CODOH Ignorance: Hoefle Telegram

One way to measure the CODOH forum's ignorance is to trace how its contributors handle a new piece of evidence. Below I summarize how they have distorted and misread the Hoefle Telegram.

Read more!

The first denier attempt to address this document was John Weir's screed, 'The Razor And The Ring', which was published by Rudolf's IHR 'journal' in early 2002. Weir's garbage was recycled several times by Hargis on CODOH, despite a glaring error that revealed Weir's stupidity:

The document doesn't say the Jews were killed, it only indicates the number at each camp: 24,733 at Majdanek, 434,508 at Belzec, 101,370 at Sobibor and 713,555 at Treblinka. The document also provides a total of 24,733 for Lublin (Lemberg), but since Lublin is not considered by the keepers of the Holocaust to be an extermination camp, that is omitted from the article.

The imbecile had not realised that 'Lublin' was a codeword for Majdanek, and that this explained why the figure for that category was simply a restatement of the one for Majdanek. Jonnie 'Hannover' Hargis was therefore either stupid or dishonest when he reproduced Weir's idiotic ramblings on this CODOH thread.

However, it is notable that, when the Hoefle Telegram re-emerged in 2007 on this CODOH thread, Hargis had dropped his Weir gambit and instead encouraged his underlings to paint the document as a forgery:

Irving's 'document' doesn't pass the smell test.

This desire to 'prove' that Hoefle is a forgery led to multiple idiocies on this thread, especially from a poster called 'Breker', who commented:

Peculiar, actually it is 'Einsatz Reinhardt', sometimes mistakenly said to be 'Reinhard', but now we have 'Reinhart' in the shown document. How does such a spelling get into a document that is claimed to be a German authentic?

The idiot wasn't even aware that the Hoefle Telegram is a decode, not a document found in a German archive. He also overlooked the fact that Hoefle's section often mis-spelled 'Reinhardt', a fact that Witte and Tyas had made clear in their original paper:

The subject of the radio telegram reads "fortnighty report Einsatz REINHART [sic] " The same idiosyncratic spelling Einsatz Reinhart appears in both the printed and the typewritten office letterheads of Höfle's section in Globocnik's staff. Whether it reflects Höfle's inability to spell is not clear, though the latter is well documented.

Again, Hargis made no attempt to correct this ignorance, choosing instead to leave the impression that the document may be suspicious.

In conclusion, therefore, we have a clear chronology: CODOH's idiots misinterpreted the document's contents when they thought the telegram contained a fact that contradicted the normative history, but, when this fallacious interpretation no longer became usable, it was dropped in favour of a 'forgery' interpretation based on fallacious and dishonest assumptions.