From a revisionist point of view, there exists several ways to debunk and disprove the standard story of the holocaust. Through chemistry and archeology for instance or by demonstrating how things simply aren’t physically possible. Holocausters however, tend do disregard discomforting facts and unwanted finds and instead buttress themselves beyond walls of documents, that may or may not be authentic, and through their interpretation they stick to the hope that in the end, the Word will finally defeat reality. “This way you can’t touch me!”, they seem to yell in the face of the latent temptation to, heaven forbid, regard revisionism with sincerity.
But as with all walls erected on loose sand there are a number of cracks and holes also in this monument of “certified true copies”, which easily can be discovered and exploited if one looks for them. I’m talking about internal consistency, a standard option in any historical or criminal investigation, but somehow conspicously absent when it comes to holocaust research.
Let’s see what happens to a some documental proof when it’s compared internally and not arranged in the standard fashion by anonymous reference and footnoot in order to “prove” the standard story. The question is, what killing capacities could actually be utilized daily at the extermination camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau?
Excerpt from the so called Franke-Gricksch Report, an original German document, claimed to have been produced by a certain SS-Sturmbannführer Alfred Franke-Gricksch, on an inspection trip to the General Gouvernment, May 4-16, 1943 (first known reference, Charles W Sydnor, “The Soldiers of Destruction” (1977) p.3371):
“The corpses are then loaded into the elevators and are taken to the first floor. There are located ten large crematory ovens, in which the corpses are burned. (Because fresh corpses burn particularly well, the entire process requires only one-half to one Zentner [50 to 100 pounds] of coke). The work itself is carried out by Jewish prisoners who will never leave this camp.
The result so far of this "resettlement action": 500,000 Jews.
The present capacity of the "resettlement action" ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours”
Excerpt from DOCUMENT 008-USSR Report by the Soviet War Crimes Commission, 6 May 1945:
“Later, four crematoria were in operation on the grounds of Birkenau camp; every one of them had one gas chamber. Crematoria nos. 2 and 3 were of the same type, and each had 15 crematory ovens while those of crematoria nos. 4 and 5 were of another type -- not as big, and of inferior technical quality, each with 8 crematory ovens. All the crematoria incinerated 10,000 - 12,000 bodies per day.”
Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höss, according to G. Gilbert in “Nuremberg Diary”:
“In answer to my rather naive questions as to how many people could be done away with in an hour, etc, he explained that one must figure it on a daily 24-hour basis, and it was possible to exterminate up to 10,000 in one 24-hour period. He explained that there were actually 6 extermination chambers. The 2 big ones could accommodate as many as 2,000 in each and the 4 smaller ones up to 1500, making a total capacity of 10,000 a day.”
Miklos Nyiszli (Crematorium doctor), “Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account” (1961):
"In all up to 10,000 men could be brought from the gas chambers into the crematory ovens every day."
Rudolf Vrba (famous escapee), “I Cannot Forgive” (1963), p.10:
"For the modern concrete gas chambers and the vast crematoria that could absorb as many as 12,000 bodies in twenty-four hours and, in fact, did so. For the machinery that sucked in 2,500,000 men, women and children in three years and puffed them out in harmless black smoke."
Filip Müller (Sonderkommando veteran), “Sonderbehandlung, Drei Jahre in den Krematorien und Gaskammem von Auschwitz“ (1979), p.97:
"Die Vermehrung der Zahl der Öfen im Vergleich zum Auschwitzer Crematorium auf beinahe das Achtfache und der Einsatz Auschwitz: von vierzigmal mehr Häftlingen im Sonderkommando machten es, nachdem anfängliche Schwierigkeiten im Ablauf der Vernichtungsprozedur beseitigt worden waren, möglich, in 24 Stunden bis zu 10.000 Leichen einzüaschern."
Adolf Eichmann, Eichmann trial, Session 10, April 19, 1961:
"In Auschwitz I had to look at those installations yet once more. I told Hoess this and as a consequence he ordered a field car. We rode in the field car through some area - I didn't know my way around in Auschwitz. This was a section - far from the headquarters. I had been there on my business several times only in the headquarters, near the main entrance, I had never been further inside - I also did not have any inclination to do so - and then I saw large buildings, large buildings, this was already in the guise of a factory, the enormous chimney, and Hoess said to me: "Yes," he said, "here there is a capacity of 10,000 - yes 10,000..."
It’s plain to see. There can be no doubt about it. These seven sources, some referred to very frequently by holocaust historians but to different effects, all converge to form one definite statement about the Auschwitz death camp: the gasovens were able dispose of at least 10,000 people every day.
From the perspective of a normal historical assessment, let’s say for an event that took place in the 17th century or antiquity, such a high number of obviously unrelated sources, some originating with the prime perpetrators of the crime even, would not encourage much further scrutiny. Evidence would be considered well founded. As far as witness statements are concerned, this is one convergence of evidence par excellence. But the holocaust is not a normal historical event. And what’s worse, not a shred about the 10,000 number is even true! Even holocaust defenders say it isn’t.
As a matter of fact, we are currently supposed to believe that the maximum capacity of the camp’s killing devices on a 24-hourly basis stood at about 4,768 human beings, all according to a certain “Aktenvermerk” document of June 28, 1943 – “Leistung der nunmehr vorhandenen Krematorien bei einer 24 stündigen Arbeitzeit”. Some might even suggest a lower estimate, but not so low as to cast doubt on the authenticity of said document, which revisionists by the way regard with the utmost scepticism. Revisionists in their turn claim that even the 4,768 number is an outrageous exaggeration, that about 1,600 bodies would be about maximum possible capacity, provided the ovens went non-stop around the clock and all 52 muffles were put to use simultaneously, which historically speaking they never were (there was never any need for it).
So what about this derelict 10,000 certainty? Well, one thing's for sure, even if people once were executed for its irrefutability, we won’t see it surface again in future textbooks on the holocaust. Like so much useless statistics on chocolate and cigarette production, even the recollection of its existence is fated to go down the big incineration memory hole, operating tirelessly at the Ministry of Truth of holocaust mythomyopia.
For good reason naturally, as the implications are devastating. Let us briefly analyze what it actually means for the 10,000 number to be a “mistake”.
To begin with, the 10,000 number is ascertained by several German first hand perpetrators, all on their own. Franke-Griecksch, who manages to give a fairly accurate description of Crematoria II and III, testifies to the 10,000 even before all crematoria at Birkenau were finished! His fairly accurate description of the Kremas moreover, (some minor errors include a door at the back of the gas chamber, three insertion columns instead of four and 10 muffles instead of 15) generally implies that he probably was in Auschwitz, lending credibility to his statement on the 10,000 number, provided of course the document is genuine.
Höss, the camp commander, who’d be the first person who had actually had to know the capabilities of the installations for which he was responsible, gives an eloquent testimony about it after capture, when there would be zero reason for him to even mildly exaggerate their efficiency.
Eichmann finally, an absolute pillar of things holocaustian, gives his erroneous statement at the trial which led to his death, by referring to what Höss allegedly had told him, while standing in the shadow of the huge “factory” buildings of incineration. In reality, the crematoria of Birkenau were more the size of your average barn and resembling schoolhouses rather than industrial installations.
What then about these three statements leading back to Höss as their unwitty originator? That hypothetis would not only be pointless but actually totally senseless. If Höss had instructed Franke-Griecksch to report to Berlin a more than doubled or sixfold efficency, respectively, Himmler and Eichmann had quickly realized they could have increased shipments by the same amounts, leading to immediate collapse of Höss’s entire operation if materialized.
And then we still have the survivor statements to put into account. This disposable Sonderkommando personnel could hardly be assumed to have taken lectures from the entourage of Höss in their spare time. Still they knew the Leistung of their machinery very well and what it was able to accomplish. And why not? They spoke out of first hand experience, noting how many train transports could be consumed in a labour shift etc. Filip Müller spent three years toiling inside the crematoria and Rudolf Vrba has in great detail elaborated the way in which his position as “Schreib” enabled him to design a selfmade system to roughly track number of arrivals and selectectees for death. Not least during the Zündel trial of 1985.
Yet all these witnesses manage to err to an almost exact, commonly acclaimed amount far off the mark of later, more “scientifically” minded holocaust defenders.
Amazing, isn’t it.
The impact on documentary evidence that this fallacy produces is no less crippling. If the statements of original German documents, testimony of prime perpetrators awaiting death and essential witnesses are proven to be technically false, how much else of the standard documentary reference, forming that formidable paper bastion of irrefutably converging evidence might not be suspected of patent falsehood? To my mind, all of it. Eichmann testified about the Führerbefehl, he said Heydrich spilled it to him in the summer of 1941.
But the central point is actually another. It is possible for people to err on an independent basis. It is even possible for several people to grossly misjudge the same issue, all from their own private viewpoints. But it is totally inconcievable that several people who grossly misjudge a mathemathical calculation independently, would arrive at an identical, arbitrary result. The statistical probability for such an occurrence to happen ought to be next to nothing or cannot even be concieved of.
There is one remaining possibility, however. A third party, who already had the fundamentals of the story in line, has imposed or attributed certain aspects of it on various sources and witness statements. There is simply no other way to credibly explain the situation.
I’m not even certain I wish to comment on this issue any further. It will be fun just watching the holocausters squel and wrestle, while desperately trying to wiggle themselves out of it.
8)
Regards,
Snafu
A Derelict Convergence
Translation: From a propagandist point of view, there are several ways to lure suckers into believing that the historical record of the Holocaust is some “standard story”.From a revisionist point of view, there exists several ways to debunk and disprove the standard story of the holocaust.
Translation: Through pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-archaeology (that method is new to me, by the way; care to tell us something more about it?) or by pretending that certain things aren’t physically possible, regardless of the fact that the respective contentions are not only wrong, but also irrelevant given that even if certain things actually were not physically possible, this would only mean that the killing actually happened in another way than has been assumed.Through chemistry and archeology for instance or by demonstrating how things simply aren’t physically possible.
Dead wrong. They tend to demonstrate the alleged “discomforting facts and unwanted finds” as being the hollow nonsense that they are.Holocausters however, tend do disregard discomforting facts and unwanted finds
Wrong again. They also show documents that clearly prove mass murder and to which “Revisionists” react by i) trying to make believe that these documents don’t say what they all too obviously say and ii) when that fails (which it always does), squealing “forgery”, without being able to provide any indication that the document in question may not be authentic.and instead buttress themselves beyond walls of documents, that may or may not be authentic, and through their interpretation they stick to the hope that in the end, the Word will finally defeat reality.
“Revisionists” are actually helpless as little kids in the face of documentary evidence that they have little or nothing to say against, especially if their pseudo-technical nonsense is simultaneously shown for what it is. Whence could the temptation to take “Revisionists” seriously therefore come? Wishful thinking is one of the keystones of Faith, as usual.“This way you can’t touch me!”, they seem to yell in the face of the latent temptation to, heaven forbid, regard revisionism with sincerity.
With the right amount of Faith, everything is possible.But as with all walls erected on loose sand there are a number of cracks and holes also in this monument of “certified true copies”, which easily can be discovered and exploited if one looks for them.
I allow myself to doubt that the author of these lines even knows what he’s talking about.I’m talking about internal consistency, a standard option in any historical or criminal investigation, but somehow conspicously absent when it comes to holocaust research.
Yeah, let’s have some fun with my friend’s Articles of Faith.Let’s see what happens to a some documental proof when it’s compared internally and not arranged in the standard fashion by anonymous reference and footnoot in order to “prove” the standard story.
The one that becomes apparent from the Bauleitung’s memorandum of 28 June 1943, making a little allowance for the difficulties of day-by-day operation and the fact that the ovens could not be run 24 hours a day in continuous operation, I would say. 3,000 bodies per day, the number calculated by Pressac, seems realistic. I assume that my friend will now make a big fuss about exaggerated indications of cremation capacity in various contemporary documents. Am I right? Let's see.The question is, what killing capacities could actually be utilized daily at the extermination camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau?
Excerpt from the so called Franke-Gricksch Report, an original German document, claimed to have been produced by a certain SS-Sturmbannführer Alfred Franke-Gricksch, on an inspection trip to the General Gouvernment, May 4-16, 1943 (first known reference, Charles W Sydnor, “The Soldiers of Destruction” (1977) p.3371):
“The corpses are then loaded into the elevators and are taken to the first floor. There are located ten large crematory ovens, in which the corpses are burned. (Because fresh corpses burn particularly well, the entire process requires only one-half to one Zentner [50 to 100 pounds] of coke). The work itself is carried out by Jewish prisoners who will never leave this camp.
The result so far of this "resettlement action": 500,000 Jews.
The present capacity of the "resettlement action" ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours”
Aha, so Franke-Gricksch said 10,000 dead bodies within 24 hours. Dead wrong he was, as historiography knows. An ideal or propaganda figure that was given to him by his guide when he toured Auschwitz-Birkenau for a day or two, or a misunderstanding on his part. Big deal. The fact that Franke-Gricksch toured the camp on the days indicated in his report – as even “Revisionist” grand dragon Greg Raven admits is confirmed by the camp records – and that he described the procedures there in accordance with what becomes apparent from other documents and eyewitness accounts apparently means nothing to True Believers. He got the bloody number wrong, so his document is worthless, they expect us to believe.
The Soviets calculated wrong, or didn’t calculate at all but relied on the depositions of eyewitnesses, which as every criminal justice authority knows are to be taken with a big grain of salt when it comes to numbers. No historian and no criminal justice authority on this side of the Iron Curtain ever took their estimates seriously. Next one, please.Excerpt from DOCUMENT 008-USSR Report by the Soviet War Crimes Commission, 6 May 1945:
“Later, four crematoria were in operation on the grounds of Birkenau camp; every one of them had one gas chamber. Crematoria nos. 2 and 3 were of the same type, and each had 15 crematory ovens while those of crematoria nos. 4 and 5 were of another type -- not as big, and of inferior technical quality, each with 8 crematory ovens. All the crematoria incinerated 10,000 - 12,000 bodies per day.”
My friend just cleverly demonstrated where Franke-Gricksch probably got his figures from. He is likely to have simply parroted the figure that Höß gave him. Höß, on the other hand, seems to have been willing to overemphasize the importance of the camp he commanded and thus gave these fantastic figures to Franke-Gricksch.Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höss, according to G. Gilbert in “Nuremberg Diary”:
“In answer to my rather naive questions as to how many people could be done away with in an hour, etc, he explained that one must figure it on a daily 24-hour basis, and it was possible to exterminate up to 10,000 in one 24-hour period. He explained that there were actually 6 extermination chambers. The 2 big ones could accommodate as many as 2,000 in each and the 4 smaller ones up to 1500, making a total capacity of 10,000 a day.”
Careful with eyewitness testimonials when it comes to figures, as I said. Few people are accurate observers in this respect, so most either make wild guesses or state a figure that they heard from someone somewhere.Miklos Nyiszli (Crematorium doctor), “Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account” (1961):
"In all up to 10,000 men could be brought from the gas chambers into the crematory ovens every day."
Rudolf Vrba (famous escapee), “I Cannot Forgive” (1963), p.10:
"For the modern concrete gas chambers and the vast crematoria that could absorb as many as 12,000 bodies in twenty-four hours and, in fact, did so. For the machinery that sucked in 2,500,000 men, women and children in three years and puffed them out in harmless black smoke."
Filip Müller (Sonderkommando veteran), “Sonderbehandlung, Drei Jahre in den Krematorien und Gaskammem von Auschwitz“ (1979), p.97:
"Die Vermehrung der Zahl der Öfen im Vergleich zum Auschwitzer Crematorium auf beinahe das Achtfache und der Einsatz Auschwitz: von vierzigmal mehr Häftlingen im Sonderkommando machten es, nachdem anfängliche Schwierigkeiten im Ablauf der Vernichtungsprozedur beseitigt worden waren, möglich, in 24 Stunden bis zu 10.000 Leichen einzüaschern."
Adolf Eichmann, Eichmann trial, Session 10, April 19, 1961:
"In Auschwitz I had to look at those installations yet once more. I told Hoess this and as a consequence he ordered a field car. We rode in the field car through some area - I didn't know my way around in Auschwitz. This was a section - far from the headquarters. I had been there on my business several times only in the headquarters, near the main entrance, I had never been further inside - I also did not have any inclination to do so - and then I saw large buildings, large buildings, this was already in the guise of a factory, the enormous chimney, and Hoess said to me: "Yes," he said, "here there is a capacity of 10,000 - yes 10,000..."
Why, and I thought “Revisionism” was all about doubting.It’s plain to see. There can be no doubt about it.
Never for establishing the daily cremation figures, as no historian believes in these obvious exaggerations.These seven sources, some referred to very frequently by holocaust historians but to different effects,
Well, that statement is simply wrong, and the quotes my friend provided suggest that the mistake probably originated with Höss’ desire to make himself look more important to his superiors than he actually was.all converge to form one definite statement about the Auschwitz death camp: the gasovens were able dispose of at least 10,000 people every day.
Exactly, my dear Sir. The number is an exaggeration. Which of course doesn’t mean that everything else in the testimonials in question is wrong as well – unless of course you are a “Revisionist” True Believer.From the perspective of a normal historical assessment, let’s say for an event that took place in the 17th century or antiquity, such a high number of obviously unrelated sources, some originating with the prime perpetrators of the crime even, would not encourage much further scrutiny. Evidence would be considered well founded. As far as witness statements are concerned, this is one convergence of evidence par excellence. But the holocaust is not a normal historical event. And what’s worse, not a shred about the 10,000 number is even true! Even holocaust defenders say it isn’t.
No, my dear friend, that’s actually considered the upper range of cremation capacity, according to Pressac, van Pelt, Zimmerman and others who have investigated the records of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Bauleitung.As a matter of fact, we are currently supposed to believe that the maximum capacity of the camp’s killing devices on a 24-hourly basis stood at about 4,768 human beings, all according to a certain “Aktenvermerk” document of June 28, 1943 – “Leistung der nunmehr vorhandenen Krematorien bei einer 24 stündigen Arbeitzeit”.
“Revisionists” seem to labor under the strange conviction that exaggerated figures in a document mean the document is a forgery. It doesn’t occur to them that errors in the contents of a document are never considered by criminal justice and historiography to be a necessary indication let alone proof of a forgery, and that in the case of the documents in question mistakes and misunderstandings on the part of the authors or the desire to overplay their accomplishments in order to place themselves in a better light in the eyes of their superiors are very likely to have been at the root of exaggerated figures.Some might even suggest a lower estimate, but not so low as to cast doubt on the authenticity of said document, which revisionists by the way regard with the utmost scepticism.
What “Revisionists” do is to apply the standards of conventional civilian cremation to Auschwitz-Birkenau, as if the Nazis had burned their victims in a coffin and had any qualms about burning several bodies at a time and feeding in the next load of corpses before the previous one had been fully cremated. Their contentions are simply ridiculous.Revisionists in their turn claim that even the 4,768 number is an outrageous exaggeration, that about 1,600 bodies would be about maximum possible capacity, provided the ovens went non-stop around the clock and all 52 muffles were put to use simultaneously, which historically speaking they never were (there was never any need for it).
It never existed. Historians and criminal justice authorities know better than to rely on nothing other than eyewitness accounts when it comes to figures. At a very early stage of research and investigation, they accordingly went over to establishing the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau on the basis of the documentary evidence regarding the transports to that place. The only reasonable approach, given that not many of those taken there came back alive and that, whatever the capacity of the killing installations, no more people could possibly have been killed by them than were actually taken to the camp for this purpose.So what about this derelict 10,000 certainty?
Have they ever surfaced? Show me. As to the perpetrators who were executed, it never mattered to criminal justice whether they had killed 3,000 people a day or 10,000 people a day. Murder is murder.Well, one thing's for sure, even if people once were executed for its irrefutability, we won’t see it surface again in future textbooks on the holocaust.
Where have I heard that “Revisionist” Article of Faith before?Like so much useless statistics on chocolate and cigarette production, even the recollection of its existence is fated to go down the big incineration memory hole, operating tirelessly at the Ministry of Truth of holocaust mythomyopia.
Dead wrong, buddy. There are no implications whatsoever.For good reason naturally, as the implications are devastating.
Yeah, let’s take on the rest of this delicious “Revisionist” sermon.Let us briefly analyze what it actually means for the 10,000 number to be a “mistake”.
Which suggests that they may have got it from the same source. So what?To begin with, the 10,000 number is ascertained by several German first hand perpetrators, all on their own.
Another erroneous assumption. Franke-Gricksch toured Auschwitz-Birkenau for one or two days in the summer of 1943. He was in no condition to verify the number that was mentioned to him by his host. To the extent that he had no time to visit his facilities himself, he furthermore had to rely on what his guide told him about them.Franke-Griecksch, who manages to give a fairly accurate description of Crematoria II and III, testifies to the 10,000 even before all crematoria at Birkenau were finished! His fairly accurate description of the Kremas moreover, (some minor errors include a door at the back of the gas chamber, three insertion columns instead of four and 10 muffles instead of 15) generally implies that he probably was in Auschwitz, lending credibility to his statement on the 10,000 number, provided of course the document is genuine.
Zero reason? I don’t think so. As a witness at the Nuremberg trials, Höss seems to have been proud to present himself as the pillar of the Final Solution and commander of the greatest killing center of all time, bathing in the limelight of his own monstrosity. When it was his turn to be judged, on the other hand, he gave a much more conservative and realistic figure to his Polish captors – 1,135,000 instead of the three million he had mentioned at Nuremberg, a figure that is in line with the posterior research of most historians and must have greatly annoyed the Poles, stuck as they were at the time to the four million figure produced by a Soviet commission.Höss, the camp commander, who’d be the first person who had actually had to know the capabilities of the installations for which he was responsible, gives an eloquent testimony about it after capture, when there would be zero reason for him to even mildly exaggerate their efficiency.
Exactly, my dear friend. Eichmann had no other source than Höss, and he accordingly told his interrogators what Höss had told him. Which means that Eichmann is not an authority on the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Which does not mean, however, that Eichmann is not to be relied on in regard to most of his other statements, unless of course you apply the imbecile falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – argument that is a keystone of the “Revisionist” dream world.Eichmann finally, an absolute pillar of things holocaustian, gives his erroneous statement at the trial which led to his death, by referring to what Höss allegedly had told him, while standing in the shadow of the huge “factory” buildings of incineration.
Sounds like more wishful thinking to me, but I don’t feel like looking it up now. How about giving us the measurements so that we may check if i) they are correct and ii) they support your statements?In reality, the crematoria of Birkenau were more the size of your average barn and resembling schoolhouses rather than industrial installations.
Who says he did?What then about these three statements leading back to Höss as their unwitty originator? That hypothetis would not only be pointless but actually totally senseless. If Höss had instructed Franke-Griecksch to report to Berlin a more than doubled or sixfold efficency,
True “Revisionist” simple mindedness, strictly for the birds. Has it occurred to my friend that the size and frequency of shipments to Auschwitz-Birkenau depended firstly on logistics and transportation capacities and that the installed or expected killing and body disposal capacity only came into consideration thereafter? During the Hungarian deportations, the situation was actually that the number of daily arrivals far exceeded the installed capacity of the gas chambers and crematoria, for which reason huge open-air burning pits had to be dug and one of the formerly used “bunkers” had to be put back into operation to cope with the abnormal influx.respectively, Himmler and Eichmann had quickly realized they could have increased shipments by the same amounts, leading to immediate collapse of Höss’s entire operation if materialized.
What’s so amazing about it? There are various sources from which the Sonderkommando members could have picked up this figure, which may have been a target figure that Höss passed on to his subordinates and that these subordinates in turn communicated to the Sonderkommando folks as what they would have to achieve, capacity of facilities provided (there were plans for a sixth crematorium, if I well remember, and with the open-air burning pits in the summer of 1944 the camp actually came close to achieving a daily "production" of the order of magnitude mentioned in the cited sources).And then we still have the survivor statements to put into account. This disposable Sonderkommando personnel could hardly be assumed to have taken lectures from the entourage of Höss in their spare time. Still they knew the Leistung of their machinery very well and what it was able to accomplish. And why not? They spoke out of first hand experience, noting how many train transports could be consumed in a labour shift etc. Filip Müller spent three years toiling inside the crematoria and Rudolf Vrba has in great detail elaborated the way in which his position as “Schreib” enabled him to design a selfmade system to roughly track number of arrivals and selectectees for death. Not least during the Zündel trial of 1985.
Yet all these witnesses manage to err to an almost exact, commonly acclaimed amount far off the mark of later, more “scientifically” minded holocaust defenders.
Amazing, isn’t it.
That’s what our True Believer would obviously like it to be, but he’s again indulging in wishful thinking.The impact on documentary evidence that this fallacy produces is no less crippling.
They are not “technically false”, my friend. They only contain an inaccuracy in regard to a very inaccuracy-prone piece of information. That doesn’t necessarily speak against the accuracy of their other contents.If the statements of original German documents, testimony of prime perpetrators awaiting death and essential witnesses are proven to be technically false,
Two mistakes. One is that an inaccuracy in regard to a figure doesn’t make the documents and testimonials in question “false”. The other is that no conclusions can be logically drawn from the accuracy of any given number of documents on the accuracy of any given number of other documents. The if-one-thing-in-this-document/testimonial-is-wrong-then-everything-is-wrong-and-if-this-document/testimonial-is-wrong-then-all-documents/testimonials-are-wrong – thinking is the most hilarious showpiece of “Revisionist” imbecility.how much else of the standard documentary reference, forming that formidable paper bastion of irrefutably converging evidence might not be suspected of patent falsehood?
Come on, buddy, let’s be serious. A similar wrong figure in several statements indicates nothing else than that this figure originated with one and the same source with which all other sources were in touch. In this case we even have identified the most probable source that all other sources were directly or indirectly in contact with: Auschwitz-Birkenau commander Rudolf Höss. A lot more probable than your “one remaining possibility” in the following, don’t you think so, my friend?To my mind, all of it. Eichmann testified about the Führerbefehl, he said Heydrich spilled it to him in the summer of 1941. But the central point is actually another. It is possible for people to err on an independent basis. It is even possible for several people to grossly misjudge the same issue, all from their own private viewpoints. But it is totally inconcievable that several people who grossly misjudge a mathemathical calculation independently, would arrive at an identical, arbitrary result. The statistical probability for such an occurrence to happen ought to be next to nothing or cannot even be concieved of.
Well, here it is, the Jewish World Conspiracy, which not only manipulated the Franke-Gricksch Report, the statements of Höss at Nuremberg, Eichmann’s depositions and the testimonials of Tauber, Müller and Nyiszli, all given at different times and places and to different authorities, but also influenced all other depositions of Sonderkommando survivors, the writing of Rudolf Höss’ memoirs in Polish captivity with its much more realistic figures confirmed by posterior research and the depositions of Pery Broad and Johannes Paul Kremer and of 66 other witnesses from the ranks of the SS, 20 of them at the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt between 1963 and 1965 alone, which also falsified the records of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Bauleitung analyzed by Pressac and von Pelt, especially those inconvenient memorandums, inventories, transfer deeds and work sheets that “Revisionists” would rather not talk about. Not to mention the transportation documents and camp records which show us that, for intance:There is one remaining possibility, however. A third party, who already had the fundamentals of the story in line, has imposed or attributed certain aspects of it on various sources and witness statements. There is simply no other way to credibly explain the situation.
1. 69,025 Jews were taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau from France, 27,220 of them were registered at the camp;
2. 25,260 Jews were taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau from Belgium, 8,735 of them were registered at the camp;
3. 56,575 Jews were taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau from the Netherlands, 18,270 of them were registered at the camp;
4. 55,655 Jews were taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau from Greece, 12,760 of them were registered at the camp.
The figures are from page 238 of the study Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, edited by Kogon, Langbein, Rückerl et al, Frankfurt am Main, 1986. Can my friend tell us what happened to those arrivals from the above mentioned countries who were not registered at Auschwitz-Birkenau? No, he can’t. That’s why his haggling about a wrong figure on cremation capacities in several sources and the theories he builds thereon are not only nonsensical, but also irrelevant.
Me “squel and wrestle”?I’m not even certain I wish to comment on this issue any further. It will be fun just watching the holocausters squel and wrestle, while desperately trying to wiggle themselves out of it.
. You’ll have to get up earlier for that, True Believer. And you’ll have to provide more consistent and more relevant arguments. You are welcome to try again whenever you like. 
Last edited by Roberto on 20 Apr 2002, 21:00, edited 1 time in total.
-
walterkaschner
- In memoriam
- Posts: 1588
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
- Location: Houston, Texas
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
EVERYTHING BUT THE SQUEAL...
The Kremas were standard equipment. There is no verifiable experimental evidence to show that they could operate in some unusual fashion in order to test the Exterminationist hypothesis. If fantastic cremation rates were needed, the Germans would have designed industrial incinerators in the first place.Roberto wrote:What “Revisionists” do is to apply the standards of conventional civilian cremation to Auschwitz-Birkenau, as if the Nazis had burned their victims in a coffin and had any qualms about burning several bodies at a time and feeding in the next load of corpses before the previous one had been fully cremated. Their contentions are simply ridiculous.
Re: EVERYTHING BUT THE SQUEAL...
"The Germans" did this. Topf engineer Sander has designed an industrial incinerator for a POW-camp in Mogilew and the crazy Prüfer a huge incinerator ("eine offene Verbrennungskammer mit den Ausmaßen von 48,75 x 3,76 m" ) for Auschwitz-Birkenau. (by the way, what were they doing in Auschwitz which justified such an incinerator? Keep in mind that they already had 54 crematorium ovens!) Fortunately, this crematorium was never build, obviously because the alleged "standard crematoria" in Birkenau were able to incinerate several thousand corpses per day and this was considered to be enough even for an extermination camp.Scott Smith wrote:If fantastic cremation rates were needed, the Germans would have designed industrial incinerators in the first place.
Scott, what on earth are you doing on the website of the German Greens? This must really be a new and upsetting experience for you.
Last edited by Hans on 21 Apr 2002, 11:44, edited 2 times in total.
-
Gwynn Compton
- Member
- Posts: 2840
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:46
- Location: United Kingdom
medorjurgen,
Even though I've critisised your habit of taking the debate to too much of a personal level, when it comes to those who try and pass the holocaust off as mere propaganda, I fully agree to a systematic dismantling of both their argument and their views.
I generally call Snafu's form of research, "Media orientated", and it's something I dislike. The principle of this is that you write something to create the maximum reaction and exposure, and thus catch the attention of the media. Such was the aim of a researcher here in New Zealand who claimed the holocaust was the creation of a propaganda effort by the Allies, Russians and Zionists.
Such ideas have always deeply offended me.
As as been put here, Murder is murder, whether 1 or 1 million.
Even though I've critisised your habit of taking the debate to too much of a personal level, when it comes to those who try and pass the holocaust off as mere propaganda, I fully agree to a systematic dismantling of both their argument and their views.
I generally call Snafu's form of research, "Media orientated", and it's something I dislike. The principle of this is that you write something to create the maximum reaction and exposure, and thus catch the attention of the media. Such was the aim of a researcher here in New Zealand who claimed the holocaust was the creation of a propaganda effort by the Allies, Russians and Zionists.
Such ideas have always deeply offended me.
As as been put here, Murder is murder, whether 1 or 1 million.
Re: A Derelict Convergence
Snafu, there are several problems with your post. First of all, I'm convinced that two of your 7 quotations, Höß via Gilbert and Höß via Eichmann, have not spoke about crematoria capacity, but about extermination capacity, that means including the capacity of the gas chambers and burning pits. Further, three other testimonies, the Report by the Soviet War Crimes Commission, Rudolf Vrba and perhaps Miklos Nyiszli, have made a projection with data given to them by stokers from the Sonderkommando. They do not provide any own information, therefore we must ignore these three for the convergence of evidence.
The only two sources for the 10.000 claim that remain are Filip Müller and Franke-Gricksch. It is not difficult to determine where this figure comes from. According to Müller the Sonderkommando had to introduce 3 corpses into each oven every 20 min. This makes 9 per hour or 216 in 24 hours per oven. Now, Auschwitz-Birkenau had 46 crematoria ovens. 46 x 216 makes 9936. This calculation is without doubt the source for the figure 10.000 in Müller's and perhaps also Franke-Gricksch's account. Since the crematoria were usually not operational at the same time and since the ovens of crematorium IV and V were of poor quality, it is clear that this cacluation is theoretical and does not reflect the real cremation capacity of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The crucial question is, was a cremation cycle of 20 min possible?
Personally, I think so. After all, a Topf engineer designed an incinerator after the war where the main cremation of a corpse (70 kg) lasted only 10 min. and the total cremation including coffing 30 min. This oven operated under strict regulations and rules. The ovens in Dachau could cremate 2 corpses in 60 min in 1939. The Topf double-muffel in KZ Gusen could cremate one corpse in 26 minutes or even 20 min in 1941. The incinerators in the Stammlager could offically cremate 2 corpses in 30 min in the same year. The Topf and SS engineers were constantly improving the cremation rates. We know from the Sonderkommandos Filip Müller and Henryk Tauber that an expert commision of SS engineers from Berlin and civil engineers from the Topf were testing methods and measurements in the crematoria to fasten the cremation cycle and to reduce the coke consumption. As a result, they had to introduce 3 corpses into the ovens every 20 min, says Müller in his memoirs.
Shlomo Dragon, stoker in crematorium V, stated that the cremation cycle was 15-20 min.
Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß wrote that the average time until the next corpses were put into the ovens was 20 min. However, Höß also wrote that Crematorium II could cremate 2000 corpses in 24 hours with its 15 ovens. This would mean a cremation cycle of 30 min.
Henryk Tauber, a stoker in crema II and III, testified that "According to the regulations, (we) were supposed to charge the muffles every half hour".
Jacob Gabaai, another stoker from the Sonderkommando, stated the cremation cycle was 30 min.
Leon Cohen, a Sonderkommando doctor who took the time for the stokers, said he had to instruct the stokers every 30 min to charge the ovens with corpses.
Paul Sigismund Bendel, a doctor in the Sonderkommando, stated that crematorium II could cremate 2000 corpses in 24 hours, this is a cremation cycle of 30 min.
Samuel Steinberg was a doctor in Birkenau and had perhaps contact to the Sonderkommando. He gave cremation cycle of 30 min.
Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler wrote in april 1944 in a report for the allies that crematorium II could cremate 2000 corpses. This is again a cremation cycle of 30 min. Filip Müller provided them with information about the crematoria, so it is not unlikely that no one else than Müller is the source for 30 min.
The cited evidence clearly indicates a usual cremation cycle of 30 min. The number of corpses that were introduced into the ovens various from 2 to 4 in the more serious testimonies, depending on the type of corpses, on the type of oven and on the type of method. The daily cremation capacity of crematorium II (this was the most used and largest crematorium) varied therefore between 1440 (2 corpses every 30 min) and 3000 (4 corpses every 30 min or 3 corpses every 20 min according Müller and Dragon), the actual capacity was 2000 corpses in 24 hours maximum in my opinion. The theoretical daily capacity of all crematoria (assuming that they were all operational and that all 46 ovens were of the same quality) was thus between 4416 and 9936 corpses.
Interestingly, the letter from the central construction office posted by medorjurgen covers the theoretical minimum, whereas the Franke-Gricksch report quoted by Snafu covers the maximum. Consequently, there is no reason to assume on the basis of the cremation capacity given in the documents that they were manipulated.
Once more on Müller's and Dragon's 20 minutes. It really strikes me that two of the most credible, reliable and accurate witnesses on Nazi gas chambers have given a cremation cycle that differs from all other testimonies. Now, Höß has given the same cremation cycle (although he has not used it for his calculation) and the figures in the Franke-Gricksch-report could imply 20 min cycle. Further, Müller and Dragon have written accurate and honests accounts on Birkenau gas chambers, so it is rather unlikely that they would have given deliberate false cremation rates. It is of course possible that they were simply mistaken.
But there is another possibility. Müller reports that his Sonderkommando was able to use two methods of cremation, one method was much faster than the other. This could mean that the Sonderkommando had to shorten the cremation cycle by ten minutes under certain circumstances.
Snafu concluded: "It’s plain to see. There can be no doubt about it. These seven sources, some referred to very frequently by holocaust historians but to different effects, all converge to form one definite statement about the Auschwitz death camp: the gasovens were able dispose of at least 10,000 people every day."
Snafu, this might be converging in your mind, but since I can name you at least seven witmesses who recalled a much lower capacity (6-8000) - Rudolf Höß, Paul Bendel, Wetzler/Vrba, Samuel Steinberg, Leon Cohen, Jacob Gabaai and last but not least the polish crematoria specialist for the Höß-trial, Roman Dawidowski - the cremation capacity is rather converging in a different direction.
Hans
The only two sources for the 10.000 claim that remain are Filip Müller and Franke-Gricksch. It is not difficult to determine where this figure comes from. According to Müller the Sonderkommando had to introduce 3 corpses into each oven every 20 min. This makes 9 per hour or 216 in 24 hours per oven. Now, Auschwitz-Birkenau had 46 crematoria ovens. 46 x 216 makes 9936. This calculation is without doubt the source for the figure 10.000 in Müller's and perhaps also Franke-Gricksch's account. Since the crematoria were usually not operational at the same time and since the ovens of crematorium IV and V were of poor quality, it is clear that this cacluation is theoretical and does not reflect the real cremation capacity of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The crucial question is, was a cremation cycle of 20 min possible?
Personally, I think so. After all, a Topf engineer designed an incinerator after the war where the main cremation of a corpse (70 kg) lasted only 10 min. and the total cremation including coffing 30 min. This oven operated under strict regulations and rules. The ovens in Dachau could cremate 2 corpses in 60 min in 1939. The Topf double-muffel in KZ Gusen could cremate one corpse in 26 minutes or even 20 min in 1941. The incinerators in the Stammlager could offically cremate 2 corpses in 30 min in the same year. The Topf and SS engineers were constantly improving the cremation rates. We know from the Sonderkommandos Filip Müller and Henryk Tauber that an expert commision of SS engineers from Berlin and civil engineers from the Topf were testing methods and measurements in the crematoria to fasten the cremation cycle and to reduce the coke consumption. As a result, they had to introduce 3 corpses into the ovens every 20 min, says Müller in his memoirs.
Shlomo Dragon, stoker in crematorium V, stated that the cremation cycle was 15-20 min.
Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß wrote that the average time until the next corpses were put into the ovens was 20 min. However, Höß also wrote that Crematorium II could cremate 2000 corpses in 24 hours with its 15 ovens. This would mean a cremation cycle of 30 min.
Henryk Tauber, a stoker in crema II and III, testified that "According to the regulations, (we) were supposed to charge the muffles every half hour".
Jacob Gabaai, another stoker from the Sonderkommando, stated the cremation cycle was 30 min.
Leon Cohen, a Sonderkommando doctor who took the time for the stokers, said he had to instruct the stokers every 30 min to charge the ovens with corpses.
Paul Sigismund Bendel, a doctor in the Sonderkommando, stated that crematorium II could cremate 2000 corpses in 24 hours, this is a cremation cycle of 30 min.
Samuel Steinberg was a doctor in Birkenau and had perhaps contact to the Sonderkommando. He gave cremation cycle of 30 min.
Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler wrote in april 1944 in a report for the allies that crematorium II could cremate 2000 corpses. This is again a cremation cycle of 30 min. Filip Müller provided them with information about the crematoria, so it is not unlikely that no one else than Müller is the source for 30 min.
The cited evidence clearly indicates a usual cremation cycle of 30 min. The number of corpses that were introduced into the ovens various from 2 to 4 in the more serious testimonies, depending on the type of corpses, on the type of oven and on the type of method. The daily cremation capacity of crematorium II (this was the most used and largest crematorium) varied therefore between 1440 (2 corpses every 30 min) and 3000 (4 corpses every 30 min or 3 corpses every 20 min according Müller and Dragon), the actual capacity was 2000 corpses in 24 hours maximum in my opinion. The theoretical daily capacity of all crematoria (assuming that they were all operational and that all 46 ovens were of the same quality) was thus between 4416 and 9936 corpses.
Interestingly, the letter from the central construction office posted by medorjurgen covers the theoretical minimum, whereas the Franke-Gricksch report quoted by Snafu covers the maximum. Consequently, there is no reason to assume on the basis of the cremation capacity given in the documents that they were manipulated.
Once more on Müller's and Dragon's 20 minutes. It really strikes me that two of the most credible, reliable and accurate witnesses on Nazi gas chambers have given a cremation cycle that differs from all other testimonies. Now, Höß has given the same cremation cycle (although he has not used it for his calculation) and the figures in the Franke-Gricksch-report could imply 20 min cycle. Further, Müller and Dragon have written accurate and honests accounts on Birkenau gas chambers, so it is rather unlikely that they would have given deliberate false cremation rates. It is of course possible that they were simply mistaken.
But there is another possibility. Müller reports that his Sonderkommando was able to use two methods of cremation, one method was much faster than the other. This could mean that the Sonderkommando had to shorten the cremation cycle by ten minutes under certain circumstances.
Snafu concluded: "It’s plain to see. There can be no doubt about it. These seven sources, some referred to very frequently by holocaust historians but to different effects, all converge to form one definite statement about the Auschwitz death camp: the gasovens were able dispose of at least 10,000 people every day."
Snafu, this might be converging in your mind, but since I can name you at least seven witmesses who recalled a much lower capacity (6-8000) - Rudolf Höß, Paul Bendel, Wetzler/Vrba, Samuel Steinberg, Leon Cohen, Jacob Gabaai and last but not least the polish crematoria specialist for the Höß-trial, Roman Dawidowski - the cremation capacity is rather converging in a different direction.
Hans
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: EVERYTHING BUT THE SQUEAL...
Hans, it seems to me, and I am no expert, that the 54 muffles were barely adequate to contain sporadic epidemics. Perhaps enough to process a thousand corpses per day if they were lucky. Besides, Himmler wanted a lot of expansion for his industrial empire and the crematoria were likely intended for regional use. In Arizona there are crematoria on every streetcorner and I suspect likewise for any large city. Just look in the yellow pages.Hans wrote:"The Germans" did this. Topf engineer Sander has designed an industrial incinerator for a POW-camp in Mogilew and the crazy Prüfer a huge incinerator ("eine offene Verbrennungskammer mit den Ausmaßen von 48,75 x 3,76 m" ) for Auschwitz-Birkenau. (by the way, what were they doing in Auschwitz which justified such an incinerator? Keep in mind that they already had 54 crematorium ovens!) Fortunately, this crematorium was never build, obviously because the alleged "standard crematoria" in Birkenau were able to incinerate several thousand corpses per day and this was considered to be enough even for an extermination camp.Scott Smith wrote:If fantastic cremation rates were needed, the Germans would have designed industrial incinerators in the first place.
How do you know, Hans, that I'm not really a Bundespy watching people like you.Hans wrote:Scott, what on earth are you doing on the website of the German Greens? This must really be a new and upsetting experience for you.
My reply to Mr Medi:
“Aha, so Franke-Gricksch said 10,000 dead bodies within 24 hours. Dead wrong he was, as historiography knows. An ideal or propaganda figure that was given to him by his guide when he toured Auschwitz-Birkenau for a day or two, or a misunderstanding on his part. Big deal.”
- An ideal figure is seldom twice or sixfold your theoretical maximum capacity. It’s like a used car salesman trying to push a Porsche by arguing it can make 1,000 km/h ‘ideally’. And “propaganda”! Please I beg! For whom and for what purpose might I ask!?! If Franke-Gricksch was ordered to produce an internal intelligence report to higher authorities about the “resettlement action” at Auschwitz-Birkenau – epicenter of the top secret Sonderbehandlung massmurder program - he’d be given correct information, not outrageous exaggerations dreamt up by the death camp tourist attraction office inside your head. This is ridiculous.
“My friend just cleverly demonstrated where Franke-Gricksch probably got his figures from. He is likely to have simply parroted the figure that Höß gave him. Höß, on the other hand, seems to have been willing to overemphasize the importance of the camp he commanded and thus gave these fantastic figures to Franke-Gricksch.”
- The image of Höss as compulsive liar or halfwit, trying to impress everybody, superiors, captors and Sonderkommandos alike with wildly exaggerated claims about the efficiency of his heart and pride - the killing operation - is a very silly one.
So is the hypothesis that the fantastic 10,000 number, with absolutely no basis in reality, could be traced back to the man responsible for mantaining flow and order in the camp, all the way up to the magical gas chambers themselves. Höss would be the first person to need some realistic grasp of what these wondercreations actually were capable of.
“The fact that Franke-Gricksch toured the camp on the days indicated in his report – as even “Revisionist” grand dragon Greg Raven admits is confirmed by the camp records – and that he described the procedures there in accordance with what becomes apparent from other documents and eyewitness accounts apparently means nothing to True Believers. He got the bloody number wrong, so his document is worthless, they expect us to believe.”
- Who ever said the document was written in May 1943? Thanks to a certain Gerald Fleming, determined to find proof of the führer order, it surfaced in the 1970’s, when there was plenty of time to connect to a real life person and event, and when hollow insertion pillars, corpse elevators and cremation ovens were long since a part of the act. Not that they made a very good job of it, though. There seems to be some mistake about almost every detail.
As an alleged Nuremberg document (NA RG 238), unique about relating to the führer order, it’s also a little strange it never got any attention right from start in the immediate post war trials.
“What “Revisionists” do is to apply the standards of conventional civilian cremation to Auschwitz-Birkenau, as if the Nazis had burned their victims in a coffin and had any qualms about burning several bodies at a time and feeding in the next load of corpses before the previous one had been fully cremated. Their contentions are simply ridiculous.”
- Big oak coffins are just for show. Civilian crematoria generally use shrouds or sometimes light caskets designed to break up quickly, but perhaps you didn’t know that.
For multiple burnings in Auschwitz, Ingenieur Prüfer commented on them thus:
"I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain."
(Interrogations of Topf Engineers as part of a Soviet Inquiry of SHMERSH, 1946-48, reproduced by Gerald Fleming in Hitler and the Final Solution (1994))
Multiple cremations in other words, were not standard procedure and what’s more, it could not be continued because “the ovens could not stand the strain”. Not that it matters much, body mass is body mass and multiple cremations would largely only indicate a correspondingly longer incineration time.
And no, you cannot endlessly stuff new bodily material inside a retort before completion of the current cycle. The oven gets clogged, temperature drops and carbonization replaces cremation, ultimately resulting in a lot of nasty clearing out of the oven.
That Auschwitz ovens on the other hand, had an interior chamber into which a body could be tucked after 2/3 cremation time, creating a cycle of some 40 minutes before insertion of the next cadaver, was actually accounted for in my 1600 figure, but I doubt it ever was a concern to you.
So much for gestures of generosity. To return to Prüfer who also says the following:
"Normal crematoria work with prewarmed air so that the corpse burns quickly and without smoke. As the crematoria in the concentration camps were constructed differently, this procedure could not be used. The corpses burned more slowly and created more smoke, necessitating ventilation.
Question: How many corpses were incinerated in Auschwitz per hour?
Answer: In a crematorium with five furnaces and fifteen muffles, fifteen corpses were burned."
(Ibid; all empasis are mine)
Let us repeat that just in order to make sure it for once enters your cerebral cortex and stays there: Auschwitz ovens operated “more slowly” than civilian ovens. In one oven you cremated one body per hour. For all 52 retorts there existed in other words a max capacity of 1248 adult bodies per 24 hours of constant operation, according to the very gentleman who had constructed them. As the 52 retorts were never used simultaneously, this capacity was never achieved.
- Just slightly hypocritical about how historians and media in general have handled the issue, apart from some rather specialized research. In the days before the discovery of the June 28 memo (“Aktenvermerk”), the 10,000 number and others like it were all over the place.
“Zero reason? I don’t think so. As a witness at the Nuremberg trials, Höss seems to have been proud to present himself as the pillar of the Final Solution and commander of the greatest killing center of all time, bathing in the limelight of his own monstrosity. When it was his turn to be judged, on the other hand, he gave a much more conservative and realistic figure to his Polish captors – 1,135,000 instead of the three million he had mentioned at Nuremberg, a figure that is in line with the posterior research of most historians and must have greatly annoyed the Poles, stuck as they were at the time to the four million figure produced by a Soviet commission.”
- As matter of fact, it’s a lot more sensible to suggest that the differing and confused statements of Rudolf Höss was due to special interrogation techniques and cohercion, rather than some cartoonish and pompous self-glorification as the most evil nazi of all time, which is more at home with Mel Brooks than with reality.
Secondly, if the compulsive liar Höss so prouded himself with impersonating the MONSTER nazi of trashy wartime propaganda, why stop when entering Poland? He was going to be put to death anyway, so what’s the point?
There’s no mystery to why Höss happened to say 3,000,000 at Nuremberg and 1,135,000 in Poland. He simply harked up whatever he had been told to confess and posterior research has since merely repeated/adjusted itself to the number ad nauseam. Not excluding the 2,500,000 gassee number of course, which has popped up here and there since as well.
“Eichmann had no other source than Höss, and he accordingly told his interrogators what Höss had told him. Which means that Eichmann is not an authority on the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Which does not mean, however, that Eichmann is not to be relied on in regard to most of his other statements, unless of course you apply the imbecile ifalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – argument that is a keystone of the “Revisionist” dream world.”
- Allegedly, Höss told Eichmann about the 10,000 while Eichmann was watching “large buildings, large buildings, this was already in the guise of a factory, the enormous chimney”. As to Eichmann’s other statements, there are several important instances when he’s not to be relied on.
- I’m obviously not referring to a Portugese sheepshed, but the kind of barn you’ll find in Sweden, Denmark or the US for instance.
The schoolhouses was a license, but you tell me if this reminds you of a heavy industrial plant?
Personally I think it looks like a crematorium in the guise of a crematorium. But never mind, we all see what we want to see.
“Has it occurred to my friend that the size and frequency of shipments to Auschwitz-Birkenau depended firstly on logistics and transportation capacities and that the installed or expected killing and body disposal capacity only came into consideration thereafter?”
- Yes it has and with the miniscule cremation capacity present according to Topf & Söhne engineer and builder of the ovens Kurt Prüfer, Birkenau could only have resembled a constant rock festival.
Even with the capacity in the June 28 Aktenvermerk it would have been irresponsible and pointless for Höss to boast more than twice the “upper range” efficency he actually had, as the rolling stock just might one day become available.
In itself, there is also NO reason for Höss to grossly exaggerate his capacity. Moreover, if need of expansion of the operation arised, previously blown up capacity assurances would only have rendered requests to construction authorities harder to obtain.
- You should read the Eichmann Trial transcript. It contains several inaccuracies at vital points, so does the victim literature.
Franke-Gricksch repeated the Höss confession of 10,000 even before half the Birkenau crematoria were completed. How could anyone in Birkenau have known there was a 10,000 capacity? Because the camp planned for one? No, it planned for a tenth of that, making the report anachronistic – and therefore most possibly a post war forgery.
Note:
(Krema III and V were up and running only in June 1943, when by the way Krema IV got damaged and Krema II went idle. Krema I in Auschwitz Stammlager was permanently disbanded at about this time).
“What’s so amazing about it? There are various sources from which the Sonderkommando members could have picked up this figure, which may have been a target figure that Höss passed on to his subordinates and that these subordinates in turn communicated to the Sonderkommando folks as what they would have to achieve, capacity of facilities provided (there were plans for a sixth crematorium, if I well remember, and with the open-air burning pits in the summer of 1944 the camp actually came close to achieving a daily "production" of the order of magnitude mentioned in the cited sources).”
- Yes, I’m sure the SS gathered the Sonderkommandos for little ‘peptalks’, every now and then. Come to think of it there was even an incineration cheerleader crew, formed by volunteers from the women’s camp. What a gas.
No, as stated earlier, the capacities of the crematoria are more or less solid and they were obviously planned and built with some realistic expectation in mind. Attempts to improve throughput might well have been made, but to assume that Höss and the camp authorities set some preconcieved ideal to reach, several hundred percent above theoretical maximum and figures they just previously must have regarded as sufficient, is more or less otherwordly.
Sixth crematorium and burning pits, well now we are talking. Considering the huge efficency of these primitive contraptions as compared to coke fired crematoria, one must regard the Germans as pretty stupid for having taken the pains to build the latter at all. All they had to do was to dig a hole in the ground and every problem of incineration capacity would have solved itself. No more need of mortar and plaster and replacement ovens and throwing away money. A few buckets to scope fat is all what's needed.
This must surely be the reason why the SS didn’t even bother to repair several crematoria in preparation for the Hungarian deportations of May-June 1944. Why, just get some shovels and start making a big hole!
As far as I've been informed, the plans for a sixth crematorium was a follow up to even further projected expansion of the camp, like in the case of the four Birkenau crematoria, it never realized. By the way, did I hear someone say wishful thinking?
- Correct, but I wrote “suspected of”, not “is” patent falsehood.
If documents are forged, there ought to be a reason for it. This makes holocaust research somewhat special compared to most other fields of historical study where the possibility of fraud, much less methodical distortion of the historical record, don’t generally need to be entertained.
- Exactly my point. Tell it to the star witnesses such as Vrba and Müller that they only plagiarized a (forced) confession of Rudolf Höss. Getting someone like Vrba to agree might prove problematic though.
“In this case we even have identified the most probable source that all other sources were directly or indirectly in contact with: Auschwitz-Birkenau commander Rudolf Höss. A lot more probable than your “one remaining possibility” in the following, don’t you think so, my friend?”
- I don’t have to propose that Höss was mentally insane or acting in a way totally lacking psychological justification.
“Well, here it is, the Jewish World Conspiracy…”
- Well, there is really no need for that. A little Allied “blame it on the Germans” conspiracy and powerful imagery is actually all it takes to get the ball rolling. After all, this is a battle of Good against Evil.
The rest is all a matter of “saving the phenomena”, an endless modifying of the record to suit changing circumstances.
It took the world 2,000 years after Plato to realize that the Earth wasn’t the center of the Universe - and still the pre-Gallilean notion of freely adjustable eccentricity and epicycles made more practical sense than heliocentricity, because astronomers were less interested in how the world really looked than how to predict the constellations of tomorrow.
Eppure si muove!
Snafu
“Aha, so Franke-Gricksch said 10,000 dead bodies within 24 hours. Dead wrong he was, as historiography knows. An ideal or propaganda figure that was given to him by his guide when he toured Auschwitz-Birkenau for a day or two, or a misunderstanding on his part. Big deal.”
- An ideal figure is seldom twice or sixfold your theoretical maximum capacity. It’s like a used car salesman trying to push a Porsche by arguing it can make 1,000 km/h ‘ideally’. And “propaganda”! Please I beg! For whom and for what purpose might I ask!?! If Franke-Gricksch was ordered to produce an internal intelligence report to higher authorities about the “resettlement action” at Auschwitz-Birkenau – epicenter of the top secret Sonderbehandlung massmurder program - he’d be given correct information, not outrageous exaggerations dreamt up by the death camp tourist attraction office inside your head. This is ridiculous.
“My friend just cleverly demonstrated where Franke-Gricksch probably got his figures from. He is likely to have simply parroted the figure that Höß gave him. Höß, on the other hand, seems to have been willing to overemphasize the importance of the camp he commanded and thus gave these fantastic figures to Franke-Gricksch.”
- The image of Höss as compulsive liar or halfwit, trying to impress everybody, superiors, captors and Sonderkommandos alike with wildly exaggerated claims about the efficiency of his heart and pride - the killing operation - is a very silly one.
So is the hypothesis that the fantastic 10,000 number, with absolutely no basis in reality, could be traced back to the man responsible for mantaining flow and order in the camp, all the way up to the magical gas chambers themselves. Höss would be the first person to need some realistic grasp of what these wondercreations actually were capable of.
“The fact that Franke-Gricksch toured the camp on the days indicated in his report – as even “Revisionist” grand dragon Greg Raven admits is confirmed by the camp records – and that he described the procedures there in accordance with what becomes apparent from other documents and eyewitness accounts apparently means nothing to True Believers. He got the bloody number wrong, so his document is worthless, they expect us to believe.”
- Who ever said the document was written in May 1943? Thanks to a certain Gerald Fleming, determined to find proof of the führer order, it surfaced in the 1970’s, when there was plenty of time to connect to a real life person and event, and when hollow insertion pillars, corpse elevators and cremation ovens were long since a part of the act. Not that they made a very good job of it, though. There seems to be some mistake about almost every detail.
As an alleged Nuremberg document (NA RG 238), unique about relating to the führer order, it’s also a little strange it never got any attention right from start in the immediate post war trials.
“What “Revisionists” do is to apply the standards of conventional civilian cremation to Auschwitz-Birkenau, as if the Nazis had burned their victims in a coffin and had any qualms about burning several bodies at a time and feeding in the next load of corpses before the previous one had been fully cremated. Their contentions are simply ridiculous.”
- Big oak coffins are just for show. Civilian crematoria generally use shrouds or sometimes light caskets designed to break up quickly, but perhaps you didn’t know that.
For multiple burnings in Auschwitz, Ingenieur Prüfer commented on them thus:
"I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain."
(Interrogations of Topf Engineers as part of a Soviet Inquiry of SHMERSH, 1946-48, reproduced by Gerald Fleming in Hitler and the Final Solution (1994))
Multiple cremations in other words, were not standard procedure and what’s more, it could not be continued because “the ovens could not stand the strain”. Not that it matters much, body mass is body mass and multiple cremations would largely only indicate a correspondingly longer incineration time.
And no, you cannot endlessly stuff new bodily material inside a retort before completion of the current cycle. The oven gets clogged, temperature drops and carbonization replaces cremation, ultimately resulting in a lot of nasty clearing out of the oven.
That Auschwitz ovens on the other hand, had an interior chamber into which a body could be tucked after 2/3 cremation time, creating a cycle of some 40 minutes before insertion of the next cadaver, was actually accounted for in my 1600 figure, but I doubt it ever was a concern to you.
So much for gestures of generosity. To return to Prüfer who also says the following:
"Normal crematoria work with prewarmed air so that the corpse burns quickly and without smoke. As the crematoria in the concentration camps were constructed differently, this procedure could not be used. The corpses burned more slowly and created more smoke, necessitating ventilation.
Question: How many corpses were incinerated in Auschwitz per hour?
Answer: In a crematorium with five furnaces and fifteen muffles, fifteen corpses were burned."
(Ibid; all empasis are mine)
Let us repeat that just in order to make sure it for once enters your cerebral cortex and stays there: Auschwitz ovens operated “more slowly” than civilian ovens. In one oven you cremated one body per hour. For all 52 retorts there existed in other words a max capacity of 1248 adult bodies per 24 hours of constant operation, according to the very gentleman who had constructed them. As the 52 retorts were never used simultaneously, this capacity was never achieved.
”It never existed. Historians and criminal justice authorities know better than to rely on nothing other than eyewitness accounts when it comes to figures. At a very early stage of research and investigation, they accordingly went over to establishing the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau on the basis of the documentary evidence regarding the transports to that place. The only reasonable approach, given that not many of those taken there came back alive and that, whatever the capacity of the killing installations, no more people could possibly have been killed by them than were actually taken to the camp for this purpose.”Me: So what about this derelict 10,000 certainty?
- Just slightly hypocritical about how historians and media in general have handled the issue, apart from some rather specialized research. In the days before the discovery of the June 28 memo (“Aktenvermerk”), the 10,000 number and others like it were all over the place.
“Zero reason? I don’t think so. As a witness at the Nuremberg trials, Höss seems to have been proud to present himself as the pillar of the Final Solution and commander of the greatest killing center of all time, bathing in the limelight of his own monstrosity. When it was his turn to be judged, on the other hand, he gave a much more conservative and realistic figure to his Polish captors – 1,135,000 instead of the three million he had mentioned at Nuremberg, a figure that is in line with the posterior research of most historians and must have greatly annoyed the Poles, stuck as they were at the time to the four million figure produced by a Soviet commission.”
- As matter of fact, it’s a lot more sensible to suggest that the differing and confused statements of Rudolf Höss was due to special interrogation techniques and cohercion, rather than some cartoonish and pompous self-glorification as the most evil nazi of all time, which is more at home with Mel Brooks than with reality.
Secondly, if the compulsive liar Höss so prouded himself with impersonating the MONSTER nazi of trashy wartime propaganda, why stop when entering Poland? He was going to be put to death anyway, so what’s the point?
There’s no mystery to why Höss happened to say 3,000,000 at Nuremberg and 1,135,000 in Poland. He simply harked up whatever he had been told to confess and posterior research has since merely repeated/adjusted itself to the number ad nauseam. Not excluding the 2,500,000 gassee number of course, which has popped up here and there since as well.
“Eichmann had no other source than Höss, and he accordingly told his interrogators what Höss had told him. Which means that Eichmann is not an authority on the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Which does not mean, however, that Eichmann is not to be relied on in regard to most of his other statements, unless of course you apply the imbecile ifalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – argument that is a keystone of the “Revisionist” dream world.”
- Allegedly, Höss told Eichmann about the 10,000 while Eichmann was watching “large buildings, large buildings, this was already in the guise of a factory, the enormous chimney”. As to Eichmann’s other statements, there are several important instances when he’s not to be relied on.
”Sounds like more wishful thinking to me, but I don’t feel like looking it up now. How about giving us the measurements so that we may check if i) they are correct and ii) they support your statements?”Me: In reality, the crematoria of Birkenau were more the size of your average barn and resembling schoolhouses rather than industrial installations.
- I’m obviously not referring to a Portugese sheepshed, but the kind of barn you’ll find in Sweden, Denmark or the US for instance.
The schoolhouses was a license, but you tell me if this reminds you of a heavy industrial plant?
Personally I think it looks like a crematorium in the guise of a crematorium. But never mind, we all see what we want to see.
“Has it occurred to my friend that the size and frequency of shipments to Auschwitz-Birkenau depended firstly on logistics and transportation capacities and that the installed or expected killing and body disposal capacity only came into consideration thereafter?”
- Yes it has and with the miniscule cremation capacity present according to Topf & Söhne engineer and builder of the ovens Kurt Prüfer, Birkenau could only have resembled a constant rock festival.
Even with the capacity in the June 28 Aktenvermerk it would have been irresponsible and pointless for Höss to boast more than twice the “upper range” efficency he actually had, as the rolling stock just might one day become available.
In itself, there is also NO reason for Höss to grossly exaggerate his capacity. Moreover, if need of expansion of the operation arised, previously blown up capacity assurances would only have rendered requests to construction authorities harder to obtain.
”They are not “technically false”, my friend. They only contain an inaccuracy in regard to a very inaccuracy-prone piece of information. That doesn’t necessarily speak against the accuracy of their other contents.”Me: If the statements of original German documents, testimony of prime perpetrators awaiting death and essential witnesses are proven to be technically false...
- You should read the Eichmann Trial transcript. It contains several inaccuracies at vital points, so does the victim literature.
Franke-Gricksch repeated the Höss confession of 10,000 even before half the Birkenau crematoria were completed. How could anyone in Birkenau have known there was a 10,000 capacity? Because the camp planned for one? No, it planned for a tenth of that, making the report anachronistic – and therefore most possibly a post war forgery.
Note:
(Krema III and V were up and running only in June 1943, when by the way Krema IV got damaged and Krema II went idle. Krema I in Auschwitz Stammlager was permanently disbanded at about this time).
“What’s so amazing about it? There are various sources from which the Sonderkommando members could have picked up this figure, which may have been a target figure that Höss passed on to his subordinates and that these subordinates in turn communicated to the Sonderkommando folks as what they would have to achieve, capacity of facilities provided (there were plans for a sixth crematorium, if I well remember, and with the open-air burning pits in the summer of 1944 the camp actually came close to achieving a daily "production" of the order of magnitude mentioned in the cited sources).”
- Yes, I’m sure the SS gathered the Sonderkommandos for little ‘peptalks’, every now and then. Come to think of it there was even an incineration cheerleader crew, formed by volunteers from the women’s camp. What a gas.
No, as stated earlier, the capacities of the crematoria are more or less solid and they were obviously planned and built with some realistic expectation in mind. Attempts to improve throughput might well have been made, but to assume that Höss and the camp authorities set some preconcieved ideal to reach, several hundred percent above theoretical maximum and figures they just previously must have regarded as sufficient, is more or less otherwordly.
Sixth crematorium and burning pits, well now we are talking. Considering the huge efficency of these primitive contraptions as compared to coke fired crematoria, one must regard the Germans as pretty stupid for having taken the pains to build the latter at all. All they had to do was to dig a hole in the ground and every problem of incineration capacity would have solved itself. No more need of mortar and plaster and replacement ovens and throwing away money. A few buckets to scope fat is all what's needed.
This must surely be the reason why the SS didn’t even bother to repair several crematoria in preparation for the Hungarian deportations of May-June 1944. Why, just get some shovels and start making a big hole!
As far as I've been informed, the plans for a sixth crematorium was a follow up to even further projected expansion of the camp, like in the case of the four Birkenau crematoria, it never realized. By the way, did I hear someone say wishful thinking?
Two mistakes. One is that an inaccuracy in regard to a figure doesn’t make the documents and testimonials in question “false”. The other is that no conclusions can be logically drawn from the accuracy of any given number of documents on the accuracy of any given number of other documents. The if-one-thing-in-this-document/testimonial-is-wrong-then-everything-is-wrong-and-if-this-document/testimonial-is-wrong-then-all-documents/testimonials-are-wrong – thinking is the most hilarious showpiece of “Revisionist” imbecility.Me:...how much else of the standard documentary reference, forming that formidable paper bastion of irrefutably converging evidence might not be suspected of patent falsehood?
- Correct, but I wrote “suspected of”, not “is” patent falsehood.
If documents are forged, there ought to be a reason for it. This makes holocaust research somewhat special compared to most other fields of historical study where the possibility of fraud, much less methodical distortion of the historical record, don’t generally need to be entertained.
”Come on, buddy, let’s be serious. A similar wrong figure in several statements indicates nothing else than that this figure originated with one and the same source with which all other sources were in touch.”To my mind, all of it. Eichmann testified about the Führerbefehl, he said Heydrich spilled it to him in the summer of 1941. But the central point is actually another. It is possible for people to err on an independent basis. It is even possible for several people to grossly misjudge the same issue, all from their own private viewpoints. But it is totally inconcievable that several people who grossly misjudge a mathemathical calculation independently, would arrive at an identical, arbitrary result. The statistical probability for such an occurrence to happen ought to be next to nothing or cannot even be concieved of.
- Exactly my point. Tell it to the star witnesses such as Vrba and Müller that they only plagiarized a (forced) confession of Rudolf Höss. Getting someone like Vrba to agree might prove problematic though.
“In this case we even have identified the most probable source that all other sources were directly or indirectly in contact with: Auschwitz-Birkenau commander Rudolf Höss. A lot more probable than your “one remaining possibility” in the following, don’t you think so, my friend?”
- I don’t have to propose that Höss was mentally insane or acting in a way totally lacking psychological justification.
“Well, here it is, the Jewish World Conspiracy…”
- Well, there is really no need for that. A little Allied “blame it on the Germans” conspiracy and powerful imagery is actually all it takes to get the ball rolling. After all, this is a battle of Good against Evil.
The rest is all a matter of “saving the phenomena”, an endless modifying of the record to suit changing circumstances.
It took the world 2,000 years after Plato to realize that the Earth wasn’t the center of the Universe - and still the pre-Gallilean notion of freely adjustable eccentricity and epicycles made more practical sense than heliocentricity, because astronomers were less interested in how the world really looked than how to predict the constellations of tomorrow.
Eppure si muove!
Snafu
Roberto wrote:
What “Revisionists” do is to apply the standards of conventional civilian cremation to Auschwitz-Birkenau, as if the Nazis had burned their victims in a coffin and had any qualms about burning several bodies at a time and feeding in the next load of corpses before the previous one had been fully cremated. Their contentions are simply ridiculous.
No, Mister. They were custom-built so as to satisfy the requirements of continuous cremation of dead bodies on a large scale.The Kremas were standard equipment.
What a miserable argument. No, there is really no chance that anyone is going to rebuild the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria and do some real-life tests on experimental animals (or “Revisionist” volunteers, perhaps?). But on the basis of cremation data available from other concentration camps and civilian cremation practice, it is possible to reconstruct quite well how things worked at Auschwitz-Birkenau – and the conclusion is that, if several corpses were fed in at a time (which was possible mainly due to the fact that many of the corpses were of children, women and emaciated males) and the next load of corpses was entered before the previous had been fully cremated, an average cremation time of 15 minutes per dead body was by no means an impossibility.There is no verifiable experimental evidence to show that they could operate in some unusual fashion in order to test the Exterminationist hypothesis.
Smith seems to be digging out his old herrings from the early days of our encounters. Hasn’t he understood yet that the Topf cremation ovens designed for cremation on a continuous basis were functionally equivalent to incinerators rather than to standard civilian cremation ovens, the advantage in relation to industrial incinerators being that they managed to burn largely on the body fat of those cremated as fuel due to their self-heating capacity patented by Topf & Söhne? But even before that, could the Reverend please explain why his “I would have done it differently” – argument is supposed to speak against the fact that the Nazis did things the way they did them?If fantastic cremation rates were needed, the Germans would have designed industrial incinerators in the first place.
Hans wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
If fantastic cremation rates were needed, the Germans would have designed industrial incinerators in the first place.
"The Germans" did this. Topf engineer Sander has designed an industrial incinerator for a POW-camp in Mogilew and the crazy Prüfer a huge incinerator ("eine offene Verbrennungskammer mit den Ausmaßen von 48,75 x 3,76 m" ) for Auschwitz-Birkenau. (by the way, what were they doing in Auschwitz which justified such an incinerator? Keep in mind that they already had 54 crematorium ovens!) Fortunately, this crematorium was never build, obviously because the alleged "standard crematoria" in Birkenau were able to incinerate several thousand corpses per day and this was considered to be enough even for an extermination camp.
How about doing some mathematics, Reverend? 4,756 dead bodies within 24 hours was the theoretical capacity of the ovens according to the Bauleitung memo of 28 June 1943, 3,000 per day was the realistic output, according to the calculations of Pressac and van Pelt. The camp’s permanent population never exceeded 92,000 people at a time. Were the Nazis expecting an epidemic that would wipe out the camp’s entire population within a month? If so, why only at Auschwitz and at no other of the German extermination camps?Hans, it seems to me, and I am no expert, that the 54 muffles were barely adequate to contain sporadic epidemics.
That’s what the Reverend would like to believe, without being able to offer anything other than Mr. Mattogno’s ludicrous calculations to back it up. But even with this lower figure he would be in trouble to explain why the SS foresaw the need to cremate 30,000 of the camp’s permanent inmates per month. Was there ever any epidemic of this magnitude during the time that Auschwitz-Birkenau was in operation? The incomplete Auschwitz death books contain the certificates of 68,864 registered prisoners who died from August 1941 to December 1943, i.e. within a period of 28 months. The same records show that only 2060 of the 68,864 deaths were from typhus. But even if all the deaths had been from disease, why on earth – assuming that Smith’s ridiculously low figure on daily cremation capacity is correct – would the SS have installed the cremation capacity to handle within little more than two months the deaths among permanent inmates that occurred within 28 months? All other concentration camps had crematorium installations corresponding to the actual mortality rate of their permanent inmates. Why would Auschwitz-Birkenau, and only this camp, have the capacity to burn 14 times the number of dead bodies among permanent inmates in a given period? By “Revisionist” calculations, that is; in actual fact the installed cremation capacity per day exceeded the average mortality per month among the registered inmates of the camp during the period for which death records are available.Perhaps enough to process a thousand corpses per day if they were lucky.
For more details see the article
Body Disposal at Auschwitz: The End of Holocaust Denial
by John C. Zimmerman
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -disposal/
Why, did he plan to expand Auschwitz-Birkenau to between 14 times (assuming Smith’s figure for daily cremation capacity) and 42 times the number of permanent inmates it had at the time of its highest population? Interesting. Any evidence?Besides, Himmler wanted a lot of expansion for his industrial empire and the crematoria were likely intended for regional use.
Yeah, I’m sure there’s enough cremation capacity in Scottsdale, Arizona to dispose of the town’s entire population within one or two months. Any figures that the Reverend can show us?In Arizona there are crematoria on every streetcorner and I suspect likewise for any large city. Just look in the yellow pages.
Hans wrote:
Quote:
http://www.gruene-rlp.de/holocaust-art- ... dachau.jpg
Scott, what on earth are you doing on the website of the German Greens? This must really be a new and upsetting experience for you.
Easy, buddy. Because “Bundespies” exist only in the Reverend’s fertile imagination. However, the suspicion that Smith might be an undercover agent infiltrated by the ADL for the purpose of discrediting “Revisionism” comes into my mind every once in a while.How do you know, Hans, that I'm not really a Bundespy watching people like you.
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Franke-Gricksch Report
There are a number of problems with the document that is claimed to be a genuine retyped copy of a report written by SS-Stubaf. Franke-Gricksch on his visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau on 17(?) May 1943.
One of the most glaring of the problems is the claimed total of 500,000 Jewish victims of the "resettlement action" as at that date.
That figure can be checked against those given in the "Auschwitz Chronicle" published by the Panstwowe Muzeum w Oswiecimiu (Auschwitz State Museum).
According to my addition of the daily figures given in that source, as at the end of May 1943 94,772 Jews had been registered in the camp. That figure is reliable, as it is based on a list kept secretly by prisoners who worked in the Auschwitz registry office.
The Chronicle also makes claims about the number of Jews who arrived in the camp each day. That figure is less reliable than the number of Jews registered each day, since it is not based on records kept in the Auschwitz registry but rather on records kept at a number of different places of the numbers deported from the various source countries with Auschwitz as the destination.
The number deported was of course not the same as the number that arrived, the latter being less. As an example, on 15 September 1942, Pohl had a meeting with Speer at which he agreed to give the latter 50,000 Jews fit for work, to be taken from the Jews being deported to Auschwitz; that agreement was reported by Pohl in a memorandum to Himmler (Nuremberg Document NI-15392) in which he said "The Jews who are fit for work must therefore INTERRUPT their immigration to the East and undertake some armaments work" (quoted on p. 199, "The Business of Genocide", by Michael Thad Allen). Pohl's words make it clear that the 50,000 Jews were not transferred after their arrival at Auschwitz, but were extracted from the transports heading to that destination ("interrupt").
Accordingly, the number of Jews who arrived at Auschwitz must have been at least 50,000 less than those who were despatched, the record of which has served as the basis for calculating the numbers of Jews who arrived but were not registered.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of assessing the Franke-Gricksch report, the figures of arrivals given in the "Auschwitz Chronicle" may be used as a comparison. According to my addition of the daily arrivals, as at the end of May 1943 a total of 330,872 Jews had arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The difference between total arrivals and the total registered is therefore 237,879. That is the total that is claimed to have been killed on arrival up until the end of May 1943. It is therefore the figure that must be compared with that quoted in the Franke-Gricksch report as 'the result so far of this "resettlement action" ', since that part of the report is specifically dealing with the Jews not capable of work.
It is immediately apparent that the figure given in the Franke-Gricksch report is more than double the figure that emerges from the "Auschwitz Chronicle". The cumulative total of 500,000 non-registered Jews was not reached until the summer of 1944, with the arrival of the transports from Hungary.
What is the reason for the grossly exaggerated figure given in the Franke-Gricksch report, a figure that is not compatible with the situation at the time of his visit in May 1943, and in fact reflects the situation one year later?
(Why, we may also ask, did not our esteemed colleagues Mr Muehlenkamp and Hans, or Scott Smith for that matter, bother to check this obvious point?)
Mr Muehlenkamp seeks to write off the anomalies in the Franke-Gricksch report by claiming that Hoess simply boasted to his visitor, who was unable to check the facts. However, we must ask ourselves the questions:
What was the reason for Franke-Gricksch's visit to the camp? Who was he reporting to, and for what purpose?
It is possible that the purpose of the visit was to check on what Hoess and his minions were doing, and to report back to HQ in Berlin. In that case, the emphasis would have been on achieving accuracy.
It seems to me highly unlikely that Hoess would have made such a boastful claim that would be reported back to Berlin and could be checked. For example, back at Berlin there was Hans Kammler, head of Office C (Construction) of the WVHA, who had been fully involved in the construction of Birkenau, including the crematoria, and would have been fully aware of realities such as the actual cremation capacity. Hoess could not have told obvious untruths to his visitor and got away with it.
Another anomaly is the claimed cremation capacity of the ten "resettlement action" ovens of 10,000 corpses in 24 hours. It would have been known to people like Kammler that the estimated theoretical maximum output of the four Birkenau crematoria then completed or nearing completion, plus that of the "old crematorium" in the Auschwitz Stammlager, was under 5,000 in 24 hours, operating the equipment at the absolute limit without pause, as per the Jahrling memorandum.
As with the total number of Jews given as the"result" of the "resettlement action", the claimed capacity of the "resttlement action" ovens is more than double the official figure.
The origin of the figure of 10,000 cremated every 24 hours seems to be the Soviet War Crimes Commission Report of 6 May 1945. It is possible that the Soviet War Crimes Commission plucked that figure out of the air, or repeated wild exaggerations made by liberated prisoners interrogated by it. In any case, that figure was published and propagated in Allied circles well before Hoess was captured in March 1946, so the fact that he supports in his testimony is not convincing; he could simply have been regurgitating a figure that had been fed to him by his interrogators, who were familiar with it from the Soviet report published almost one year earlier.
The fact that the 10,000 figure turns up in a document supposedly written in May 1943 or shortly thereafter, suggests that this document, at least in the form in which it now exists, was actually composed some time after May 1945.
The 500,000 figure may also have been derived from figures given in the report of the escapees Vrba and Wetzler, dating from April 1944, ie well after the date of the ostensible Franke-Gricksch report.
Alternatively, the 500,000 figure may have been derived from the 10,000 cremated per day. 500,000 represents 50 days' cremation work. Crematorium II was commissioned on 31 March 1943, giving 47 days until the date of Franke-Gricksch's visit.
A third anomaly that occurs elsewhere in the report is the statement that Jews arrived on trains that brought them into a special part of the camp. The spur-line leading into Birkenau of course did not become operational until the summer of 1944, one year after Franke-Gricksch's visit. That element again reflects a 1945 date of composition for the document in its present form.
I think it highly likely that Franke-Gricksch did prepare a report in the summer of 1943, soon after his visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau. The first paragraph of the document in its present form, stating that the emphasis was now on maximising the preservation of the prisoners for labour, exactly reflects the situation in May 1943; in the previous month Himmler had ordered the cessation of Aktion 14f13 and commanded that sick prisoners be restored to fitness for work, with only the genuinely insane to be subjected to "Sonderbehandlung" thenceforward. Accordingly, I believe that that paragraph is genuine and original.
It is also likely that in his original report, Franke-Gricksch gave a description of Crematorium II which had been in operation for over a month. Certain features of the report in its present form, such as the transport by lift of the corpses from the underground morgues to the incineration ovens, seem genuine.
It is also possible that Franke-Gricksch gave a figure for the projected theoretical maximum capacity of all the crematoria when they eventually came on stream. If he did, it is likely that it would have been the figure given in the Jahrling memorandum (which of course referred to all cremations, not only those resulting from the Jewish "resettlement action").
I think it unlikely that Franke-Gricksch gave a figure for the total number of Jews that had arrived, or had been exterminated. Hoess simply did not have those figures. All that would have been available would have been the records of those registered. No figures were kept of recent arrivals still in quarantine, or of arrivals transferred to other places before being registered at Auschwitz.
The document in its present form shows all the signs of being based on a genuine original, but having been rewritten to include elements of later date, such as the trains coming into the camp (dating from 1944), or the 10,000 per day figure (dating from 1945).
My guess is that the rewriter of the original report inserted the cremation figure of 10,000 per day, to conform with the figure given in the Soviet report, replacing whatever figure may been in the original. Then the 500,000 total was derived by multiplying 10,000 by the number of days of operation of Crematorium II from its commissioning (the approximate date of which was known from the information provided by Vrba and Wetzler in April 1944) and the date of Franke-Gricksch's visit.
It is possible that an investigator found the original, which provided partial support for what had been learned from survivors and what had been officially reported by the Soviet Commission, and then "massaged" it to make that support more explicit. What resulted is a document that is "too good to be true".
What the original report may have said about the extermination of Jews at Birkenau cannot be known for sure. What I think is certain is that the document in its current form is not the original but a rewritten version, containing interpolations that are anomalous and demonstrate its non-genuine nature.
One of the most glaring of the problems is the claimed total of 500,000 Jewish victims of the "resettlement action" as at that date.
That figure can be checked against those given in the "Auschwitz Chronicle" published by the Panstwowe Muzeum w Oswiecimiu (Auschwitz State Museum).
According to my addition of the daily figures given in that source, as at the end of May 1943 94,772 Jews had been registered in the camp. That figure is reliable, as it is based on a list kept secretly by prisoners who worked in the Auschwitz registry office.
The Chronicle also makes claims about the number of Jews who arrived in the camp each day. That figure is less reliable than the number of Jews registered each day, since it is not based on records kept in the Auschwitz registry but rather on records kept at a number of different places of the numbers deported from the various source countries with Auschwitz as the destination.
The number deported was of course not the same as the number that arrived, the latter being less. As an example, on 15 September 1942, Pohl had a meeting with Speer at which he agreed to give the latter 50,000 Jews fit for work, to be taken from the Jews being deported to Auschwitz; that agreement was reported by Pohl in a memorandum to Himmler (Nuremberg Document NI-15392) in which he said "The Jews who are fit for work must therefore INTERRUPT their immigration to the East and undertake some armaments work" (quoted on p. 199, "The Business of Genocide", by Michael Thad Allen). Pohl's words make it clear that the 50,000 Jews were not transferred after their arrival at Auschwitz, but were extracted from the transports heading to that destination ("interrupt").
Accordingly, the number of Jews who arrived at Auschwitz must have been at least 50,000 less than those who were despatched, the record of which has served as the basis for calculating the numbers of Jews who arrived but were not registered.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of assessing the Franke-Gricksch report, the figures of arrivals given in the "Auschwitz Chronicle" may be used as a comparison. According to my addition of the daily arrivals, as at the end of May 1943 a total of 330,872 Jews had arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The difference between total arrivals and the total registered is therefore 237,879. That is the total that is claimed to have been killed on arrival up until the end of May 1943. It is therefore the figure that must be compared with that quoted in the Franke-Gricksch report as 'the result so far of this "resettlement action" ', since that part of the report is specifically dealing with the Jews not capable of work.
It is immediately apparent that the figure given in the Franke-Gricksch report is more than double the figure that emerges from the "Auschwitz Chronicle". The cumulative total of 500,000 non-registered Jews was not reached until the summer of 1944, with the arrival of the transports from Hungary.
What is the reason for the grossly exaggerated figure given in the Franke-Gricksch report, a figure that is not compatible with the situation at the time of his visit in May 1943, and in fact reflects the situation one year later?
(Why, we may also ask, did not our esteemed colleagues Mr Muehlenkamp and Hans, or Scott Smith for that matter, bother to check this obvious point?)
Mr Muehlenkamp seeks to write off the anomalies in the Franke-Gricksch report by claiming that Hoess simply boasted to his visitor, who was unable to check the facts. However, we must ask ourselves the questions:
What was the reason for Franke-Gricksch's visit to the camp? Who was he reporting to, and for what purpose?
It is possible that the purpose of the visit was to check on what Hoess and his minions were doing, and to report back to HQ in Berlin. In that case, the emphasis would have been on achieving accuracy.
It seems to me highly unlikely that Hoess would have made such a boastful claim that would be reported back to Berlin and could be checked. For example, back at Berlin there was Hans Kammler, head of Office C (Construction) of the WVHA, who had been fully involved in the construction of Birkenau, including the crematoria, and would have been fully aware of realities such as the actual cremation capacity. Hoess could not have told obvious untruths to his visitor and got away with it.
Another anomaly is the claimed cremation capacity of the ten "resettlement action" ovens of 10,000 corpses in 24 hours. It would have been known to people like Kammler that the estimated theoretical maximum output of the four Birkenau crematoria then completed or nearing completion, plus that of the "old crematorium" in the Auschwitz Stammlager, was under 5,000 in 24 hours, operating the equipment at the absolute limit without pause, as per the Jahrling memorandum.
As with the total number of Jews given as the"result" of the "resettlement action", the claimed capacity of the "resttlement action" ovens is more than double the official figure.
The origin of the figure of 10,000 cremated every 24 hours seems to be the Soviet War Crimes Commission Report of 6 May 1945. It is possible that the Soviet War Crimes Commission plucked that figure out of the air, or repeated wild exaggerations made by liberated prisoners interrogated by it. In any case, that figure was published and propagated in Allied circles well before Hoess was captured in March 1946, so the fact that he supports in his testimony is not convincing; he could simply have been regurgitating a figure that had been fed to him by his interrogators, who were familiar with it from the Soviet report published almost one year earlier.
The fact that the 10,000 figure turns up in a document supposedly written in May 1943 or shortly thereafter, suggests that this document, at least in the form in which it now exists, was actually composed some time after May 1945.
The 500,000 figure may also have been derived from figures given in the report of the escapees Vrba and Wetzler, dating from April 1944, ie well after the date of the ostensible Franke-Gricksch report.
Alternatively, the 500,000 figure may have been derived from the 10,000 cremated per day. 500,000 represents 50 days' cremation work. Crematorium II was commissioned on 31 March 1943, giving 47 days until the date of Franke-Gricksch's visit.
A third anomaly that occurs elsewhere in the report is the statement that Jews arrived on trains that brought them into a special part of the camp. The spur-line leading into Birkenau of course did not become operational until the summer of 1944, one year after Franke-Gricksch's visit. That element again reflects a 1945 date of composition for the document in its present form.
I think it highly likely that Franke-Gricksch did prepare a report in the summer of 1943, soon after his visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau. The first paragraph of the document in its present form, stating that the emphasis was now on maximising the preservation of the prisoners for labour, exactly reflects the situation in May 1943; in the previous month Himmler had ordered the cessation of Aktion 14f13 and commanded that sick prisoners be restored to fitness for work, with only the genuinely insane to be subjected to "Sonderbehandlung" thenceforward. Accordingly, I believe that that paragraph is genuine and original.
It is also likely that in his original report, Franke-Gricksch gave a description of Crematorium II which had been in operation for over a month. Certain features of the report in its present form, such as the transport by lift of the corpses from the underground morgues to the incineration ovens, seem genuine.
It is also possible that Franke-Gricksch gave a figure for the projected theoretical maximum capacity of all the crematoria when they eventually came on stream. If he did, it is likely that it would have been the figure given in the Jahrling memorandum (which of course referred to all cremations, not only those resulting from the Jewish "resettlement action").
I think it unlikely that Franke-Gricksch gave a figure for the total number of Jews that had arrived, or had been exterminated. Hoess simply did not have those figures. All that would have been available would have been the records of those registered. No figures were kept of recent arrivals still in quarantine, or of arrivals transferred to other places before being registered at Auschwitz.
The document in its present form shows all the signs of being based on a genuine original, but having been rewritten to include elements of later date, such as the trains coming into the camp (dating from 1944), or the 10,000 per day figure (dating from 1945).
My guess is that the rewriter of the original report inserted the cremation figure of 10,000 per day, to conform with the figure given in the Soviet report, replacing whatever figure may been in the original. Then the 500,000 total was derived by multiplying 10,000 by the number of days of operation of Crematorium II from its commissioning (the approximate date of which was known from the information provided by Vrba and Wetzler in April 1944) and the date of Franke-Gricksch's visit.
It is possible that an investigator found the original, which provided partial support for what had been learned from survivors and what had been officially reported by the Soviet Commission, and then "massaged" it to make that support more explicit. What resulted is a document that is "too good to be true".
What the original report may have said about the extermination of Jews at Birkenau cannot be known for sure. What I think is certain is that the document in its current form is not the original but a rewritten version, containing interpolations that are anomalous and demonstrate its non-genuine nature.
-
Homer martin
- Member
- Posts: 262
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:08
- Location: USA
Hi all
Roberto,
That was an outstanding relpy.
Micheal,
As for as the document in question, its not like all historical documents are factual correct. In any reseach of any event in history, it is always best to check as many references as one can find.
Homer
That was an outstanding relpy.
Micheal,
As for as the document in question, its not like all historical documents are factual correct. In any reseach of any event in history, it is always best to check as many references as one can find.
Homer