The Black Rabbit of Inle now a Holocaust believer !!

[hermod]

The Black Rabbit of Inle wrote:

Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:23 pm

I'm convinced by the Nazis' own documents that there must have been an extermination programme operating at the AR camps. So, I can pretty much accept there was something similar happening at Chelmno, even if it's not a place I've yet been to or know that much about.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 26#p540012

The Black Rabbit of Inle wrote:

Mary wrote:
Which Nazi documents convince you of this?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:17 am

Viktor Brack's letter 23 June 1942 to Himmler was a significant one [NO 205] (viewtopic.php?p=78233&sid=f1d0ef8e6c7014737595756025ef0b96#p78233), advising that some of his T4 staff had been reassigned to Globocnik for his special task, and then suggesting that they sterilise several million Jews by means of X-ray. The British intercepted a message soon after which states X-ray experiments were to begin at Auschwitz [plus there's a bundle of testimony on that and the Auschwitz medical register that recorded the removal of testicles and ovaries after the X-ray experiments—which were eventually deemed a failure and halted].

Then there's Goebbels' Diary, 27 March 1942, mentioning that Globocnik would be running the eastward evacuation.

Then there's all the paperwork that proves a huge percentage of the the AR staff were veterans of the euthanasia programme. Very few people deny the T4 programme in its entirety, usually it's just the gas chambers. If for argument's sake they're right about "no GCs", why would the AR camps take so many of the staff from these institutions to work in transit camps?

Then there's a document I discovered; a decoded message sent from the Japanese ambassador following his meeting with Paul Karl Schmidt, the press spokesman of the German Foreign Ministry on May 19, 1944. "The question of the Jews, of course, called for treatment on a different footing they were the nations' internal parasites and as such she [Germany] would relentlessly eliminate them."

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 26#p540100

My reply:

Brack's letter: The word 'kept' (erhalten) was dishonestly translated as 'kept alive' (Leben erhalten). Thus the actual meaning of 'kept' in this context, i.e. not deported out of the German sphere of influence (unlike the Jews not needed for labor), was deliberately turned into something sinister. And I fail to see what implies the existence of a mass murder policy in the mass sterilization of the Jewish laborers kept within the German sphere of influence and the surrounding countries for labor purposes. Seems logical to have only a non-reproductive group of people within a specific area when a complete territorial eviction of that population out of that area is being implemented. A mere security against the risk of having fertile Jews within your area at a time when a major military setback might cause the loss of the distant territories where the Jews could be dumped until [German] victory.

What's suspect in some T4 staff later working at the AR camps? That staff was not even made of doctors with experience in the killing of T4 patients. From what I know, that staff was made of trucks drivers, guards, etc., i.e. of people not directly connected with the killing of T4 patients.

IMO, Brack's post-war testimony about the alleged T4 gas chambers is more interesting and telling (viewtopic.php?t=8369) than his letter to Himmler.

Goebbels' famous entry in his diary: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10722#p80516

Paul Karl Schmidt's quote: Insignificant. Expel all the members of a specific people out of a specific area and the elimination of that people is completed in that area when the last member of that people has left.

[Turpitz]

Who is 'Black Rabbit'? Everything based on paper again? Never changes does it?

I was so exited a few years back about the paedo, BBC funded Sturdy-Coles enterprise at Auschwitz and what did I get after waiting patiently for three years? A black rabbit waving some grubby scrap of paper around.

[Hektor]

If you got to base it on paper, let's discuss the history of the documents, archives, control over it, etc. But then what's ON THE GROUND. What is there to convince you, if you'd approach it from a blank slate? After all we're living in the age of forensics.

[Hannover]

No surprise there. I could have told you ages ago that The Rabbit was a laughable Irving 'holocaust' lite type.
In fact I have repeatedly pummeled him here on his bizarre & silly claims.
When cornered he resorted to desperate & wild name calling and straw man arguments. Not the behavior of someone with the truth.

As for his claimed "documents", what "documents"? There are none that support his absurdities, as shown repeatedly at this forum.
Nothing in them says anything about murdering Jews.

Poor Rabbit, he associates anything mentioning relocation, deporting of Jews to mean 'extermination'.
I assume then that since Japanese Americans were relocated, deported that he thinks they were also 'exterminated'.

And now, to fit his storyline, The Rabbit must show us physical proof and the claimed enormous mass graves which do not exist.

This is too easy.

- Hannover

"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

- Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

[Turpitz]

laughable Irving 'holocaust' lite type.

I personally feel Irving is a great deal more sinister than that. I used to think him just a buffoon and attention seeker. Then I went through a period of thinking him just naive and gullible. Recently (last five years) I have considered him a calculating Judas-goat.

I am not aware of anyone who professes to not be interested in a subject so much, to then vehemently pass judgment about it at every opportunity.

[HeiligeSturm]

So, BRoI went and registered at The Skeptics Holocaust Believers Society Forum where Aaron Richards
is "having a field day" and seeing something torn apart. Jewish babies perhaps? In his mind or David Olere's
Holocaust pornography at least.
But denierbud and pals are not torn apart so easily.

People at The Not So Skeptics Society seem to believe in miracles...

I want to believe sig.jpg (63.89 KiB) Viewed 4872 times

[Werd]

Blackrabbit also says this.

I was shocked when RM proved recently-ish that Fr. Desbois's seemingly crazy claim that the locations of mass graves were hidden in messages disguised as weather reports turned out to be true.

He goes on to prove his point supposedly.

Desbois, incredibly, adds:

Aktion 1005 was kept secret, the SS communicated with Berlin in code: the number of clouds indicated that of the re-opened graves, and the quantity of rain indicated the number of bodies that had been burned (p. 201).


Where did Desbois ever get this poppycock? From some senile "eyewitness"? What rubbish!

To which Roberto responds.

Mattogno is familiar with the work of a German researcher by the name of Jens Hoffmann, in whose book about Aktion 1005 the use of meteorological code words is mentioned on several occasions[12]. Even if he were not, a little googling would have been sufficient to overcome his ignorance. A search on http://www.google.de with the terms "Aktion 1005" and "Wolken" (German for clouds) turns up as first result a link to an article in Germany’s main weekly magazine[13] discussing trials against several former members of the SS or police who had been involved in Aktion 1005 and been charged with the murder of forced laborers involved in the cremation of the corpses: Max Krahner, Otto Goldapp, Otto Drews, Hans Sohns, Fritz Zietlow, Walter Ernst Helfsgott, Fritz Kirstein. Regarding Sohns, the article contains the following information:

Mit Pickeln und Schaufeln, aber auch mit Baggern ließ Sohns die Massengräber öffnen. ermittelte die Staatsanwaltschaft. Er selber kontrollierte gelegentlich den Fortgang der Arbeit an Ort und Stelle, er selber gab Befehl, die herbeigezwungenen Totengräber durch Genickschuß zu töten. Nur geschossen hat er selber nicht: jemals seine Versetzung oder Abberufung beantragt auch nicht.
Er war immer bei der Sache, meldete jeweils Vollzug unter Stichwort "Wolkenhöhe" aus den Niederungen der Menschenvernichtung.
Sohns had the mass graves opened with pickaxes and shovels, but also with excavators, according to the public prosecutor’s office’s investigations. He himself occasionally controlled the progress of the work on site, and he himself gave the order to kill the forced grave diggers by shots in the neck. He only didn’t shoot himself; he also never requested a transfer or relief from his post.
He always had things under control, and on each occasion reported accomplishment under the keyword "cloud height" from the hollows of human extermination.

The trial against Sohns et al was held before the Stuttgart Court of Assizes (Landgericht Stuttgart) and ended with the court’s verdict on 13.03.1969, which is included as Verfahren Lfd.Nr.701 in the University of Amsterdam’s Justiz und NS-Verbrechen collection[14] and can be ordered from there. Regarding the use of the code word "Wolkenhöhe" ("cloud height"), the judgment contains the following findings:

Auf der gemeinsamen Grundsatzbesprechung teilte Blobel ferner mit, dass der Abteilung IV des RSHA täglich über die Zahl der beseitigten Leichen berichtet werden müsse. Er fragte die Anwesenden, ob jemand einen vernünftigen Vorschlag zur praktischen Handhabung der Berichtspflicht machen könne. Hierauf schlug Soh. vor, die täglichen Leistungsberichte als "Wettermeldung" zu tarnen. Als "Wolkenhöhe" verschlüsselt konnte die Leichenzahl über Funk oder von einer KdS-Dienststelle aus fernschriftlich unauffällig an den BdS gemeldet werden, der die bei ihm einlaufenden Berichte täglich an das RSHA weiterzuleiten hatte. In der Praxis oblag es später den Teilkommandoführem, also auch dem Angeklagten Zie., die täglichen "Wettermeldungen" abzugeben. Ob Soh. in der Praxis auch in das von ihm inspirierte Berichtswesen eingeschaltet war, ist ungeklärt. […]
Der Angeklagte hat ferner eingeräumt, schon vor Aufnahme der eigentlichen Arbeiten bei der gemeinsamen Grundsatzbesprechung auf entsprechende Frage Blobels vorgeschlagen zu haben, dass - wie das später dann in der Praxis tatsächlich weitgehend durchgeführt wurde - die vom RSHA geforderten täglichen Leistungsberichte als "Wettermeldung" verschlüsselt und die Zahl der verbrannten Leichen mit einer als "Wolkenhöhe" getarnten Zahl durchgegeben werden sollten.

At the joint principle meeting Blobel furthermore informed that Section IV of the RSHA had to be informed about the number of removed corpses on a daily basis. He asked those present if anyone could make a reasonable suggestion about the practical handling of this reporting duty. Thereupon Soh. suggested to mask the daily performance reports as "weather report". Coded as "cloud height", the number of corpses could inconspicuously be reported by radio or by a service of the Commander of Security Police and Security Service (Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD - KdS) per telex to the Head of the Security Police and Security Service (Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD - BdS), who had to transmit the messages received to the RSHA on a daily basis. In practice the commanders of partial detachments, including the defendant Zie., later had the task of issuing the daily "weather reports". Whether Soh. was also involved in the practice of reporting he had inspired has not been clarified. […]
The defendant furthermore admitted that already before the works proper started he had at the joint principle meeting suggested, in response to a corresponding question by Blobel, that – as was later actually done in practice to a large extent – the daily performance reports required by the RSHA should be coded as "weather reports" and the number of burned corpses should be reported by a number masked as "cloud height".

So instead of the account of "some senile "eyewitness"" derisively suggested by Mattogno we have the deposition of a key participant in Operation 1005 at a trial before a West German court, held according to the defendant-friendly procedural rules of a democratic state, in which defendants were assisted by legal counsel and entitled to deny the charges brought against them and challenge the related evidence as they saw fit.

But it gets even better, for one of the documents quoted by Sergey[15] confirms Sohns’ deposition whereby meteorological code words were used to report the progress of Operation 1005, namely the sixth one[16]:

Einsatz der SK 1005 A und B, GrS-Auftrag RFSS an SS-Staf. Blobel im Raum BdS-Schwarzes Meer nicht möglich. Erfaßte Niederschlagsgebiete nur noch im Raum KdS-Krim. Einsatz dort bei Front- und Bandenlage zZt. untunlich. Transportraum für Gesamtkommando nicht vorhanden. Gerüchteweise verlautet, daß Räumung Krim bevorsteht. Schlage Auflösung beider Kommandos bzw. Einsatz in anderem Raume vor.
Source: excerpt from a secret 28.03.1944 radiogram from SS-Stubaf. Friedrich Hegenscheidt (KdS Schwarzes Meer) to Chef der Sipo und des SD and Einsatzgruppe C Lemberg, Abw. Stab; Barch, B 162/204 ARZ 419/62, Band 1, Bl. 146 as cited in ibid., S. 127. (Note that "Niederschläge" was a code word for buried bodies of the Nazi victims, cf. B 162/3537, Bl. 115.)

(Emphases added.)

"Niederschlag" translates as "rainfall", "Niederschlagsgebiete" translates as "rainfall areas", and the highlighted part of Sergey’s quote translates as "Recorded rainfall areas left only in the area of Commander of Security Police and Security Service Crimea", which in the context of Operation 1005 meant that only in this area there remained mass graves to removed. The report goes on to state that the operation could not be carried out at the time due to the situation at the front and partisan activity, that there were rumors whereby the Crimea was about to be evacuated, and that the dissolution of both detachments (SK 1005 A and B) or their use elsewhere was thus suggested.

The above-mentioned insider witness and documentary evidence makes Mattogno’s derisive remark about the source of Desbois’ reference to the coding of Operation 1005 reports look like the impertinent blather of a charlatan incapable or unwilling to do even the most basic research in the field of his "scholarly" activity, whereas Desbois comes across as someone who did his homework of consulting the available sources of evidence or at least the judgments and/or scholarly literature wherein such sources are mentioned.

But then, who in his right mind still believes that Mattogno’s "scholarship" amounts to anything other than poppycock?

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ois-1.html

SR post this since:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... 05_11.html

BRIO also says:

I don't think many revisionists asides from the deny everything brigade contests the authenticity of the nazis' own documents on shootings in the east. They might argue, as many of the defendants at the EG trial did, that some of the figures in the EG Reports were considerably exaggerated, but I don't believe any serious revisionist researcher has claimed that the reports or other docs mentioning the shootings are "fake".

He also says:

it all depends on individual reports. If they says X amount of Jews were shot for partisan activities, then I've no automatic reason to reject that or think they lied about them being partisans. But if there's no mention of the Jews being or supporting partisans, then nor would I assume they were.

Some of the messages intercepted early in OB list partisans and Jews separately, so I see no reason to suspect these Jews were shot for partisan activities:
viewtopic.php?p=71383#p71383

[Turpitz]

But then what's ON THE GROUND. What is there to convince you, if you'd approach it from a blank slate? After all we're living in the age of forensics.

You are getting into the realms of physical reality, a big, big taboo within the Industry.

I don't think many revisionists asides from the deny everything brigade contests the authenticity of the nazis' own documents on shootings in the east. They might argue, as many of the defendants at the EG trial did, that some of the figures in the EG Reports were considerably exaggerated, but I don't believe any serious revisionist researcher has claimed that the reports or other docs mentioning the shootings are "fake".

I'm in the 'deny everything brigade', simply because, I have never seen anything, even remotely worth believing in. Maybe this chap might like to introduce some, what a novel thought.

Absolutely desperate stuff this is. These bell-ends are trying to completely restructure the last seventy years worth of Judaic propaganda. In their delusions, they think we should all conveniently forget their ill-fated, past lies and contently settle into their new ones. It's like they have tied themselves up in knots and made such a mess of it all that they want to start afresh and hope no-one notices. Such bewildering arrogance.

[Werd]

Goebbels' famous entry in his diary: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10722#p80516

Good god. Can the believers stop beating this dead horse already? Can they just take a second and read what Jurgen Graf wrote?

“On 27 March 1942, Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that ‘barbaric methods,’ which he preferred not to describe, were used against the Jews, and that 60% of them would be liquidated; the other 40% would be used for labor.”

Answer
No revisionist has ever been able to furnish a satisfactory explanation for this passage. But let us compare it with what Goebbels wrote in the same diary only 20 days earlier, on 7 March 1942:[40]

“There are about 11 million Jews in Europe [a heavily inflated figure!]. Later it will be necessary to concentrate them in the East. After the war some island such as Madagascar can be assigned to them.”

The deportation of the European Jews to Madagascar was not Dr. Goebbel’s brainchild. The so-called “Madagascar plan” was taken very seriously by the National Socialist leadership, but finally abandoned as unworkable.[41] Now, mainstream “holocaust” historians may argue that the German government dropped this plan between 7 and 27 March and decided to exterminate the Jews instead. This would explain the discrepancy between the two diary entries. However, this argument would be untenable for the following reason: According to the “holocaust” story, the first “extermination camp,” Chelmno, started to function as early as in December 1941. Since it is unthinkable that a local commander would have set up an “extermination camp” without an order from the highest authorities, an extermination policy must already have existed in late 1941, if the claims about Chelmno are correct (which the revisionists dispute[42]). Being one of the leading figures of the Third Reich, Dr. Goebbels would of course have known about such an extermination policy, so how do the “holocaust” historians explain the fact that he spoke of the concentration of the Jews in the East and advocated assigning them Madagascar (or another island) as late as on 7 March 1942?

Let’s sum up: While the revisionists are unable to explain the second entry in Goebbels’ diary, the “holocaust” historians are at a loss to explain the first one! It is unlikely that this mystery will ever be solved.


http://juergen-graf.vho.org/articles/hu ... ebate.html

[Werd]

I don't give a shit what BROI says about documents. I care about what archaeologists found. I care about the absurd witness statements about blood being flammable or freshly gassed corpses turning every other colour that can't physically happen due to CO gassing and other absurdities.

Here's a question for Roberto and BROI.

No matter what trial you cite and what the testimony contained therein was about code words or locations of mass graves that were dug up and destroyed, has anyone kept a list of these sites the Nazis confessed to and looked for evidence of ground disturbance and/or human ash below? Were core samples taken? Were small to medium scale digs undertaken? Were there any sites the Nazis confessed to filling with bodies but not being able to successfully destroy it in time? How big were these sites? How many bodies? What kind of pyres? How many men to build and burn and rebury? Any details, or just confessions made because it was useless to go against "established history"?

Why doesn't anyone want to talk about how grossly exaggerated the numbers are as Vincent Reynouard and Seigfried Verbeke have proven in Vincent's 4 part video series on the Einsatzgruppen? Do we now have to believe that 33,000 were killed at Babi Yar because BROI says so?

[EtienneSC]

The Aktion Reinhard debate has stalled and there is nothing new about it here. More generally though, BROI's change of sympathy may be symptomatic of revisionism moving beyond the camp system to deal at more length with the Einsatzgruppen. We are still waiting for Mattogno to publish on this - his work was advertized for 2017 recently. The case for rejecting the Meldungen has not been made in detail. Vincent Reynouard sought to reinterpret them in his videos and thought it possible to debate them, but their provenance is not investigated in the main revisionist books. BROI has been a valuable sleuth over many years.

[Reviso]

J. Graf, quoted by Werd, says : "While the revisionists are unable to explain the second entry in Goebbels’ diary, the “holocaust” historians are at a loss to explain the first one! It is unlikely that this mystery will ever be solved."

Since the two entries are logically incompatible, perhaps the logical conclusion is that the second entry is forged ? In the second entry, Goebbels wrote that " ‘barbaric methods,’ which he preferred not to describe, were used against the Jews ". Isn't it the language of a forger who avoids saying precise and thus refutable things ?
R.

[Atigun]

I haven't much doubt that the Einsatzgruppen fought partisan Jews and even engaged in reprisals. The claim that they engaged in the wholesale and indiscriminate murder of any and all Jews that they could get their hands on is horse frocky. The claim that they exhumed all those bodies from numerous mass graves across Eastern Europe and Russia and cremated them so thoroughly that everything disappeared like smoke on the wind is just more horse frocky. Fadder Desbois and his, "There's a mass grave over yonder behind that rock and another under that bush," is just more of the same.

[hermod]

Goebbels' famous entry in his diary: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10722#p80516

Good god. Can the believers stop beating this dead horse already? Can they just take a second and read what Jurgen Graf wrote?

“On 27 March 1942, Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary that ‘barbaric methods,’ which he preferred not to describe, were used against the Jews, and that 60% of them would be liquidated; the other 40% would be used for labor.”

Answer
No revisionist has ever been able to furnish a satisfactory explanation for this passage. But let us compare it with what Goebbels wrote in the same diary only 20 days earlier, on 7 March 1942:[40]

“There are about 11 million Jews in Europe [a heavily inflated figure!]. Later it will be necessary to concentrate them in the East. After the war some island such as Madagascar can be assigned to them.”

The deportation of the European Jews to Madagascar was not Dr. Goebbel’s brainchild. The so-called “Madagascar plan” was taken very seriously by the National Socialist leadership, but finally abandoned as unworkable.[41] Now, mainstream “holocaust” historians may argue that the German government dropped this plan between 7 and 27 March and decided to exterminate the Jews instead. This would explain the discrepancy between the two diary entries. However, this argument would be untenable for the following reason: According to the “holocaust” story, the first “extermination camp,” Chelmno, started to function as early as in December 1941. Since it is unthinkable that a local commander would have set up an “extermination camp” without an order from the highest authorities, an extermination policy must already have existed in late 1941, if the claims about Chelmno are correct (which the revisionists dispute[42]). Being one of the leading figures of the Third Reich, Dr. Goebbels would of course have known about such an extermination policy, so how do the “holocaust” historians explain the fact that he spoke of the concentration of the Jews in the East and advocated assigning them Madagascar (or another island) as late as on 7 March 1942?

They don't explain it. They just quote the 27 March entry alone and truncated (i.e. without the significant 1st sentence of that paragraph*) on and on until most people buy their BS. And the worst thing is that it works! Not only The Black Rabbit of Inle opted for the AR gassings theory partly (mainly?) because of this quote. Mark Weber also justified his turnabout with this specific quote (see the video of Jim Rizoli interviewing Mark Weber on youtube). And I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that this quote also ranks high in David Irving's new 'faith' (or rather new self-whitewashing strategy).

Let’s sum up: While the revisionists are unable to explain the second entry in Goebbels’ diary, the “holocaust” historians are at a loss to explain the first one! It is unlikely that this mystery will ever be solved.

http://juergen-graf.vho.org/articles/hu ... ebate.html

Perhaps 2 additional quotes from Goebbels' diary will help to solve this mystery.

2 months after this 'problematic' quote, Goebbels wrote in his diary:

"Therefore one must liquidate (liquidieren) the Jewish danger, cost it what it will. [...] There is also the Jewish essence, which works with a dangerous brutality and vindictiveness. Therefore the Führer does not at all wish that the Jews should be evacuated (evakuiert) to Siberia. There, under the harshest living conditions, they would undoubtedly develop again a strong life-element. He would much prefer to resettle (aussiedeln) them in central Africa. There they would live in a climate that would certainly not make them strong and resistant. In any case, it is the Führer’s goal to make Western Europe completely Jew-free. Here they may no longer have their homeland." - May 30, 1942

Note that Goebbels used the word 'liquidate' in connection with a mere transfer & resettlement policy towards Europe's Jews, and also that the groundless exterminationist claim that the Nazis were necessarily mass murdering the Jews of Europe because they had dropped the Madagascar Plan once and for all, totally collapses. These words demonstrate that plans for a massive transfer and resettlement of European Jewry were still on the Nazi post-war agenda.

And 3 months later he wrote:

"The responsible Higher-SS leader reported to me on the conditions in the [Warsaw] ghetto. The Jews are now in large part evacuated (evakuiert) and established in the East. This is quite generous to them. Here the Jewish Question is tackled in the right place, without sentimentality and without much consideration. Only in this way can the Jewish problem be solved." - August 21, 1942

Would Goebbels have said that the mass murder (i.e. the alleged meaning of the words 'evacuation and resettlement in the East') of Europe's Jews was generous to them? Of course not !! Saying otherwise is completely ridiculous...

Note that Goebbels said that the policy of forcible deportation and resettlement was being implemented without sentimentality. He knew that a policy with Jews suddenly removed from home, leaving everything behind themselves but a single suitcase, stuffed into cattle cars, transported for days, separated from their relatives, and finally held in ghettos & concentration camps (where they were forced to work in war factories on the top of that), was a very harsh & brutal one. IMO, that's what Goebbels was talking about when he mentioned a barbaric procedure in the 27 March entry of his diary.

And what rabid anti-Semite never said at least once that x% of Jews should be slaughtered? Even with the murderous meaning of the word 'liquidate,' it should be emphasized that Goebbels didn't write that 60% of the Jews were being liquidated or were going to be liquidated but that they 'will have to be liquidated.' Capital nuance...




* "Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated (abgeschoben) eastward."

[Werd]

Questionable as Wansee is, wasn't there phraseology in there saying the Jewish question will be fully answered after the war? Or am I mistaken? If the Jewish solution is to exterminate them during the war, then how can you exterminate them after the war when they are all gone?