“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.
Ridiculousness is usually to be found in the “Revisionist” camp. My friend seems to ignore the fact that Franke-Gricksch toured Auschwitz-Birkenau between 14 and 16 May 1943, i.e. before the Bauleitung memo of 28 June 1943 was issued. What the purpose of his report was and for whom he wrote it I don’t know, and I strongly doubt that Snafu does. The 10,000 figure may have been given him by Höss on the basis of an over-optimistic calculation according to which, if 3 bodies were introduced into each of the ovens every 20 minutes as the members of the Sonderkommando had been instructed to do, then every one of the 46 new ovens might burn 9 dead bodies per hour, or 24 x 9 = 216 per day, which with 46 ovens would mean 9,936 dead bodies per day. It may also have been calculated by Franke-Gricksch on his own on the basis of data he got from the supervisor of the Sonderkommando folks. Practical restrictions to these theoretical calculations made before all crematoria were commissioned became apparent first in the Bauleitung memo of 28 June 1943, and further restrictions apparently showed up later in the course of day-to-day operation, but by then Franke-Gricksch was long gone and had written his report. To the extent it matters at all, we therefore have an explanation of how Franke-Gricksch’s exaggerated figure came about that is much more plausible than the “Revisionist” contentions of “forgery”.
“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.
Why silly? Because it doesn’t fit into your bubble and you are in no condition to refute it?
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.
One thing is what he needed to have himself for handling his business, another is what he told visitors – or later on his captors - in order to impress them. In the latter case, the over-optimistic, highly theoretical calculation that he may have embraced himself before obtaining knowledge of the Bauleitung memo of 28 June 1943 seems to have imposed itself in his mind.
“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?
Well, that happens to be the date written on the transcription of the report by the American officer who found it, which may be viewed under the link
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... report.jpg
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.
By such standards every document that surfaced after the inconvenient facts were known is a forgery. Which of course is hollow nonsense. Can Snafu provide even a shred of evidence that Fleming fabricated or manipulated the document? That’s the least thing you might require in the face of such a grievous accusation against an historian of note, don’t you think so?
Not that they made a very good job of it, though. There seems to be some mistake about almost every detail.
Depends on what version of the details you adhere to. If it’s the version dictated by “Revisionist” Faith, then of course everything is wrong with the document. But as that version is supported by nothing other than thin air and wishful thinking, this is something that historiography can comfortably live with.
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.
Why, and I thought it only surfaced in the 1970s due to Fleming’s research efforts. Was Fleming supposed to hop into a time machine and take the document back to the Nuremberg 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.
No, I don’t. What’s the source? And then, a body in a coffin still burns a lot faster than a body without a coffin, doesn’t it?
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))
The context of the above quote would be interesting to know. Was Topf referring to one of the ovens of the new crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau that went into service between April and June 1943, or was he talking about an earlier product of his? A more comprehensive quote would be appreciated, especially considering the “Revisionist” penchant for quoting out of context.
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”.
Depends on when and in regard to which ovens that statement was made. Care to enlighten us in this respect?
Not that it matters much, body mass is body mass and multiple cremations would largely only indicate a correspondingly longer incineration time.
Another old and unsupported Codoh herring, at odds with the evidence as all such herrings:
Mieczyslaw Morawa, a worker in the crematoria, testified that tests done on the Birkenau crematoria before they became fully operational showed that three bodies could be simultaneously burned in a period of 40 minutes in each of the 15 ovens in Krema II. He stated that these tests were conducted with a stopwatch by the SS.
Source of quote:
Body Disposal at Auschwitz: The End of Holocaust Denial
By John C. Zimmerman
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -disposal/
Looks like I’m right in regard to Prüfer’s quote about the strain having been taken out of context and referring to ovens other than the final products commissioned at the Birkenau crematoria …
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.
Do you know what you’re talking about, or are you just parroting Mattogno, my friend? I presume that the ovens couldn’t run uninterruptedly for 24 hours at a time, which is probably one of the main reasons why the theoretical cremation capacity of 4,756 dead bodies within twenty-four hours was never achieved in practice. The real capacity lay somewhat below that – around 3,000 dead bodies per day, according to Pressac.
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.
Why, buddy, let’s see your calculations. According to the data of the British Cremation Society often invoked by “Revisionists”, it took 30 minutes for a dead body in a coffin to be reduced to the size of a rugby football. If we assume that the lack of a coffin at Auschwitz-Birkenau did not shorten this time (which it probably did), we could have one body completely cremated and the other reduced to the size of a football within 60 minutes. If the cremation load was 100 kilograms and this was made up by two bodies each time (e.g. and adult male weighing 70 kg and a child weighing 30 kg), we would have two bodies completely burned and two reduced to the size of a rugby football within 60 minutes, a total of four bodies per hour or 15 minutes per body. And if the load was composed of a woman weighing 50 kg and two children weighing 25 kg each, then 3 bodies would be completely cremated and three reduced to the size of a rugby football within an hour. Is there anything wrong with my calculations?
So much for gestures of generosity.
Cut out the crap (well, to do that you would actually have to stop posting altogether).
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)
So this is what Prüfer is supposed to have told the Soviets agents of SMERSH. I see two possibilities: Either he was talking about ovens other than the ones that were commissioned in April-June 1943 at Birkenau, or he was playing down the murderous capacity of his ovens in order to make them look like the equipment of a “normal” crematorium and to save his neck. When Jährling wrote his memo on 28 June 1943, the average cremation time per body in crematoria II to IV was given at four per hour per muffle – and I don’t suppose that either Jährling wrote this to Kammler without having consulted Prüfer or some other responsible engineer from Topf & Söhne, or that said engineer would have given or confirmed figures that he didn’t at least consider theoretically feasible under the most favorable of circumstances. What do you place greater confidence in, information that someone provided in the ordinary course of business during the war or such that he provided to Soviet interrogators with a rope around his neck?
Let us repeat that just in order to make sure it for once enters your cerebral cortex and stays there:
“Revisionist” bunk will never enter my brain, just as reason seems unlikely to ever enter yours.
Auschwitz ovens operated “more slowly” than civilian ovens.
Assuming that Prüfer was referring to the ovens of the Birkenau crematoria and that he was not self-servingly playing down their capacity, that is.
In one oven you cremated one body per hour.
Or two, or three, or four, if you applied the procedure I described in my above calculations.
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.
According to what this gentleman told SMERSH, which for understandable reasons seems to have been be somewhat different from what he had told his employers at the time he put the ovens into operation.
Mattogno represented this information as meaning that "Crematoria II and III could have cremated about 240 bodies a day, and Crematoria IV and V about 130 - a total of some 370 bodies. The estimate given in the memo thus indicates that a daily average of 370 emaciated adult corpses were expected for cremation."  This is simply a false characterization of the data. There is no mention of the number of bodies that could be burned. The key fact is that the fuel data given by Topf is based on the number of hours worked irrespective of the amount of bodies burned. This fact caused many problems for Mattogno because, as noted earlier, estimates on the number of bodies which could be burned in a ten hour period in one oven ranged as high as 36, and Topf engineer Prüfer had even estimated 800 bodies in five triple muffle ovens in a 24 hour period. The real dilemma for Mattogno was in the Bauleitung figures given on June 28, 1943, discussed earlier, that 4416 bodies could be burned in a 24 hour period in the four new crematoria, or 2208 in a 12 hour period. When the 7840 kilograms of coke usage for a 12 hour period are divided by the 2208 bodies which could be cremated in a 12 hour period, the average comes out to about 3.5 kilograms per body. Mattogno never addressed this issue directly. However, he was aware of the problem that the June 28 Bauleitung figures could pose. To deal with this problem he reverted to a common denier tactic. He announced that "this document is a fabrication."  Thus, any document which deniers do not like is commonly explained as the result of forgery and conspiracy. Mattogno did not say who might have "fabricated" this report.
Source of quote: Zimmerman, as above. Emphasis is mine.
As the 52 retorts were never used simultaneously, this capacity was never achieved.
Exactly. The highest amount of cremations per day was around 3,000, according to Pressac, and not 4,756 as indicated in the Bauleitung memo of 28 June 1943.
Me: So what about this derelict 10,000 certainty?
”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.”
- 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.
Really? Show me some sources. Who believed in this figure? Reitlinger, perhaps? Or was it Hilberg?
“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.
You don’t know what strange things happen in people’s minds when they are on the witness stand testifying about their crimes. And you have no evidence whatsoever for a connection between any coercion and Höss’ statements at Nüremberg.
Secondly, if the compulsive liar Höss so prouded himself with impersonating the MONSTER nazi of trashy wartime propaganda, why stop when entering Poland?
Don’t know. The fact is that he did. Seeing the end of his life before him, he may have wanted to set the record straight, for the sake of posterity and his own piece of mind. People are bound to change, you know.
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.
There is none indeed. In the first case he was shooting the bull, in the second he made a statement to the best of his knowledge.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.
That’s obviously what my True Believer would like to believe, but why on earth would the Poles, who at the time (and until 1990) were hooked to the four million estimate of a Soviet commission and would have loved to see it confirmed by Höss, have forced him to state a much lower figure at his interrogations and in his memoirs? A figure that posterior search confirmed to be highly realistic, by the way?
Not excluding the 2,500,000 gassee number of course, which has popped up here and there since as well.
Really so? Here are the estimates that I know of:
- Dr Josef Kermisz, from the Jewish Historical Commission in Poland, wrote in 1949 that this Commission had evaluated the number of victims of Auschwitz at 1 500 000;
- Gerald Reitlinger in 1953 estimated at 800 000 to 900 000 the number of Jewish victims of Auschwitz;
- Raul Hilberg, in The Destruction of European Jews, 1961, estimated the number of Jewish victims of Auschwitz at 1 million and the total number of victims of Auschwitz at 1.1 million.
- Helmut Krausnick declared in 1964, at the process against former members of the Auschwitz staff in Frankfurt, that the total number of victims of Auschwitz was between on million and one and a half million;
- Georges Wellers in 1983 provided an estimate of 1.3 million Jewish victims at Auschwitz and a total of 1.5 million victims of the camp;
- Franciszek Piper, in a study that started in 1980 and the results of which were presented in 1991 and 1994, gave as the total number of victims of Auschwitz a minimum of 1.1 million and a maximum of 1.5 million.“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 don’t give too much about what a “Revisionist” considers to be unreliable in Eichmann’s statements. Anyway, in regard to the figure Eichmann was obviously parroting what he had heard from Höss, which disqualifies him as an independent source. As to the calculations by which Höss very probably reached this figure, see above.Quote:
Me: In reality, the crematoria of Birkenau were more the size of your average barn and resembling schoolhouses rather than industrial installations.
”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?”
- 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.
How about some figures instead of bullshit?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.
Some people have a tendency for hyperbole, others less so. Eichmann apparently belonged in the former category.“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.
Well, that calls for a question about the fate of the ca. 1 million people who, according to the documentary evidence assessed by Piper and other historians, never left the place alive. And I wouldn’t give to much for the accuracy of what Prüfer told SMERSH to get himself off the hook. What amuses me is the importance that “Revisionists”, with their known contempt for eyewitness testimonial, give to the obviously self-serving eyewitness testimonial of a man in need when it fits their stance. Such double standards don’t exactly favor their credibility.
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.
Maybe what he told Himmler was different from what he boasted to distinguished visitors like Franke-Gricksch and Eichmann. The other possibility, as we have seen, is that he didn’t consider the figure to be a boast before reading the Bauleitung memo of 28 June 1943. After all, it was based on coherent mathematics.
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.
To the extent that a figure given to Franke-Gricksch or to Eichmann could be deemed a “capacity assurance” rather than informal information with or without some braggadocio. Anyway, events during the Hungarian deportation suggest that Höss’ superiors expected him to improvise instead of slavishly orienting themselves by the installed capacity the camp had available. Before the Hungarian operation, they obviously told Höss something like “starting 15 May 1944, you will receive ca. so-and-so-many per day to get rid of. Please arrange facilities.” Which Höss did, putting one of the “bunkers” back into operation, digging enormous burning pits and thus achieving a daily killing capacity approaching the 10,000 he may have once unrealistically idealized.Quote:
Me: If the statements of original German documents, testimony of prime perpetrators awaiting death and essential witnesses are proven to be technically false...
”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.”
- You should read the Eichmann Trial transcript. It contains several inaccuracies at vital points, so does the victim literature.
Coming as the above does from a “Revisionist”, I don’t expect to find inaccuracies at a single “vital point”, whatever that is supposed to be.
Franke-Gricksch repeated the Höss confession of 10,000 even before half the Birkenau crematoria were completed.
No. Franke-Gricksch stated a figure that he may have got from Höss or calculated himself on the basis of the data of a Sonderkommando supervisor, the fact that it was later repeated by Höss speaking in favor of the former possibility. The greater the distance to the actual completion date of the crematoria, the more plausible a calculation that was a far shot from what was later actually achieved seems to be. Better argue the other way round: Try to tell us that such an exaggeration only one and a half months before the commissioning of all crematoria seems rather strange.How could anyone in Birkenau have known there was a 10,000 capacity?
See above calculation.
Because the camp planned for one? No, it planned for a tenth of that, making the report anachronistic
This you might say if it had been written after and not before the Bauleitung memorandum of 28 June 1943, and to the extent it was meant to contain planning-relevant information for superiors rather than to give distinguished visitors a highly favorable impression of how well the “Final Solution” was progressing.
– and therefore most possibly a post war forgery.
Well, a forgery requires a forger, and no one forges a document just for the hell of it. Who would have wanted to forge a Franke-Gricksch report, and what for? Let’s assume it was the Soviets in order to have documentary validation of their own estimate on the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Why, then, didn’t they attach the Franke-Gricksch report to their own report on Auschwitz-Birkenau or present it at the Nuremberg Trials? Why did we have to wait for Fleming to dig up the document in the 1970’s, at a time when it was common ground among historians that the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau had been much lower than would result from an extrapolation of the data contained in the Franke-Gricksch Report?“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.
Well, if you read Filip Müller as quoted by Hans, it seems that there was an instruction to the members of the Sonderkommando to shove three bodies into every muffle every twenty minutes, which would result in the 10,000 figure by force of simple mathematics, whether or not this figure was expressly stated to the Sonderkommando folks by their superiors. So where’s the gas?
No, as stated earlier, the capacities of the crematoria are more or less solid
Sure. Theoretical capacity 4,756 within 24 hours, practical achievement a little below that.
and they were obviously planned and built with some realistic expectation in mind.
Sure. Mass murder on an enormous scale. Even the ridiculously low figure you postulate could not be explained otherwise, as the mortality of the camp’s permanent inmates would never require cremating even a fraction of 1,000 dead bodies per day.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.
What is likely to have happened is that, with a given capacity in mind when the crematoria were built, Höss et al may have calculated how far this capacity might be stretched under ideal conditions, and that in an optimistic mood they gave the resulting figure, which was about twice as high as the one later “officially” established by the Bauleitung in the memo of 28 June 1943, to distinguished visitors they intended to impress about the capacity of the camp.
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.
Yeah, why would they have done it this way when they could have done it that way, right? Which would lead us to the conclusion that, whatever the evidence, they didn’t do it the way they did it, in the imbecile reasoning of a true “Revisionist”. If you need an explanation for why they killed and burned people in a certain way and not in another – I consider discussing about this a pointless academic exercise – how about the good old German penchant for “orderliness” and for solutions smacking of technological “progress”, apart from the interest of cleverly lobbying contractors in transforming the “Final Solution” into profitable orders for themselves? By your logic, there should be no executions on the electric chair or in gas chambers in the United States. Why all the fuss and waste of money when a simple Russian-style shot in the neck will do? The electric chair isn’t even more humane.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.
Again, where is your feel for Teutonic orderliness and for business, Mr. True Believer?
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.
Another probable reason being that they were beyond repair.Why, just get some shovels and start making a big hole!
Exactly, my dear boy. The reality of the operation of the crematoria seems to have lagged somewhat behind the expectations placed in them, probably induced by intensive lobbying and publicity on the part of contractors like Topf & Söhne. And even if open-air burning pits had been entirely stupid, this would not mean that they were not dug, in the face of the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence that they were, would it, True Believer? It would just mean that the Auschwitz SS were “stupid”. Big deal, buddy. Is there anything more stupid than mass murder that you can think of? And yet it happened …
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.
Maybe so. Ask Hans about it, he knows more about Auschwitz-Birkenau than either of us.
By the way, did I hear someone say wishful thinking?
Wishful thinking, coupled with blatant nonsense and downright lies, is the essence of “Revisionism”.Quote:
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?
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.- Correct, but I wrote “suspected of”, not “is” patent falsehood.
If documents are forged, there ought to be a reason for it.
Exactly. And in this case there ought to be a forging entity with well-nigh superhuman capacities of manipulation, working so efficiently that it hasn’t leaked a single peace of information about itself in five and a half decades.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.
Why, buddy, what on earth makes you think it exceptionally needs to be entertained here? Your fantasy of them bloody Jews being not only as dishonest as “Revisionists”, but also infinitely more clever and powerful, forging thousands of documents, manipulating thousands of survivors and perpetrators into making statements often against their own interest and inducing the governments, criminal justice authorities and historians of all countries in the world into playing their game and selling their soul for the sake of Zionist interests, perhaps?Quote:
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.
”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.”- 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.
Please demonstrate that Höss' confession was forced. Then demonstrate that Vrba and Müller knew of what Höss had confessed (as opposed to the instructions he may have transmitted to them through his underlings while they were members of the Sonderkommando) when they made their own depositions. In the case of Vrba, this should be particularly difficult, as he provided his account about one and a half years before Höss was arrested, if I well remember.“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.
Go have a chat with a good shrink. You will be surprised to learn what strange things are likely to happen in people’s minds, especially in situations like the one Höss was in – star witness to the crime of the century at Nuremberg.“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
Which would also have involved the forgery/manipulation of thousands of documents, survivors and perpetrators and the connivance of all governments, criminal justice authorities and historians throughout the world over a period of five and a half decades, without a single leak and hence without a shred of evidence that “Revisionists” can produce.
Any theory that hinges on unsubstantiated allegations of a monstrous conspiracy, Jewish, Allied or whatever, is not worth the paper or cyberspace used to propagate it.and powerful imagery is actually all it takes to get the ball rolling.
In the mind of poor little Snafu and like-minded fellows, perhaps.After all, this is a battle of Good against Evil.
Well, right now it’s a matter of history (me and other reasonable folks) against propaganda (Snafu and other True Believers).
The rest is all a matter of “saving the phenomena”, an endless modifying of the record to suit changing circumstances.
Historiography is not a stagnant science, I am told. There are facts, however, that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt by documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence and therefore cannot be modified, however much ideologically motivated morons like the “Revisionists” would like to do that.
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.
Exactly. Today we have propagandists who, similarly to those astronomers of old, are less interested the historical facts than in how they can use whatever they like thereof to further their own political ends. They try to sell the equivalent, in terms of historiography, of the notion that the earth is flat and the sun circles around it. And they have the arrogance of insulting a legitimate historical method by inappropriately calling themselves “Revisionists”.