jews from other places were gassed upon arrival and while ignoring alleged ongoing extermination in alleged pure extermination camps.

-Thirdly, your case of Jews from France is somehow irrelevant as alleged gassings took place without selection (or with selection in hospital) in the case of others so you only picked up Jews from France while you ignored the others.

- Fourthly, is really necessary to provide you with countless examples when prisoners were not allegedly selected or gassed at all even during the most alleged frenetic gassing activity in summer of 1944 when the alleged policy was implemented (even according to you I guess) to prove that when some prisoner was registered in Auschwitz - this does not mean that alleged extermination policy was not implemented according to historiography?

Official historiography about this myth is against you, according to it, alleged extermination was almost in full swing in the period in question, i.e. period related to passages from diary.

Thus my question again:

Can you tell me what means full implementation if not construction of 4 out of 4 alleged pure extermination camps, ongoing extermination in 3 out of 4 alleged pure extermination camps + alleged ongoing extermination and preparations in Auschwitz?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes

[1]Jean-Claude Pressac, Les crématoires d’Auschwitz. La machinerie du meurtre de masse, CNRS Editions, Paris, 1993, p. 53f.; Jean-Claude Pressac Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des Massenmordes, R. Piper GmbH & Co. KG, Munchen 1994, second edition 1995, p. 67.
[2]Testimony of Rudolf Höss, April 1, 1946, 1430 to 1730 by Mr. Sender Jaari and Lt. Whitney Harris, p. 26. In: John Mendelsohn, Donald S. Detwiler, eds. The Holocaust: Selected Documents in Eighteen Volumes. Garland, New York and London, 1982, vol. 12.
[3]Danuta Czech, Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-1945, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1990, p. 201.
[4]Ibid., p. 191.
[5]Ibid., p. 200.; Another transport is reported on July 8, but this transport is consisted from Jews and non-Jews, numbers for these groups are not specified by Czech, thus irrelevant as we are dealing only with Jews.

[Hannover]

chim-pa cites Browning, but why? Browning has been exposed as a shyster, like Hilberg, Lipstadt, Van Pelt, Wiesel, on & on.
Here's just on example from this forum:
'Grubach demolishes Browning and the Eichmann tales'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5262&p=34084

A basic search here of Browning reveals example after example. Why would anyone cite a proven shyster?

- Hannover

[Hannover]

A challenge for chim-pa:
If Goebbels dairies really meant 'extermination', then please present proof as to how these Jews were exterminated. And then please show us the excavated mass graves. As was implied earlier, it really comes down to basics.

- Hannover

[Kingfisher]

Kingfisher said

Assuming this is a valid source, we have only established that liquidation has a third meaning, more radical than the other two. It would make perfect sense if it meant complete removal from Europe.

Really ?
Does it make sense?
Why then just don't he use the term "removal from Europe" ? Knowing that using the term liquididation, Jospeh takes the risk to be misunderstood by sillies like me;
Maybe he wanted our language to evoluate...
Don't say, "i am going in America for Xmas", but..."Next Xmas, i am going to liquidate myself over the Ocean in America"
Don't say, "my neighboor had to move to London for his Job", but "My neighboor had to liquidate himself to London for his Job"
Wouldn't be fun if in airports, the lovely voice would annouce "Please, all passagers to be liquidated to New York, please proceed to gate C"
Come on, here we have again : Concentrated (ghetto), evacuate ( transfer) and liquidate in the same paragraphe, and still one should understand it as having the same meaning?.

Strawmanning again, Balsamo? I don't know German very well but if it has a similar meaning to English "eliminate" then it can be interpreted as either killing or removing, according to context and what you want to believe. If someone wants to insist it must mean "kill" it is up to him to prove it. I only say it can have another meaning, so don't try the old Argument from Ignorance on me. Eliminating an individual pretty well must mean killing, but eliminating a community could mean driving it out.

[Bob]

Strawmanning again, Balsamo? I don't know German very well but if it has a similar meaning to English "eliminate" then it can be interpreted as either killing or removing, according to context and what you want to believe. If someone wants to insist it must mean "kill" it is up to him to prove it. I only say it can have another meaning, so don't try the old Argument from Ignorance on me. Eliminating an individual pretty well must mean killing, but eliminating a community could mean driving it out.

Thomas Dalton about "liquidation"

In the March 19 entry we find the first occurrence of another troublesome word, ‘liquidation’. It proves to be rather popular, appearing in eight different entries. The troublesome part is that, in many cases, it means something other than killing. Goebbels speaks of liquidating the “Jewish danger” (30 May 1942) and of liquidating Jewish marriages (6 December 1942). The word ‘liquidation’ means, primarily, ‘to make fluid.’ And this in fact is a fairly apt description of the deportation process: a large, entrenched Jewish community who had to be uprooted, made liquid, and then to flow out across the borders. Nothing in this entails killing. Nor at the time, in the 1940s, did the word necessarily mean murder. An article in the London Times had this to say: “The rest of the Jews in the General Government…would be liquidated, which means either transported eastward in cattle trucks to an unknown destination, or killed where they stood” (4 December 1942; p. 3). Holocaust survivor Thomas Buergenthal (2009: 49) writes of his experience in the Kielce ghetto: “The ghetto was being liquidated or, in the words bellowing out of the loudspeakers, Ausseidlung! Ausseidlung! (‘Evacuation! Evacuation!’).” And later he comments, “After the liquidation of the labor camp…” (p. 56). Clearly the word means, and meant, something other than killing.

Obviously, ‘liquidate’ can mean killing, as can a huge variety of words under contrived circumstances. In Mafia circles, a ‘kiss’ can mean death. Motion pictures use a variety of silly terms: whack, pop, bump, waste, take for a ride, off, do in, and so on. In the case of Goebbels, we must ask once again, why would he go to lengths to use euphemisms or silly code words in a personal diary? And one in which, when motivated, he was happy to call a spade a spade?

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/arch ... e_jews.php

[Balsamo]

As i understand, you all want that an interpretation of a text - here notes from Goebbels - has to be proven by archeological materials that would support it. Is that it ?
With the same logic, your interpretation - that is liquidate means transfer - HAS TO BE RIGHT for the same reason.

It is a strange historical methodology, to say the least. That would mean that in both case, we assume to already know the answer to the question one is working on. Why do the work if everything is certain ?

I know that my vision and definition, along with the questions and uncertainties i still have, are expected. So i will do it, but it will have to be a topic of his own, as i suspected that it will spark off loads of reactions and will therefore spoil any original topic.

The right move would be to really take a look on those diaries as if it would have been the first step, without knowing if there was a mass murder and without knowing that there weren't any. and have an open mind at every step, in front on every single piece of the puzzle.

I am aware that i won't convince anyone here that let say Bob brilliant logic (and i mean it) is based on whishful thinking...in this very context of Goebbles diary. Nornally one should not resort to lingustic and intellectual gynmastic when analysing a personal diary. The author should be supposed to use the words to express his idea as clearly as possible.
Now when we look at the brighter, one can see that the Ghettos were beginning to be emptied at the same time than Goebbels entries. That is, imho, what he meant saying all Jews have to be abgeshoben. (first sentence), among them some will be sent to new working places, and the other...????????
What follows is in my opinion another topic which concerns the camps of Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor where most of the Jews living in those Ghettos were sent...were abgeshoben! Strangely, workers from Lublin were sent to maidenek, and the other to Belzec...HUM...both were abgeshoben to different places...
Anyway
What happened next is the center of a new debate - which comes regularely here - because either they were put to death, either they were sent somewhere in the Ukraine, ri ht ?
In these conditions,
- yes one can argue that liquidation means transfer, if one can show at least their destinations and how they got there.
- Or yes, one can argue that liquidation was litteral and then at least be able to say that most did end in the transit camp.
Both positions bare a handicap...
Direct proofs are difficult in both case, so asking for them is futile.
One have to try to find indirect proofs that would support a conviction.
But before this, one should consider Goebbels quotes as there are, and not base our interpretation on certainties about what comes next.

Anyway, my next post would be about how i percieved this whole mess ( and that is not as easy as it seems)...as i promised to Hannover, so don't fall on me too hard.

[Bob]

I am aware that i won't convince anyone here that let say Bob brilliant logic (and i mean it) is based on whishful thinking...in this very context of Goebbles diary.

This is going to be not successful, because I am using only the documents, thus diary and documents related to passages which prove that he was familiar with deportation/evacuation, the passages then fits evacuation, not extermination. In fact, one does not need brilliant logic to realize that if 11 million Jews presented in Europe are going to receive own island after the war - then their planned extermination is simply a myth and he knows nothing about it. This is basic logic.

I am waiting for your refutation of my explanations, no problem, I welcome other opinion refuting my alleged "whishful thinking".

- yes one can argue that liquidation means transfer, if one can show at least their destinations and how they got there.

Problem is, that as i pointed out to you at least twice - liquidation does not mean only transfer in that passage, but transfer/deportation/evacuation out of General Government without return, these peoples will never return, only then this passage does make a sense. Now I realized where is problem, if you cannot follow comments carefully, how can you debate something? If you do not follow comments of your opponent, then logically whole debate is somewhat pointless and leads to nowhere.

Also, it does not matter if we can show final destination for these people who crossed the border (in fact we cannot, because poor Josef did not provide any details about these Jews, only that they will be liquidated/employed and they are from Lublin) but what matter is - we can prove they left the place where they were allegedly gassed, examples already provided not only in this thread.

Your own rule applies to you as well, and if they were killed according to you, you must show where, but you cannot, because as we know from the document, people unfit for work from Lublin left Belzec, crossed the border and never returned in the hands of the Germans, this was their plan, this is in the document and Josef fits this picture. To show what happened to them is completely different matter, but what really matters is that they were not killed there, this was not possible, because they were not there, because they crossed border and did not return.

Direct proofs are difficult in both case, so asking for them is futile.

They are in fact difficult only for revisionists as is known that their research is not welcomed or assisted or is forbidden, they are jailed and IIRC many documents are still classified or they suspect that victors had motive, time and chance to destroy or hide crucial documents left by Germans.

But you exterminationists have all aces in the sleeves, access to all documents and you already showed the best what you can, you had/have opportunity to dig up the bodies or remains, or tell me how these gas chambers worked. You had over 60 years to do it at the time when alleged invented Jewish laws prohibiting excavations were not here, at the time when investigation could have been done without any problem. I really do not know what difficulties are you talking about, but tell me more about them in separated thread if you want.

btw- I noticed you again ignored my two questions, so i give up, this was probably my 5th or 6th attempt.