> I will continue to trust what was written in that scholarly work
What is this scholarly work, by the way?
Heydrich said: Czechs to guard Jews in White Sea region
-
Sergey Romanov
- Member
- Posts: 1987
- Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
- Location: World
- Contact:
-
Sergey Romanov
- Member
- Posts: 1987
- Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
- Location: World
- Contact:
There is another Goebbels diary entry that is interesting particularly coming as it does two months after he had recorded the entry concerning Aktion Reinhard. On 25 May 1942 he quotes Hitler saying that "by preference he would like to settle them all [not in Siberia, where they would be toughened but] in Central Africa... in a climate that would [weaken] them and their resistance."
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Xcalibur wrote:
It is reasonable to assume that Hitler had given a general approval for the "euthanasia" of Polish Jews unable to be used for labour who would otherwise starve, but his words to Goebbels shows that he did not expect all the Jews of Europe to be exterminated during the war. He obviously expected that at the end of the war there would be a substantial number of Jews left alive, who would need to be sent somewhere.
That shows that as of May 1942, Hitler had not given any order for the extermination of all Jews under German control. Why would he need to use camouflage to Goebbels, who already knew about the ongoing extermination of 60% of the Jews in the Generalgouvernement, and was a strong supporter of making Europe "Jew-free"?There is another Goebbels diary entry that is interesting particularly coming as it does two months after he had recorded the entry concerning Aktion Reinhard. On 25 May 1942 he quotes Hitler saying that "by preference he would like to settle them all [not in Siberia, where they would be toughened but] in Central Africa... in a climate that would [weaken] them and their resistance."
It is reasonable to assume that Hitler had given a general approval for the "euthanasia" of Polish Jews unable to be used for labour who would otherwise starve, but his words to Goebbels shows that he did not expect all the Jews of Europe to be exterminated during the war. He obviously expected that at the end of the war there would be a substantial number of Jews left alive, who would need to be sent somewhere.
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Sergey Romanov wrote:
Fine with me. I assume that on that basis, Sergey Romanov would have no objection to the suggestion that he would be an ideal candidate for the position of "Rukovoditel' Oblastnikh Lagerei Unichtozheniia Dvorian i Narodnostei Iskliuchennykh iz Kitaia" (RukObLUDNIK).
If I interpret the above words correctly, Sergey Romanov is saying that if an acronym (= a word formed from the initial letters or parts of a number of words) has the form of an actual word (eg Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement = SALT, which has the form of "salt"), it does not have the semantic content of that word (ie SALT does not mean the material "Salt", even though it has the same form).And she doesn't say that "SLON" means elephant. She says that "slon" means elephant.
Fine with me. I assume that on that basis, Sergey Romanov would have no objection to the suggestion that he would be an ideal candidate for the position of "Rukovoditel' Oblastnikh Lagerei Unichtozheniia Dvorian i Narodnostei Iskliuchennykh iz Kitaia" (RukObLUDNIK).
[Sorry for the formatting of the message. This BB editor is too tiny for a long post and it doesn't retain all the markings of a word processor]
>Why does Earldor need to resort to personal denigration? Why not just >address the evidence?
Lets start at the end. I called your fiction irvingesque firstly because your point in the first article is the exact same one as David Irving made in his trial. He even mentions the Heydrich speech in his final statement. So, I was wondering where you got the idea...
The second reason I question your hypothesis and the rest of your reasoning reminds me of Irving's reasoning. You do not deny the Holocaust as such, but you are trying to imply that it wasn't planned and it was unsystematic and somehow not deliberate. You pick and choose evidence, and put your own spin on them, even if it is contradicted by most historians. Alf is correct in blaming you for trying to present your view in a vacuum. It is a pity, since you seem extremely knowledgeable in the Holocaust lore.
Now, for the pudding.
It is extremely curious that a leading nazi would really consider it possible to send Jews to the White Sea area in early February 1942. I challenge Michael to produce the text in context, so that we may draw our conclusions on the matter. If you are referring to the Walter Föhl -letter, that Irving was talking about in his trial, we can see that Föhl was talking about sending the Jews in the direction of the White Sea, i.e. the Baltic countries and Ostland. Most historians are of the opinion that this letter was written in typical nazi double talk.
I'd like to point you to the Jeckeln -interrogation: http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/jeckeln.html
”Q: Did you report the execution of the order to Himmler?
A: Yes, indeed. I notified Himmler by phone that the ghetto in Riga had been liquidated. And then when I was in Lötzen, East Prussia, in December 1941, I reported in person, too. (3) Himmler was satisfied with the results. He said that more Jewish convoys were due to arrive in Latvia, and these were to be liquidated by me also.
Q: Go into more detail.
A: At the end of January 1942, (4) I was at Himmler's headquarters in Lötzen, East Prussia, to discuss organizational matters regarding the Latvian SS legions. There Himmler informed me that additional Jewish convoys were due to arrive from the Reich and from other countries. The destination point would be the Salaspils concentration camp, which lay one and a quarter miles from Riga in the direction of Dünaburg. Himmler said that he had not yet determined how he would have them exterminated: whether to have them shot on board their convoys or in Salaspils, or whether to chase them into the swamp somewhere.
Q: How was the matter resolved?
A: It was my opinion that shooting would be the simpler and quicker death. Himmler said he would think it over and then give orders later through Heydrich.
Q: What countries were the Jews in Salaspils brought from?
A: Jews were brought from Germany, France, Belgium, Holland,Czechoslovakia, and from other occupied countries to the Salaspils camp. To give a precise count of the Jews in the Salaspils camp would be difficult. In any case, all the Jews from the camp were exterminated. But I would like to make an additional statement while we are on this topic.
Q: What statement would you like to make?
A: I would like to say for the record that Göring shares in the guilt for the liquidations of Jewish convoys that arrived from other countries. In the first half of February 1942 I received a letter from Heydrich. In this letter he wrote that Reich Marshall Göring had gotten himself involved in the Jewish question, and that Jews were now being shipped to the East for annihilation only with Göring's approval.”
It is clear from this interrogation that Himmler, Heydrich and Göring were aware of the real state of the matters ”in the East”. To claim that this Heydrich speech is absolute proof that the nazis were still planning on establishing camps in and deporting them to the White Sea region (for the Jews) is simply ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous to claim that no decision to exterminate the Jews sent to the East had not been taken, and mind you, the general direction East doesn't always refer to the Soviet Union.
Anyhow, we have reports that clearly indicate that the Jews sent to the occupied Soviet Union were mostly executed on arrival or soon after.
The Einsatzgruppen were killing Jews indiscriminately by February 1942, Chelmno was killing Jews indiscriminately by February 1942, Belzec had gas chambers operational by February 1942, the building of Sobibor and Treblinka were just around the corner. All of these facts testify against your claim that no decision to exterminate the Jews had not been taken by February 1942. You should also be aware of the Lohse-debacle, right?
>>2) Nazi Germany also toyed with the Madagaskar and the Lublin area >>plans, neither of which was ever realized.
>I do not see what point Earldor is making here.
>
>They were serious plans, in relation to which quite a lot of planning was >done. In the case of the Lublin Plan, implementation actually began, >with a small number of Jews from Austria and the Annexed Eastern >Territories being sent there; Jews deported from Germany continued to >be sent to the Lublin District in 1942.
[snip]
They were serious plans, but the plans were abandoned when new decisions were made. The same applies to the suggested White Sea plans (Mind you, you haven't shown that there was a plan to establish camps for Jews in there. A reference to the White Sea by Heydrich does not make a plan).
>>3) Belzec was already being constructed in late fall >>(November-December 1941).
>The camp just to the south of Belzec railway station existed as early as >December 1939, when it served as at transit camp for Jews crossing the >border into the Soviet Zone of Occupation. Kozielewski-Karski described >it in his first report of 1940.
What's this got to do with the price of fish? The Belzec death camp was an entirely different camp.
http://www.deathcamps.org/belzec/labourcamps.html
http://www.deathcamps.org/belzec/belzec.html
>Later, in 1940, it served as a holding camp for Jewish labourers working >on the construction of defenses on the border with the Soviet Zone, >especially the excavation of a massive anti-tank ditch. That excavation >appears to be the work described by Rudolf Reder, when he described >his employment as the maintenance-man for an excavator used for >digging large ditches outside the camp.
I don't know how many times I had to re-write my reply to this point. I'm outraged by this claim! I demand you present your proof for this lie. Rudolf Reder wrote of his experiences in the Belzec death camp. Are you seriously saying that he was not in that camp?
>According to post-war reports by local Poles, the camp appears to have >been reactivated in about October 1941, when it became a Sonderlager >der Waffen-SS.
It was not the same camp, as you can see from the articles on the ARC -site.
>What exactly its purpose at that point was is unclear;
Another lie. ”SS-Scharführer Erich Fuchs, who was engaged in the euthanasia institution at Bernburg, testified about Wirth and his arrival to Belzec:
'[...] One day in the winter of 1941 Wirth arranged a transport [of euthanasia personnel] to Poland. I was picked together with about eight or ten other men and transferred to Belzec. ...I don't remember the names of the others. Upon arrival in Belzec, we met Friedel Schwarz and the other SS men, whose names I cannot remember. They supervised the construction of barracks that would serve as gas chamber. Wirth told us that in Belzec ”all the Jews will be struck down.”For this purpose barracks were built as gas chambers. I installed shower heads in the gas chambers. The nozzles were not connected to water pipes; they would serve as camouflage for the gas chamber. For the Jews who were gassed it would seem as if they were being taken to baths and for disinfection.” (Y. Arad: Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka; The Operation Reinhard Death Camps, p. 24)
Also check out Stanislaw Kozak's statement from the Belzec -webpage.
>it is known that transports of Jews to the camp began in mid-March 1942, >and that the Jews were killed and buried there, but that was after the >elapse of almost 6 months, so we cannot be certain that it had been >designated as a killing centre as early as October 1941.
I left this here to show how you twist and lie in the manner of Irving.
>>4) Chelmno started operations early December 1941.
>As I have patiently explained, the killing operation at Chelmno was a the >result of a local agreement between Himmler and the Reichsstatthalter >Wartheland, Arthur Greiser, allowing the latter to kill off 100,000 of the >Jews in his Gau, ie about one-third of the total.
What are you trying to say? That killing off 100 000 Warthegau Jews does not constitute a decision to kill off Jews? How silly is that?
http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/chelmno.html:
”The first Chelmno phase lasted from 7th December 1941 until March 1943. Except from the Jews in the Lodz Ghetto all others from the Warthegau were killed. Among the victims were 15,000 Jews from Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Luxemburg, 5000 Gypsies, Poles, Soviet POWs and 88 Czech children from Lidice. During Chelmno's second phase (June 1944 until July 1944) 10,000 Jews from the Lodz ghetto were liquidated. ”
[snip]
>The Chelmno operation, which claimed as its victims those Jews of the >Wartheland selected as unusable for labour, may well have served as a >precedent for a later decision to exterminate the unemployable part of >the Jews of the Generalgouvernement, but its exostence cannot be taken >as an indication that a general extermination decision had been reached >by December 1941.
On the contrary, when you have an extermination facility operational in early December 1941, you CAN make the simple deduction that ”a general extermination decision has been reached.” When you have Einsatzgruppen rampant, two extermination camps (Chelmno and Semlin) operational, roaming euthanasia operation going on and several new death camps planned, you can definately say that a general extermination decision has been taken.
Stop for a second to think how idiotic your claim is.
You can go through the books written about the Lodz/Litzmannstadt ghetto and then consider how the victims were chosen. Then you might want to consider whether it makes any difference what excuse or need the Nazi's used to rationalize the order in which the Jews were sent to their deaths.
>>5) Auschwitz-Birkenau tested with Zyklon B in September 1941 and >>Höss refers to a physical extermination order from the Führer given to >>him by Himmler.
>The date of the first homicidal use of Zyklon-B at Auschwitz is not known >for certain; some historians believe it was September 1941, others >believe it was December of that year.
Most agree that it was most likely September.
>In any case, the first homicidal use of Zyklon-B was in the context of the >program of killing Soviet >POWs who had been identified as dangerous >Communists and sent to various concentration camp for [...] secret >execution.
Are you saying that it is acceptable to kill Soviet POWs? Who decided that these Soviet POWs were dangerous? Is it acceptable to kill dangerous Soviet POWs? Was the fact that some of them were communists enough to make them dangerous? Are you saying that because these victims were mostly Soviet POWs, the largest number of victims of Zyklon B weren't Jews?
This is a clear indication that the Nazis were looking for a good way to ”bump off” large numbers of people.
>There was absolutely no relationship between the first homicidal use of >Zyklon-B and a program to exterminate Jews.
Absolute claptrap. Why such a categorical denial? For some reason you seem to say that you cannot see the connection between the September 1941 test gassings and the larger scale gassing starting next year in Auschwitz? How odd.
>Hoess's post-war account of an order for the extermination of all >European Jews, supposedly given to him by Himmler in the summer of >1941, is rejected by most historians because of its impossible >chronology, when compared with other events, and also because of the >glaring internal chronological contradictions within the account itself.
Most historian acknowledge the chronological mistake my Höss. But they do accept the general timeframe of events. ”Comparing Höss' testimony to that of Adolf Eichmann at least two elements remain in tact; first, that Höss learned of the decision for the extermination of the Jews sometime in the summer of 1941 but did not yet know how this would be accomplished, and, second, that Eichmann did subsequently visit Auschwitz.”(Richard Breitman; The Architect of the Genocide; Himmler and the Final Solution”, p.23). Breitman also dates the Himmler-Höss meeting to mid-July (13th-15th). Himmler seems to have been very active in this timeframe. He met up with Globocnik on the 21.7. and with Prützmann on the 29.7.
Von dem Bach-Zelewski: ”In early August just after Himmler's visit, Prützmann mentioned to some subordinates in his office in Riga that Himmler had instructed him to resettle ”criminal elements”. When someone asked where they were to be resettled to, Prützmann replied that the questioner had misconstrued the situation – they would be sent to the next world.”
>Elsewhere Hoess says that Himmler's order to kill the unemployable Jews >at Auschwitz was given during Himmler's visit in July 1942.
To put this in the correct context see:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/hitler-final-solution/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ndex.shtml
>>6) Einsatzgruppen were reaping havoc in the Soviet Union and had >>been at it since the beginning of Operation Barbarossa.
>The Einsatzgruppen were not initially carrying out a program of >exterminating Soviet Jewish communities. Their orders were to execute >Jews in high state and party positions, that is all. Once the Soviet >atrocities had been discovered, large-scale reprisal actions were >undertaken against Jewish men of military age.
Somehow it seems that the Einsatzgruppen were killing Jews almost indiscriminately from the beginning of the Russian Feldzug. They used the NKVD atrocities as an excuse to incite the local population to help them in the extermination of the local Jews. You are, once again, putting your own spin on the matter.
>But the destruction of whole Jewish communities, including women and >children, did not begin until later. It started first in Lithuania, on 15 >August; we know the precise date because of the boastful Jäger >Reports detailing the "exploits" of Einsatzkommando 3. In other areas it >began later, in some cases not until the end of 1941.
Let's say that the indiscriminate killing started demonstrably in early August 1941, a bit after a month after the beginning of the attack on the SU. Again, we may say, that your claim of no extermination decision until after February 1942, takes a beating.
>But throug most of the territory through which the Einsatzgruppen >roamed, the majority of the Jewish population was not killed off in 1941, >but ghettoised. The Jews of Volhynia were not comprehensively >destroyed until the summer of 1942. In Galicia, although there was a >number of shooting actions in 1941, the extermination of the >unemployable Jews did not begin until the Spring of 1942, and even >then about half the Jewish population of the region was still alive at the >end of that year and living in local ghettos.
There were millions of Jews living in those areas, the Nazis tried their best.
>The evidence shows that during the first six months or so of the >German-Soviet war, the Einsatzgruppen were by no means engaged in a >general slaughter of the jewish population of the occupied Soviet >territories.
The evidence shows that ”During the winter of 1941-42, Einsatzgruppe A reported killing 2000 Jews in Estonia [rendering Estonia ”judenfrei”.My note], 70 000 in Latvia, 136 421 in Lithuania, and 41 000 in Belorussia. On November 14, 1941, Einsatzgruppe B reported an additional 45 467 shootings, and on July 31, 1942, the governor of Belorussia reported 65 000 Jews had been killed in the previous two months. Einsatzgruppe C estimated it had killed 95 000 by December 1941. Finally, on April 8, 1942, Einsatzgruppe D reported a total of 92 000 killed, for a grand total of 546 888 dead, or more than half a million in less than one year.” (Sherman&Grobman: ”Denying History”, p. 182-83). Are you claiming that that doesn't mean ”general slaughter”?
>Why does Earldor need to resort to personal denigration? Why not just >address the evidence?
Lets start at the end. I called your fiction irvingesque firstly because your point in the first article is the exact same one as David Irving made in his trial. He even mentions the Heydrich speech in his final statement. So, I was wondering where you got the idea...
The second reason I question your hypothesis and the rest of your reasoning reminds me of Irving's reasoning. You do not deny the Holocaust as such, but you are trying to imply that it wasn't planned and it was unsystematic and somehow not deliberate. You pick and choose evidence, and put your own spin on them, even if it is contradicted by most historians. Alf is correct in blaming you for trying to present your view in a vacuum. It is a pity, since you seem extremely knowledgeable in the Holocaust lore.
Now, for the pudding.
It is extremely curious that a leading nazi would really consider it possible to send Jews to the White Sea area in early February 1942. I challenge Michael to produce the text in context, so that we may draw our conclusions on the matter. If you are referring to the Walter Föhl -letter, that Irving was talking about in his trial, we can see that Föhl was talking about sending the Jews in the direction of the White Sea, i.e. the Baltic countries and Ostland. Most historians are of the opinion that this letter was written in typical nazi double talk.
I'd like to point you to the Jeckeln -interrogation: http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/jeckeln.html
”Q: Did you report the execution of the order to Himmler?
A: Yes, indeed. I notified Himmler by phone that the ghetto in Riga had been liquidated. And then when I was in Lötzen, East Prussia, in December 1941, I reported in person, too. (3) Himmler was satisfied with the results. He said that more Jewish convoys were due to arrive in Latvia, and these were to be liquidated by me also.
Q: Go into more detail.
A: At the end of January 1942, (4) I was at Himmler's headquarters in Lötzen, East Prussia, to discuss organizational matters regarding the Latvian SS legions. There Himmler informed me that additional Jewish convoys were due to arrive from the Reich and from other countries. The destination point would be the Salaspils concentration camp, which lay one and a quarter miles from Riga in the direction of Dünaburg. Himmler said that he had not yet determined how he would have them exterminated: whether to have them shot on board their convoys or in Salaspils, or whether to chase them into the swamp somewhere.
Q: How was the matter resolved?
A: It was my opinion that shooting would be the simpler and quicker death. Himmler said he would think it over and then give orders later through Heydrich.
Q: What countries were the Jews in Salaspils brought from?
A: Jews were brought from Germany, France, Belgium, Holland,Czechoslovakia, and from other occupied countries to the Salaspils camp. To give a precise count of the Jews in the Salaspils camp would be difficult. In any case, all the Jews from the camp were exterminated. But I would like to make an additional statement while we are on this topic.
Q: What statement would you like to make?
A: I would like to say for the record that Göring shares in the guilt for the liquidations of Jewish convoys that arrived from other countries. In the first half of February 1942 I received a letter from Heydrich. In this letter he wrote that Reich Marshall Göring had gotten himself involved in the Jewish question, and that Jews were now being shipped to the East for annihilation only with Göring's approval.”
It is clear from this interrogation that Himmler, Heydrich and Göring were aware of the real state of the matters ”in the East”. To claim that this Heydrich speech is absolute proof that the nazis were still planning on establishing camps in and deporting them to the White Sea region (for the Jews) is simply ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous to claim that no decision to exterminate the Jews sent to the East had not been taken, and mind you, the general direction East doesn't always refer to the Soviet Union.
Anyhow, we have reports that clearly indicate that the Jews sent to the occupied Soviet Union were mostly executed on arrival or soon after.
The Einsatzgruppen were killing Jews indiscriminately by February 1942, Chelmno was killing Jews indiscriminately by February 1942, Belzec had gas chambers operational by February 1942, the building of Sobibor and Treblinka were just around the corner. All of these facts testify against your claim that no decision to exterminate the Jews had not been taken by February 1942. You should also be aware of the Lohse-debacle, right?
>>2) Nazi Germany also toyed with the Madagaskar and the Lublin area >>plans, neither of which was ever realized.
>I do not see what point Earldor is making here.
>
>They were serious plans, in relation to which quite a lot of planning was >done. In the case of the Lublin Plan, implementation actually began, >with a small number of Jews from Austria and the Annexed Eastern >Territories being sent there; Jews deported from Germany continued to >be sent to the Lublin District in 1942.
[snip]
They were serious plans, but the plans were abandoned when new decisions were made. The same applies to the suggested White Sea plans (Mind you, you haven't shown that there was a plan to establish camps for Jews in there. A reference to the White Sea by Heydrich does not make a plan).
>>3) Belzec was already being constructed in late fall >>(November-December 1941).
>The camp just to the south of Belzec railway station existed as early as >December 1939, when it served as at transit camp for Jews crossing the >border into the Soviet Zone of Occupation. Kozielewski-Karski described >it in his first report of 1940.
What's this got to do with the price of fish? The Belzec death camp was an entirely different camp.
http://www.deathcamps.org/belzec/labourcamps.html
http://www.deathcamps.org/belzec/belzec.html
>Later, in 1940, it served as a holding camp for Jewish labourers working >on the construction of defenses on the border with the Soviet Zone, >especially the excavation of a massive anti-tank ditch. That excavation >appears to be the work described by Rudolf Reder, when he described >his employment as the maintenance-man for an excavator used for >digging large ditches outside the camp.
I don't know how many times I had to re-write my reply to this point. I'm outraged by this claim! I demand you present your proof for this lie. Rudolf Reder wrote of his experiences in the Belzec death camp. Are you seriously saying that he was not in that camp?
>According to post-war reports by local Poles, the camp appears to have >been reactivated in about October 1941, when it became a Sonderlager >der Waffen-SS.
It was not the same camp, as you can see from the articles on the ARC -site.
>What exactly its purpose at that point was is unclear;
Another lie. ”SS-Scharführer Erich Fuchs, who was engaged in the euthanasia institution at Bernburg, testified about Wirth and his arrival to Belzec:
'[...] One day in the winter of 1941 Wirth arranged a transport [of euthanasia personnel] to Poland. I was picked together with about eight or ten other men and transferred to Belzec. ...I don't remember the names of the others. Upon arrival in Belzec, we met Friedel Schwarz and the other SS men, whose names I cannot remember. They supervised the construction of barracks that would serve as gas chamber. Wirth told us that in Belzec ”all the Jews will be struck down.”For this purpose barracks were built as gas chambers. I installed shower heads in the gas chambers. The nozzles were not connected to water pipes; they would serve as camouflage for the gas chamber. For the Jews who were gassed it would seem as if they were being taken to baths and for disinfection.” (Y. Arad: Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka; The Operation Reinhard Death Camps, p. 24)
Also check out Stanislaw Kozak's statement from the Belzec -webpage.
>it is known that transports of Jews to the camp began in mid-March 1942, >and that the Jews were killed and buried there, but that was after the >elapse of almost 6 months, so we cannot be certain that it had been >designated as a killing centre as early as October 1941.
I left this here to show how you twist and lie in the manner of Irving.
>>4) Chelmno started operations early December 1941.
>As I have patiently explained, the killing operation at Chelmno was a the >result of a local agreement between Himmler and the Reichsstatthalter >Wartheland, Arthur Greiser, allowing the latter to kill off 100,000 of the >Jews in his Gau, ie about one-third of the total.
What are you trying to say? That killing off 100 000 Warthegau Jews does not constitute a decision to kill off Jews? How silly is that?
http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/chelmno.html:
”The first Chelmno phase lasted from 7th December 1941 until March 1943. Except from the Jews in the Lodz Ghetto all others from the Warthegau were killed. Among the victims were 15,000 Jews from Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Luxemburg, 5000 Gypsies, Poles, Soviet POWs and 88 Czech children from Lidice. During Chelmno's second phase (June 1944 until July 1944) 10,000 Jews from the Lodz ghetto were liquidated. ”
[snip]
>The Chelmno operation, which claimed as its victims those Jews of the >Wartheland selected as unusable for labour, may well have served as a >precedent for a later decision to exterminate the unemployable part of >the Jews of the Generalgouvernement, but its exostence cannot be taken >as an indication that a general extermination decision had been reached >by December 1941.
On the contrary, when you have an extermination facility operational in early December 1941, you CAN make the simple deduction that ”a general extermination decision has been reached.” When you have Einsatzgruppen rampant, two extermination camps (Chelmno and Semlin) operational, roaming euthanasia operation going on and several new death camps planned, you can definately say that a general extermination decision has been taken.
Stop for a second to think how idiotic your claim is.
You can go through the books written about the Lodz/Litzmannstadt ghetto and then consider how the victims were chosen. Then you might want to consider whether it makes any difference what excuse or need the Nazi's used to rationalize the order in which the Jews were sent to their deaths.
>>5) Auschwitz-Birkenau tested with Zyklon B in September 1941 and >>Höss refers to a physical extermination order from the Führer given to >>him by Himmler.
>The date of the first homicidal use of Zyklon-B at Auschwitz is not known >for certain; some historians believe it was September 1941, others >believe it was December of that year.
Most agree that it was most likely September.
>In any case, the first homicidal use of Zyklon-B was in the context of the >program of killing Soviet >POWs who had been identified as dangerous >Communists and sent to various concentration camp for [...] secret >execution.
Are you saying that it is acceptable to kill Soviet POWs? Who decided that these Soviet POWs were dangerous? Is it acceptable to kill dangerous Soviet POWs? Was the fact that some of them were communists enough to make them dangerous? Are you saying that because these victims were mostly Soviet POWs, the largest number of victims of Zyklon B weren't Jews?
This is a clear indication that the Nazis were looking for a good way to ”bump off” large numbers of people.
>There was absolutely no relationship between the first homicidal use of >Zyklon-B and a program to exterminate Jews.
Absolute claptrap. Why such a categorical denial? For some reason you seem to say that you cannot see the connection between the September 1941 test gassings and the larger scale gassing starting next year in Auschwitz? How odd.
>Hoess's post-war account of an order for the extermination of all >European Jews, supposedly given to him by Himmler in the summer of >1941, is rejected by most historians because of its impossible >chronology, when compared with other events, and also because of the >glaring internal chronological contradictions within the account itself.
Most historian acknowledge the chronological mistake my Höss. But they do accept the general timeframe of events. ”Comparing Höss' testimony to that of Adolf Eichmann at least two elements remain in tact; first, that Höss learned of the decision for the extermination of the Jews sometime in the summer of 1941 but did not yet know how this would be accomplished, and, second, that Eichmann did subsequently visit Auschwitz.”(Richard Breitman; The Architect of the Genocide; Himmler and the Final Solution”, p.23). Breitman also dates the Himmler-Höss meeting to mid-July (13th-15th). Himmler seems to have been very active in this timeframe. He met up with Globocnik on the 21.7. and with Prützmann on the 29.7.
Von dem Bach-Zelewski: ”In early August just after Himmler's visit, Prützmann mentioned to some subordinates in his office in Riga that Himmler had instructed him to resettle ”criminal elements”. When someone asked where they were to be resettled to, Prützmann replied that the questioner had misconstrued the situation – they would be sent to the next world.”
>Elsewhere Hoess says that Himmler's order to kill the unemployable Jews >at Auschwitz was given during Himmler's visit in July 1942.
To put this in the correct context see:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/hitler-final-solution/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ndex.shtml
>>6) Einsatzgruppen were reaping havoc in the Soviet Union and had >>been at it since the beginning of Operation Barbarossa.
>The Einsatzgruppen were not initially carrying out a program of >exterminating Soviet Jewish communities. Their orders were to execute >Jews in high state and party positions, that is all. Once the Soviet >atrocities had been discovered, large-scale reprisal actions were >undertaken against Jewish men of military age.
Somehow it seems that the Einsatzgruppen were killing Jews almost indiscriminately from the beginning of the Russian Feldzug. They used the NKVD atrocities as an excuse to incite the local population to help them in the extermination of the local Jews. You are, once again, putting your own spin on the matter.
>But the destruction of whole Jewish communities, including women and >children, did not begin until later. It started first in Lithuania, on 15 >August; we know the precise date because of the boastful Jäger >Reports detailing the "exploits" of Einsatzkommando 3. In other areas it >began later, in some cases not until the end of 1941.
Let's say that the indiscriminate killing started demonstrably in early August 1941, a bit after a month after the beginning of the attack on the SU. Again, we may say, that your claim of no extermination decision until after February 1942, takes a beating.
>But throug most of the territory through which the Einsatzgruppen >roamed, the majority of the Jewish population was not killed off in 1941, >but ghettoised. The Jews of Volhynia were not comprehensively >destroyed until the summer of 1942. In Galicia, although there was a >number of shooting actions in 1941, the extermination of the >unemployable Jews did not begin until the Spring of 1942, and even >then about half the Jewish population of the region was still alive at the >end of that year and living in local ghettos.
There were millions of Jews living in those areas, the Nazis tried their best.
>The evidence shows that during the first six months or so of the >German-Soviet war, the Einsatzgruppen were by no means engaged in a >general slaughter of the jewish population of the occupied Soviet >territories.
The evidence shows that ”During the winter of 1941-42, Einsatzgruppe A reported killing 2000 Jews in Estonia [rendering Estonia ”judenfrei”.My note], 70 000 in Latvia, 136 421 in Lithuania, and 41 000 in Belorussia. On November 14, 1941, Einsatzgruppe B reported an additional 45 467 shootings, and on July 31, 1942, the governor of Belorussia reported 65 000 Jews had been killed in the previous two months. Einsatzgruppe C estimated it had killed 95 000 by December 1941. Finally, on April 8, 1942, Einsatzgruppe D reported a total of 92 000 killed, for a grand total of 546 888 dead, or more than half a million in less than one year.” (Sherman&Grobman: ”Denying History”, p. 182-83). Are you claiming that that doesn't mean ”general slaughter”?
michael mills wrote:Xcalibur wrote:
If we are to err in interpreting this passage let's do it on the side of caution. It may be that Hitler is not referring at all about the Jews then within the sphere of German control but rather to Jews he expected would come under German control in future, ie, those that had fled european Russia with the retreating Red Army.There is another Goebbels diary entry that is interesting particularly coming as it does two months after he had recorded the entry concerning Aktion Reinhard. On 25 May 1942 he quotes Hitler saying that "by preference he would like to settle them all [not in Siberia, where they would be toughened but] in Central Africa... in a climate that would [weaken] them and their resistance."
That shows that as of May 1942, Hitler had not given any order for the extermination of all Jews under German control. Why would he need to use camouflage to Goebbels, who already knew about the ongoing extermination of 60% of the Jews in the Generalgouvernement, and was a strong supporter of making Europe "Jew-free"?
The whole idea of concentrating jews in either Siberia or Central Africa has a futuristic quality about it. By this I mean that it rather presupposes a successful conclusion to German military operations both in the Soviet Union as well as in the west. In short, if one is going to concentrate jews in either of those two places one must have those places under one's control as well as controlling the avenues of getting them there.
Another thought: The whole idea as expressed by Goebbels may have been nothing more than Hitler "waxing philosophic" about the future. As we know Aktion Reinhard was in it's early stages and Hitler may, at that point, have been uncertain as to whether or not it would achieve the desired result. Thinking in the sense of "If Himmler can't pull this one off we'll ship the buggers to Siberia, or better yet, to Africa where they'll succumb to the climate.".
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
I will pass over most of the crudely vituperative accusations in Earldor's last post, and address the excerpt from the Jeckeln "interrogation".
In my opinion, the material in the excerpt must be rejected as having any histoical value. It is most likely that Jeckeln is simply being asked to confirm a version of events that his Soviet interrogators had decided on in advance; in other words, Jeckeln is simply reading from a script.
That conclusion is shown by a number of historical errors in the version of events put forward by Jeckeln that we know about, but were not obvious to the Soviet interrogators.
One of those errors is his statement that he went to see Himmler in December 1941, and the latter congratulated him on his work in exterminating the Riga ghetto.
In fact, we know from a Bletchley Park intercept that a couple of days after the Rumbula massacre, Himmler sent Jeckeln a very strongly-worded reprimand for acting against orders in including a transport of newly arrived Reich Jews in the massacre, and warning that he would be punished if he did so again.
By contrast, the Soviet interrogators could not have known that (it was not known at all until the Bletchley Park intercepts were declassified and released); they assumed that the massacre of the transport from Berlin had been ordered by Himmler, so they got Jeckeln to confirm their mistaken notion.
It is also historically false that Himmler ordered Jeckeln to exterminate the transports of Jews from Germany that would continue to arrive in Riga. In fact, he ordered the exact opposite. And in fact all the following transports, which continued to arrive until January 1942, were taken into either the Riga ghetto or the Jumpravmuiza camp, without selection.
A third historical falsehood is that the Salaspils Camp was an extermination camp for Jews. Although it was was built by Jews deported from the Reich, its inmates were nearly all non-Jews, local Communists, captured partisans etc. I suggest Earldor read the book "The Holocaust in Latvia", by Andrew Ezergailis, which will set him straight on the above points. The book shows that an unusually large proportion of the Reich Jews survived in Riga until the summer of 1944, when most of them were evacuated by sea to camps in Germany.
The labour camp in which some Reich Jews were held was Jumpravmuiza, or Jungfernhof in German.
Another indication that Jeckeln was simply following a prepared script, which he may well have memorised, is his unprompted reference to Goering. He was not answering a question; he actually volunteered the information. That suggests that the Soviet interrogators wanted a statement linking Goering to the liquidations, so they "suggested" one to Jeckeln that he could confirm.
Earldor needs to read his sources more critically.
In my opinion, the material in the excerpt must be rejected as having any histoical value. It is most likely that Jeckeln is simply being asked to confirm a version of events that his Soviet interrogators had decided on in advance; in other words, Jeckeln is simply reading from a script.
That conclusion is shown by a number of historical errors in the version of events put forward by Jeckeln that we know about, but were not obvious to the Soviet interrogators.
One of those errors is his statement that he went to see Himmler in December 1941, and the latter congratulated him on his work in exterminating the Riga ghetto.
In fact, we know from a Bletchley Park intercept that a couple of days after the Rumbula massacre, Himmler sent Jeckeln a very strongly-worded reprimand for acting against orders in including a transport of newly arrived Reich Jews in the massacre, and warning that he would be punished if he did so again.
By contrast, the Soviet interrogators could not have known that (it was not known at all until the Bletchley Park intercepts were declassified and released); they assumed that the massacre of the transport from Berlin had been ordered by Himmler, so they got Jeckeln to confirm their mistaken notion.
It is also historically false that Himmler ordered Jeckeln to exterminate the transports of Jews from Germany that would continue to arrive in Riga. In fact, he ordered the exact opposite. And in fact all the following transports, which continued to arrive until January 1942, were taken into either the Riga ghetto or the Jumpravmuiza camp, without selection.
A third historical falsehood is that the Salaspils Camp was an extermination camp for Jews. Although it was was built by Jews deported from the Reich, its inmates were nearly all non-Jews, local Communists, captured partisans etc. I suggest Earldor read the book "The Holocaust in Latvia", by Andrew Ezergailis, which will set him straight on the above points. The book shows that an unusually large proportion of the Reich Jews survived in Riga until the summer of 1944, when most of them were evacuated by sea to camps in Germany.
The labour camp in which some Reich Jews were held was Jumpravmuiza, or Jungfernhof in German.
Another indication that Jeckeln was simply following a prepared script, which he may well have memorised, is his unprompted reference to Goering. He was not answering a question; he actually volunteered the information. That suggests that the Soviet interrogators wanted a statement linking Goering to the liquidations, so they "suggested" one to Jeckeln that he could confirm.
Earldor needs to read his sources more critically.
I would suggest you turn the mirror on yourself, and provide the Heydrich quote you started this thread with. Also you might want to address the Belzec -challenges I posed in the previous message.In my opinion, your indignation is put into curious light, when we consider the evidence presented. Also your original point in this thread is curiously similar to the suggestion by David Irving in his trial (Day 25. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... index.html make a search for "White Sea", also http://www.david-irving.de/docs/proc/irving-day26.html). Your indignation is again put into strange light when the Irving site reveals, that you have been helping mr. Irving in his trial, and you seem to be in contact with other revisionist sources (e.g. CODOH).michael mills wrote:I will pass over most of the crudely vituperative accusations in Earldor's last post, and address the excerpt from the Jeckeln "interrogation".
In my opinion, the material in the excerpt must be rejected as having any histoical value.
No doubt...
[snip]
In fact, we know from a Bletchley Park intercept that a couple of days after the Rumbula massacre, Himmler sent Jeckeln a very strongly-worded reprimand for acting against orders in including a transport of newly arrived Reich Jews in the massacre, and warning that he would be punished if he did so again.
Well, again, you seem to insist on putting your spin on the events. I'll quote three holocaust scholars on the matter, and it is my understanding that only revisionist scholars seem to deny the authenticity of the Jeckeln -transcript, and other extremely scathing documents that historians have found.
So, your new claim is that Himmler didn't want to liquidate the Jews transported to the Ostland. My claim is that this is poppycock, since the exchange between Himmler and Heydrich (and Jeckeln) refers to a specific transport and the reasons are clear from these quotes:
Gerald Fleming: Hitler and the Final Solution p.89-90:
"On 25 and 29 November 1941, five convoys of German Jews from Munich, Berlin, Frankfurt, Vienna, and Breslau were massacred in Kovno in Fort IX, without any prior screening to determine which were fit for labor and which were not. On Sunday, 30 November, at 1:30 P.M., the RFSS Himmler telephoned Heydrich in Prague from the bunker of the Führer's Headquarters, the Wolf's Lair (Wolfschanze). Himmler knew full well that he had already issued the first liquidation orders for Riga to the newly appointed Higher SS and Police Leader for the Ostland, Friedrich Jeckeln, on 10 and 11 November from his headquarters in the Prinz-Albrechtstrasse: "Tell Lohse it is my order, which is also the Führer's wish." Now Himmler recalled that on 27 November a Jewish convoy with over one thousand people from Berlin had departed for Riga, arriving there on the evening of 29 November, and had been left on a railway siding, in order for these Jews to be liquidated the following morning. Himmler instructed Heydrich to cancel the scheduled liquidation of this Berlin convoy. (my emphasis) Heydrich's response to the RFSS was, however, a confirmation that all of the Berlin Jews had been shot at 8:15 that morning in the Rumbuli Forest, ahead of their fourteen thousand companions in misfortune from Riga, and that the action was continuing as ordered."
Richard Rhodes: Masters of Death; the Einsatzgruppen and the Invention of the Final Solution p. 212-213:
"Jeckeln repeated the Aktion on 8 December 1941 to clear the rest of the Riga ghetto. The weeklong delay had puzzled historians. It occurred because of the conflict between Jeckeln and Himmler over the liquidation of the transport of one thousand Berlin Jews. (My emphasis) Himmler spoke to Heydrich on the day of the first massacre, 30 November 1941, specifically excluding the transport from the Aktion. He made a note after the phone conversation: "Jewish transport from Berlin, no liquidation." Since the Berlin Jews had already been murdered by then, Himmler was probably responding to a call Heydrich had made prior to that date. When Himmler learned that Reich Jews had been massacred, he radioed Jeckeln and read him the riot act. He told Jeckeln he would punish "unauthorized actions or actions contrary to directives issued either by me or by the Reich Security Main Office under my authority" concerning "treatment of Jews resettled in the Ostland." In a second message the same day he ordered Jeckeln to meet with him at his headquarters in East Prussia on 4 December 1941. Jeckeln's travels account for the gap in time between the first and second Rumbula massacre. On 8 December 1941 the remaining ten thousand Riga Jews were murdered."
Richard Breitman: Architect of Genocide; Himmler and the Final Solution p.216-217:
"In early November the RSHA announced that the Ostland would soon receive fifty thousand German and Czech Jews. Half would go to Minsk, the other half to Riga. Apparently because the concentration camp at Salaspils, near Riga, was not yet ready, the first transports would arrive in Minsk beginning November 10. The Jews scheduled to reach Riga more than a week later might have to be diverted to Kowno if there was no space for them in Riga. Himmler made it quite clear to Jeckeln in November that all Jews in the Ostland would have to be killed. He also noted Prützmann's report that Lohse had opposed executions and liquidation of the Riga ghetto, and stated that the ghetto had to be liquidated whether or not Lohse approved: "Tell Lohse it is my order, which also reflects the Führer's wish."
p.219-220:
"A trainload of a thousand Jews from Berlin had just arrived in Riga, the first of the transports from Germany. Some had frozen to death in the unheated railway cars en route. The survivors joined the march of the Riga Jews to a nearby forest called Rumbuli... A week later at least another eight thousand were killed in the same way. As it happened, everything did not go according to plan on November 30, for the police who had organized the transport from Berlin had failed to take into account a policy that Himmler and Heydrich had adopted at the beginning of the month. The two men had discussed the idea of transporting elderly German Jews, and probably also decorated Jewish war veterans, to the special concentration camp Heydrich had established at Theresienstadt, in Bohemia-Moravia. The elderly were no real danger to security, and they could not bear children. Decorated war veterans, also past their prime, had earned the privilege of living out the rest of their lives in a concentration camp. Although life in Theresienstadt was far from idyllic, the conditions were better than those in virtually any other camp in the East. Diversion of both groups to Theresienstadt would ease the strain on German executioners in Riga, Minsk, and Kowno.
In the first convoys from Berlin, however, were some elderly Jews and decorated war veterans. The violation of policy was serious enough for Himmler, telephoning from the Führer's bunker at Rastenburg, to warn Heydrich on November 30: "Jewish transport from Berlin. No liquidation." The phone call was an attempt to halt the normal course of events - the official policy for all but the exempted was liquidation. "
" (my emphasis)
[snip]
Does it really look like that? I refer to passages quoted above.It is also historically false that Himmler ordered Jeckeln to exterminate the transports of Jews from Germany that would continue to arrive in Riga. In fact, he ordered the exact opposite.
[snip]
A third historical falsehood is that the Salaspils Camp was an extermination camp for Jews.
http://www.rumbula.org/bookexcerpt.htm
http://www.heritagefilms.com/LATVIA.html
"The Einsatzgruppen ("action commandos") played a leading role in the destruction of Latvian Jews, according to information given in their own reports, especially in the report of S.S.-Brigadefuehrer (General) Stahlecker, the commander of Einsatzgruppe A, whose unit operated on the northern Russian front and in the occupied Baltic republics. His account covers the period from the end of June up to Oct. 15, 1941. At the instigation of the Einsatzgruppe, the Latvian auxiliary police carried out a pogrom against the Jews in Riga. All synagogues were destroyed and 400 Jews were killed. According to Stahlecker's report the number of Jews killed in mass executions by Einsatzgruppe A by the end of October 1941 in Riga, Jelgava (Mitau), Liepaja, Valmiera, and Daugavpils totaled 30,025, and by the end of December 1941, 35,238 Latvian Jews had been killed; 2,500 Jews remained in the Riga ghetto and 950 in the Daugavpils ghetto. At the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942, Jews deported from Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and other German-occupied countries began arriving in Latvia. Some 15,000 "Reich Jews" were settled in several streets of the liquidated "greater Riga ghetto." Many transports were taken straight from the Riga railroad station to execution sites in the Rumbuli and Bikernieks forests near Riga, and elsewhere. [...]
The German occupying power in Latvia also kept Jews in "barracks camps," i.e., near their places of forced labor. A considerable number of such camps were located in the Riga area and other localities. Larger concentrations camps included those at Salaspils and Kaiserwald (Meza Parks). The Salaspils concentration camp, set up at the end of 1941, contained thousands of people, including many Latvian and foreign Jews. Conditions in this camp, one of the worst in Latvia, led to heavy loss of life among the inmates. The Kaiserwald concentration camp, established in the summer of 1943, contained the Jewish survivors from the ghettos of Riga, Daugavpils, Liepaja, and other places, as well as non-Jews. At the end of September 1943 Jews from the liquidated Vilna ghetto were also taken to Kaiserwald. When the Soviet victories in the summer of 1944 forced a German retreat from the Baltic states, the surviving inmates of the Kaiserwald camp were deported by the Germans to Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig, and from there were sent to various other camps.
[snip]
Maybe you can give me a quote from Ezergailis' book showing the numbers, instead of just implying that a lot of Jews survived in Riga until the summer 1944.The book shows that an unusually large proportion of the Reich Jews survived in Riga until the summer of 1944, when most of them were evacuated by sea to camps in Germany.
http://www.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035/jungfern.htmlThe labour camp in which some Reich Jews were held was Jumpravmuiza, or Jungfernhof in German.
"There were already around 4,000 people imprisoned in Jungfernhof before the 1,000 peopled "Hamburg transport" arrived, Jews from Fürth, Würzburg, Würthemburg, Vienna and other towns and cities in greater Germany. Jews from Berlin were also intended to be sent to Jungfernhof, however, only their luggage arrived. To the newcomers the camp inhabitants looked like Egyptian mummies; they were shrouded in blankets and wandered to and fro, in the confined space, to keep themselves warm in the bitter cold. Here the "new arrivals" acquired some information which clarified things a little. Jungfernhof had originally been an agricultural estate and was totally unsuitable as a camp for the now 5,000 prisoners. "
"Numerous people died daily in Jungfernhof. Particularly elderly and sick people quickly died a "natural death". They were then carried out on a stretcher and buried in a mass grave near a potato field. Within less than a week, between the 10th and 15th December 1941, two hundred Jews lay in this mass grave including those murdered by Obersturmbandführer Dr Lange and other "authorized punishers" ("Bestrafungsbevollmächtigten")."
http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brdeng ... eng307.htm
"Subject of the proceeding: Selection and transportation of Jews from the Riga ghetto to the nearby woods, where they were subsequently shot. Shooting of 40 Jewish-Latvian order policemen in the Riga ghetto after the discovery of a hidden weapons depot. Mishandling and shooting of members from the Jewish labor commandos from the Riga ghetto and of Jewish prisoners from AEL Salaspils. Shooting of prisoners from the labor commando Olai, of KL Gut Jungfernhof, as well as of KL Schlock. Selection of about 3500 Jewish prisoners of KL Gut Jungfernhof (prisoners unfit for work and ill prisoners, as well as mothers with children) within the context of the extermination action 'Dünamünde'" (my emphasis)
http://www.volksbund.de/schon_gelesen/s ... tation.asp
"Bereits im Februar, aber vor allem am 26. März 1942, fanden sowohl in Jungferhof als auch im Ghetto große Selektionen statt, denen in beiden Lagern nahezu 3 000 als arbeitsunfähig angesehene Menschen zum Opfer fielen. Unter dem Vorwand, sie in ein Lager in Dünamünde zu bringen, das in Wirklichkeit gar nicht existierte und wo es in einer Konservenfabrik angeblich leichtere Arbeitsbedingungen gäbe, transportierte man die Opfer zu den Massengräbern im Bikernieker Wald und erschoss sie. Von diesem Zeitpunkt an war das Ghetto vor allem ein Arbeitsghetto. Jungfernhof bestand als Judenlager noch bis zum Sommer 1942. Die meisten Arbeitskräfte wurden dann in das Rigaer Ghetto gebracht, die übrigen erst 1943."
[snip]
Earldor needs to read his sources more critically.
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
The first concentration camps established by the Bolshevik regime in Russia were located in the northerly regions of European Russia, west of the Urals. They were situated on the shore of the White Sea and in the region of the Pechora River.
The location of the concentration camps had the double advantage of being extremely remote from the major population centres and also being in vast forests where the prisoners could be used for forced labour in the forestry industry. The timber produced by the prisoners became a major earner of foreign exchange for the struggling Bolshevik regime.
The Russian-language acronym for the northern concentration camps, SLON, means "elephant" in Russian.
There seems to be some dispute as to what SLON stands for. I have read that it stands for "Severnye Lageria Osobogo Naznacheniia" + Northern Camps of Special Designation.
Others claim that it stands for "Solvetskii Lager' Osobogo Naznacheniia" = Solovetskii Camp of Special Designation (Solovetskii was one of the first concentration camps, situated on an island in the White Sea).
The location of the concentration camps had the double advantage of being extremely remote from the major population centres and also being in vast forests where the prisoners could be used for forced labour in the forestry industry. The timber produced by the prisoners became a major earner of foreign exchange for the struggling Bolshevik regime.
The Russian-language acronym for the northern concentration camps, SLON, means "elephant" in Russian.
There seems to be some dispute as to what SLON stands for. I have read that it stands for "Severnye Lageria Osobogo Naznacheniia" + Northern Camps of Special Designation.
Others claim that it stands for "Solvetskii Lager' Osobogo Naznacheniia" = Solovetskii Camp of Special Designation (Solovetskii was one of the first concentration camps, situated on an island in the White Sea).
michael mills wrote:
Others claim that it stands for "Solvetskii Lager' Osobogo Naznacheniia" = Solovetskii Camp of Special Designation (Solovetskii was one of the first concentration camps, situated on an island in the White Sea).
Solovetskii island!!!! That is part of Eastern Karelia (during the WWII)soviet republic of Karelia). Finland was planning to conquer all of the Eastern Karelia when it was waging war against the USSR together with Germany 1941-44. There are some details that also Slovetskii island would have be part of the "Greater Finland".
-
Sergey Romanov
- Member
- Posts: 1987
- Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
- Location: World
- Contact:
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
