A Derelict Convergence

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 22 Apr 2002 18:21

“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." [152] 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." [153] 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.

Quote:
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?


See above.

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”.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

54 Muffles...

Post by Scott Smith » 22 Apr 2002 19:41

Some 54 muffles. Any talk of a capacity of over a thousand cremations a day is pure fantasy, regardless of the source.

Comrade Medo wrote:...the suspicion that Smith might be an undercover agent infiltrated by the ADL for the purpose of discrediting “Revisionism” comes into my mind every once in a while.

Careful. Don't blow my cover or my ADL employer might come after you! I shine shoes. Got it?
:aliengray

Image

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 22 Apr 2002 19:51

There are a number of problems with the document that is claimed to be a genuine retyped copy of a report written by SS-Stubaf. Franke-Gricksch on his visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau on 17(?) May 1943.

One of the most glaring of the problems is the claimed total of 500,000 Jewish victims of the "resettlement action" as at that date.


The figure is wrong, so the document is a fake? Not the kind of reasoning I would have expected from Michael Mills. I thought his herrings were more sophisticated.

That figure can be checked against those given in the "Auschwitz Chronicle" published by the Panstwowe Muzeum w Oswiecimiu (Auschwitz State Museum).

According to my addition of the daily figures given in that source, as at the end of May 1943 94,772 Jews had been registered in the camp. That figure is reliable, as it is based on a list kept secretly by prisoners who worked in the Auschwitz registry office.

The Chronicle also makes claims about the number of Jews who arrived in the camp each day. That figure is less reliable than the number of Jews registered each day, since it is not based on records kept in the Auschwitz registry but rather on records kept at a number of different places of the numbers deported from the various source countries with Auschwitz as the destination.


If is actually based on a comparison of both, for all I know.

The number deported was of course not the same as the number that arrived, the latter being less. As an example, on 15 September 1942, Pohl had a meeting with Speer at which he agreed to give the latter 50,000 Jews fit for work, to be taken from the Jews being deported to Auschwitz; that agreement was reported by Pohl in a memorandum to Himmler (Nuremberg Document NI-15392) in which he said "The Jews who are fit for work must therefore INTERRUPT their immigration to the East and undertake some armaments work" (quoted on p. 199, "The Business of Genocide", by Michael Thad Allen). Pohl's words make it clear that the 50,000 Jews were not transferred after their arrival at Auschwitz, but were extracted from the transports heading to that destination ("interrupt").


Interesting. Where did those Jews come from? And what other than Mills’ interpretation of the word “interrupt” is there to support the contention that these Jews were taken from transports to Auschwitz-Birkenau rather than not put on such transports in the first place?

Accordingly, the number of Jews who arrived at Auschwitz must have been at least 50,000 less than those who were despatched, the record of which has served as the basis for calculating the numbers of Jews who arrived but were not registered.


In this one case, assuming that all of Mr. Mills’ assumptions hold true.

Nevertheless, for the purpose of assessing the Franke-Gricksch report, the figures of arrivals given in the "Auschwitz Chronicle" may be used as a comparison. According to my addition of the daily arrivals, as at the end of May 1943 a total of 330,872 Jews had arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

The difference between total arrivals and the total registered is therefore 237,879. That is the total that is claimed to have been killed on arrival up until the end of May 1943.


According to Michael Mills’ calculations, which must always be taken with a big grain of salt. And why “claimed”? While there is plenty of eyewitness evidence that killing on arrival is exactly what happened to these Jews, I know of no indication that anything else became of them.

It is therefore the figure that must be compared with that quoted in the Franke-Gricksch report as 'the result so far of this "resettlement action" ', since that part of the report is specifically dealing with the Jews not capable of work.

It is immediately apparent that the figure given in the Franke-Gricksch report is more than double the figure that emerges from the "Auschwitz Chronicle". The cumulative total of 500,000 non-registered Jews was not reached until the summer of 1944, with the arrival of the transports from Hungary.


I wonder if Mr. Mills can explain how he arrived at this rather low “cumulative total”, which is obviously not in line with the estimates of Hilberg, Piper and other historians.

What is the reason for the grossly exaggerated figure given in the Franke-Gricksch report, a figure that is not compatible with the situation at the time of his visit in May 1943, and in fact reflects the situation one year later?

(Why, we may also ask, did not our esteemed colleagues Mr Muehlenkamp and Hans, or Scott Smith for that matter, bother to check this obvious point?)


Easy. Because I consider it irrelevant. What is the relevance to historiography of how this figure, unsupported by other sources as Mr. Mills states it to be, came about?

Mr. Muehlenkamp seeks to write off the anomalies in the Franke-Gricksch report by claiming that Hoess simply boasted to his visitor, who was unable to check the facts.


Any better ideas?

However, we must ask ourselves the questions: What was the reason for Franke-Gricksch's visit to the camp? Who was he reporting to, and for what purpose?


An interesting question, for a change. Why, we may also ask, has the dissident historian and expert from Australia, Mr. Michael Mills, not been able to find an answer to this question in the vast array of sources at his disposal?

It is possible that the purpose of the visit was to check on what Hoess and his minions were doing, and to report back to HQ in Berlin. In that case, the emphasis would have been on achieving accuracy.

It seems to me highly unlikely that Hoess would have made such a boastful claim that would be reported back to Berlin and could be checked.


Which gives us two possibilities.

One is that Höss didn’t consider the figure to be “boastful” at the time, but regarded it as realistic in view of the calculations explained by former Sonderkommando Filip Müller, according to Hans. The members of the Sonderkommando were apparently instructed to shove three bodies into each muffle every twenty minutes, which if feasible would have resulted in 9 bodies per hour or 216 bodies per day per muffle, i.e. 46 x 216 = 9,936 bodies for all 46 muffles of Birkenau crematoria II to V.

The other is that Franke-Gricksch’s visit did not have the significance that Mr. Mills assumes it has, that he was not there to control anyone but merely an interested distinguished visitor whom Höss considered appropriate to impress.

For example, back at Berlin there was Hans Kammler, head of Office C (Construction) of the WVHA, who had been fully involved in the construction of Birkenau, including the crematoria, and would have been fully aware of realities such as the actual cremation capacity. Hoess could not have told obvious untruths to his visitor and got away with it.

Another anomaly is the claimed cremation capacity of the ten "resettlement action" ovens of 10,000 corpses in 24 hours. It would have been known to people like Kammler that the estimated theoretical maximum output of the four Birkenau crematoria then completed or nearing completion, plus that of the "old crematorium" in the Auschwitz Stammlager, was under 5,000 in 24 hours, operating the equipment at the absolute limit without pause, as per the Jahrling memorandum.


The above contention does not take into account the fact that Jährling’s memorandum was issued on 28 June 1943, i.e. almost one and a half months after Franke-Gricksch’s visit. Far from containing a self-serving exaggeration by Jährling, it might have served to rectify exaggerated notions of the capacity of the crematoria harbored until then and brought Jährling’s superiors back to the ground of facts.

As with the total number of Jews given as the"result" of the "resettlement action", the claimed capacity of the "resttlement action" ovens is more than double the official figure.


Which, as explained, was issued one and a half months later.

The origin of the figure of 10,000 cremated every 24 hours seems to be the Soviet War Crimes Commission Report of 6 May 1945. It is possible that the Soviet War Crimes Commission plucked that figure out of the air, or repeated wild exaggerations made by liberated prisoners interrogated by it.


Considering Müller’s above mentioned calculations, that is even quite probable.

In any case, that figure was published and propagated in Allied circles well before Hoess was captured in March 1946, so the fact that he supports in his testimony is not convincing; he could simply have been regurgitating a figure that had been fed to him by his interrogators, who were familiar with it from the Soviet report published almost one year earlier.


That’s a theoretical possibility. Another is that Höss, contrary to what he did later in his memoirs, harked back to the estimate he had believed in before knowing Jährling’s figures in order to impress his captors as he once had his visitors. Unlike the figure of cremations per day, the overall figure on the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau first given by Höss (2,500,000 gassed, 500,000 died of other causes) was not in line with the figure contained in the Soviet War Crimes Commission Report of 6 May 1945 (4 million), which speaks against Höss’ deposition having been influenced by confrontation with the Soviet report.

The fact that the 10,000 figure turns up in a document supposedly written in May 1943 or shortly thereafter, suggests that this document, at least in the form in which it now exists, was actually composed some time after May 1945.


Considering that the document was only discovered by Fleming in the 1970’s, as one of Mr. Mills’ more radical brothers-in-spirit just told us, that assumption is actually completely illogical. A forgery requires a forger and is never made just for the hell of it. Who would have been interested in forging a Franke-Gricksch report? The obvious choice are the Soviet authors of the report of 6 May 1945, eager to have “documentary evidence” supporting their conclusions. If so, however, why was the Franke-Gricksch Report neither attached to the Soviet report of 6 May 1945 nor used at the Nuremberg trials? Why forge a document and then not use it, leave it gaining dust until an historian finds it thirty years later? This doesn’t make much sense.

The 500,000 figure may also have been derived from figures given in the report of the escapees Vrba and Wetzlar, dating from April 1944, ie well after the date of the ostensible Franke-Gricksch report.


I wonder if Mr. Mills can demonstrate that said figure, preferably referring to the period prior to Franke-Gricksch’s visit, can be identified in the report of the escapees Vrba and Wetzlar, dating from April 1944.

Alternatively, the 500,000 figure may have been derived from the 10,000 cremated per day. 500,000 represents 50 days' cremation work. Crematorium II was commissioned on 31 March 1943, giving 47 days until the date of Franke-Gricksch's visit.


A possibility, for sure. Franke-Gricksch was given the 10,000 figure or calculated it by himself, then applied it to the time during which he knew the existing facilities had been in operation, all on his own initiative.

A third anomaly that occurs elsewhere in the report is the statement that Jews arrived on trains that brought them into a special part of the camp. The spur-line leading into Birkenau of course did not become operational until the summer of 1944, one year after Franke-Gricksch's visit. That element again reflects a 1945 date of composition for the document in its present form.


Mr. Mills seems to have a penchant for repetitiveness, like every good propagandist. The terminology used in the report, which Mills sees as a reference to the spur-line leading into Birkenau that did not become operational until the summer of 1944, could have referred to the ramp at the edge of the camp which was situated at the end of a spur line leading away from the marshalling yard in the direction of the camp. Another possibility is that Franke-Gricksch was referring to a track from Auschwitz I to Birkenau, i.e. an inner-camp track as opposed to the later special spur from the Vienna-Cracow line that headed directly into Birkenau. For further details see the thread

Franke-Gricksch Report
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =129.topic

on the old forum.

I think it highly likely that Franke-Gricksch did prepare a report in the summer of 1943, soon after his visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau. The first paragraph of the document in its present form, stating that the emphasis was now on maximising the preservation of the prisoners for labour, exactly reflects the situation in May 1943; in the previous month Himmler had ordered the cessation of Aktion 14f13 and commanded that sick prisoners be restored to fitness for work, with only the genuinely insane to be subjected to "Sonderbehandlung" thenceforward. Accordingly, I believe that that paragraph is genuine and original.


A transcription of Himmler’s order mentioned above would be appreciated, as would be an explanation of why Mr. Mills considers the killing of registered prisoners becoming unfit for work at Auschwitz-Birkenau to have been related to Aktion 14f13.

It is also likely that in his original report, Franke-Gricksch gave a description of Crematorium II which had been in operation for over a month. Certain features of the report in its present form, such as the transport by lift of the corpses from the underground morgues to the incineration ovens, seem genuine.

It is also possible that Franke-Gricksch gave a figure for the projected theoretical maximum capacity of all the crematoria when they eventually came on stream. If he did, it is likely that it would have been the figure given in the Jahrling memorandum (which of course referred to all cremations, not only those resulting from the Jewish "resettlement action").


As has been explained, Jährling’s memorandum came into being one and a half months after Franke-Gricksch’s visit and may have served to correct the notion, harbored until then by those in charge, that it would be possible to cremate 9 bodies per muffle per hour = 216 bodies per muffle per day = 9,936 bodies in all muffles once all crematorium installations were concluded.

I think it unlikely that Franke-Gricksch gave a figure for the total number of Jews that had arrived, or had been exterminated. Hoess simply did not have those figures. All that would have been available would have been the records of those registered. No figures were kept of recent arrivals still in quarantine, or of arrivals transferred to other places before being registered at Auschwitz.


1. Franke-Gricksch gave no figures on the number of arrivals in his report, and his total figure on “The result so far of this 'resettlement action'" indeed seems to have been based on nothing other than the figure on daily capacity of the crematoria and the knowledge of how long they had been in operation. The total figure seems even more likely to have emerged from Franke-Gricksch’s own calculations than the figure on daily capacity.

2. I see that Mr. Mills is again taking his contentions regarding “recent arrivals still in quarantine” and “arrivals transferred to other places before being registered at Auschwitz” out of the drawer, notwithstanding the lack of evidence that both were anything other than marginal prior to the Hungarian deportations in the summer of 1944.

The document in its present form shows all the signs of being based on a genuine original, but having been rewritten to include elements of later date, such as the trains coming into the camp (dating from 1944), or the 10,000 per day figure (dating from 1945).


As demonstrated above, both data need not have been posterior at all.

My guess is that the rewriter of the original report inserted the cremation figure of 10,000 per day, to conform with the figure given in the Soviet report, replacing whatever figure may been in the original. Then the 500,000 total was derived by multiplying 10,000 by the number of days of operation of Crematorium II from its commissioning (the approximate date of which was known from the information provided by Vrba and Wetzler in April 1944) and the date of Franke-Gricksch's visit.


A rather hollow guess, considering that it would have made no sense to make a forgery and then not to use it and that Franke-Gricksch could very well have calculated both the figure for daily capacity and the one for total deaths “so far” on the basis of the data he is likely to have had available, i.e. the expectations of cremation capacity that may have been harbored by the responsible people of the camp prior to the Jährling memorandum and the time during which the new crematoria had already been in operation. The extent to which Franke-Gricksch’s figures can be inferred from the the information provided by Vrba and Wetzler in April 1944 is for Mr. Mills to demonstrate.

It is possible that an investigator found the original, which provided partial support for what had been learned from survivors and what had been officially reported by the Soviet Commission, and then "massaged" it to make that support more explicit. What resulted is a document that is "too good to be true".


The forger would have been Eric M. Lipman, the US officer who found the document. What reason he would have had to forge and certify the authenticity of a document that was not used as evidence in war crimes trials, especially so as to make the document coincide with a Soviet report that he would have had to be familiar with in the first place, is for Mr. Mills to explain.

What the original report may have said about the extermination of Jews at Birkenau cannot be known for sure. What I think is certain is that the document in its current form is not the original but a rewritten version, containing interpolations that are anomalous and demonstrate its non-genuine nature.


Always ready to draw sweeping conclusions in the good “Revisionist” manner, Mr. Mills has conveniently ignored the very realistic alternative possibilities, as demonstrated above.

An English translation of the Franke-Gricksch report was provided by Hans in the above mentioned thread on the old forum. I transcribe it hereafter for those of our readers who might want to know what this discussion is about.

Part of a report rendered by SS Sturmbannführer Franke-Gricksch on a trip through the General Gouvernement on 4 to 16 May 1943.

Resettlement Action of the Jews

The Auschwitz camp has a special role in the settlement of the Jewish question. The most up-to-date methods make it possible to implement the Führer Order here very quickly and discreetly.

The so-called "resettlement action" for the Jews proceeds as follows:

The Jews arrive in special trains (freight cars) toward evening and are taken by a special rail track into an area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose. There they are unloaded and are then examined for their fitness for work by a medical team in the presence of the camp commandant and several SS officers. Here every person who can somehow be integrated into the labor program is taken to a special camp. Temporarily sick persons are immediately taken to the recuperation camp and are restored to health with a special diet. The basic principle is: Conserve all manpower for work. The earlier "resettlement action" policy is now completely rejected, because no one can afford to systematically destroy valuable labor energy.

The unfit are taken into the basement rooms of a large building, which can be entered from the outside. They go down five or six steps and come into a long, well-built and ventilated basement room, which is fitted with benches on the right and left. It is brightly lit and above the benches are numbers. The prisoners are told they are to be disinfected and washed in preparation for their new tasks. They must therefore undress completely in order to be bathed. In order to avoid any panic and disorder, they are told to arrange their clothes neatly and leave them under a number so they can find their things again after the bath. Everything proceeds in complete calm. They then go through a small corridor and come into a large basement room that resembles a shower room. In this room there are three big pillars. Into these it is possible to introduce certain materials from above, outside the basement room. After 300-400 people have gathered in this room, the doors are closed and from above the containers with the materials are let down into the pillars. When the containers reach the base of the pillars, they produce certain substances that put people to sleep in one minute. A few minutes later, the door on the other side, which leads to an elevator, is opened. The hair of the corpses is cut off, and the teeth (gold teeth) are broken out by specialists (Jews). It has been observed that Jews have hidden jewelry objects, gold, platinum, etc., in hollow teeth. The corpses are then loaded into the elevators and are taken to the first floor. There are located ten large crematory ovens, in which the corpses are burned. (Because fresh corpses burn particularly well, the entire process requires only one-half to one Zentner . The work itself is carried out by Jewish prisoners who will never leave this camp.

The result so far of this "resettlement action": 500,000 Jews.

The present capacity of the "resettlement action" ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours.


I affirm that this is a true copy of the original report. Eric M. Lipman.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: 54 Muffles...

Post by Roberto » 22 Apr 2002 20:05

Scott Smith wrote:Some 54 muffles. Any talk of a capacity of over a thousand cremations a day is pure fantasy, regardless of the source.


Ever heard of an animal that sticks its head into the sand in order not to see what it doesn't want to see, Reverend? It's called an oystrich, if I'm not mistaken.

="Comrade Medo"]


Why, "comrade"? What an honor. And I thought I was just a totalitarian-liberal creature of Democracy-Capitalism ...

...the suspicion that Smith might be an undercover agent infiltrated by the ADL for the purpose of discrediting “Revisionism” comes into my mind every once in a while.
Careful. Don't blow my cover or my ADL employer might come after you!
I shine shoes. Got it?
:aliengray


Why, didn't you send out your application to become cult leader at the Church of BS yet? No need to be self-conscious, my friend. You're the best man for the job:

http://www.churchofbs.org/index.htm


Image

What's that supposed to show? Reverend Smith's nightmare of Zionist world domination?

Image

Where are you, Mein Führer, now that we need you?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

54 Muffles in the Sky

Post by Scott Smith » 23 Apr 2002 00:06

Comrade Medo, the Ostrich Slayer wrote:Ever heard of an animal that sticks its head into the sand in order not to see what it doesn't want to see, Reverend?

This would apply in your case, Roberto. Make the machinery fit the legend, not make the legend fit a testable hypothesis. That is how steam or diesel exhaust can kill MILLIONS--NO, make it BILLIONS. The Devil is everywhere.

Comrade Medo, the Evil Totalitarian-Liberal wrote:Where are you, Mein Führer, now that we need you?

Why don't you try prayer? It seems to work for Believers.
:aliengray
Image

Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Gwynn Compton » 23 Apr 2002 03:44

Who did the painting which Scott posted, it's quite an interesting one.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Dr. MENGELE...

Post by Scott Smith » 23 Apr 2002 04:47

Gwynn Compton wrote:Who did the painting which Scott posted, it's quite an interesting one.

http://www.gruene-rlp.de/holocaust-art- ... bition.htm

Here's another one...
8O

Image
Image Image

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 23 Apr 2002 11:00

Comrade Medo, the Ostrich Slayer wrote:


Boy, the Reverend is again pissed as hell. Better cool down, buddy. Anger only makes you look even more foolish than you do already. Or are you trying to impress fellow True Believers, Reverend?

Ever heard of an animal that sticks its head into the sand in order not to see what it doesn't want to see, Reverend?

This would apply in your case, Roberto.


Very lame, Reverend. Unlike you, I have no problem looking at the evidence.

Make the machinery fit the legend, not make the legend fit a testable hypothesis.


Exactly your approach, given that you’re the one who deals in legends. I deal in facts, facts that are not affected but what may be inaccurate notions of the "machinery" at worst – and even that the Reverend is far from having demonstrated.

That is how steam or diesel exhaust can kill MILLIONS--NO, make it BILLIONS.


Come on, my friend, leave the church in the village. We are just talking about ca. 1.5 million people who disappeared from the face of the earth behind the gates of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. Any idea as to what happened to them there, Reverend? Well, a large number of them were shot, but most were gassed with the exhaust of a gasoline engine at two of the camps and with the exhaust of an engine that may have been a diesel engine or a gasoline engine burning diesel fuel or gasoline, doesn’t matter, at the third.

The Devil is everywhere.


So it would seem. Evil Zionism is stalking the world. Fortunately the Reverend stands at attention to warn us against it.

Comrade Medo, the Evil Totalitarian-Liberal wrote:


Are there still any carpets left intact at your place, Reverend?

Where are you, Mein Führer, now that we need you?

Why don't you try prayer? It seems to work for Believers.


The Reverend should know, he’s one of them. I’m not.


Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.”


“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum.
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10

AndyW
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 24 Mar 2002 19:37
Location: Bavaria

Post by AndyW » 23 Apr 2002 11:21

So the Holocaust never happened and the Earth is a flat disk... :lol:

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Re: Franke-Gricksch Report

Post by Hans » 23 Apr 2002 13:40

Hans wrote:
michael mills wrote:(Why, we may also ask, did not our esteemed colleagues Mr Muehlenkamp and Hans, or Scott Smith for that matter, bother to check this obvious point?)

I must disappoint you, 13 years ago, long before you even knew about the Franke-Gricksch-report, Jean-Claude Pressac has noted and explained this mistake. And of course I always knew from Pressac that the figure given by Franke-Gricksch is twice as high as the true figure. I think Pressac has offered the best explanation for the exaggerated figures (death toll and cremation capacity): they were passed on to him by his guides in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

"It seems to me highly unlikely that Hoess would have made such a boastful claim that would be reported back to Berlin and could be checked."

Where do you know that Höß gave him the figures? Where do you know that Franke-Gricksch wrote a report for people in Berlin who could check the true figure? Where do you know that his guide in Auschwitz knew that Franke-Gricksch was writing a report for people in Berlin who could check the true figure? Where do you know that they knew that Franke-Gricksch was writing a report?

"I think it unlikely that Franke-Gricksch gave a figure for the total number of Jews that had arrived, or had been exterminated. Hoess simply did not have those figures"

Exactly. And because no one could give the precise figures, does this not explain why Franke-Gricksch's figure is not very accurate? His mistake would be much more striking when they kept exact and accumulated data. It is not really believable that Franke-Gricksch would write that no one could give him exact figures, so he accepted a rough estimation of one the SS guides.

"A third anomaly that occurs elsewhere in the report is the statement that Jews arrived on trains that brought them into a special part of the camp. The spur-line leading into Birkenau of course did not become operational until the summer of 1944, one year after Franke-Gricksch's visit. That element again reflects a 1945 date of composition for the document in its present form."

We've already gone through this, Michael. There was in fact a spur line leading into Birkenau just behind crematorium II, which Franke-Gricksch presumably visited in 1943. He saw this spur line and he concluded that the Jews were directly shipped infront of the crematorium's back-entrance. (note the homicidal gas chamber and the little chimnies, through which the poison gas was thrown into the gas-chambers, in the background)

Image

What I think is certain is that there is not a shred of evidence or hint that this document was manipulated. It is of course possible that the last two lines about the death toll and cremation capacity were simply added after the war, but I see absolutely no reason why the investigators for the Nuremberg trials should have done this, after all the report was never introduced as evidence nor would the exaggerated figures have helped the prosecution.
Last edited by Hans on 23 Apr 2002 16:23, edited 1 time in total.

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Re: 54 Muffles...

Post by Ovidius » 23 Apr 2002 13:58

medorjurgen wrote:Where are you, Mein Führer, now that we need you?


Just how many times didn't I ask myself the same question ... :cry:

~Ovidius

"Führer befehl, wir folgen !"

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Re: Franke-Gricksch Report

Post by Hans » 23 Apr 2002 16:21

yxz

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Kurt Prüfer

Post by Hans » 23 Apr 2002 20:24

Snafu wrote:

For multiple burnings in Auschwitz, Ingenieur Prüfer commented on them thus:

"I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain."

(Interrogations of Topf Engineers as part of a Soviet Inquiry of SHMERSH, 1946-48, reproduced by Gerald Fleming in Hitler and the Final Solution (1994))

Multiple cremations in other words, were not standard procedure and what’s more, it could not be continued because “the ovens could not stand the strain”. Not that it matters much, body mass is body mass and multiple cremations would largely only indicate a correspondingly longer incineration time.


Here we see the true face of "revisionist schoolars". While they are excessive critically of any testimony when it confirms mass murder in Auschwitz, they blindely accept the testimony of those, who seem to confirm them, as nothing else but the truth. Revealing.

On gas chambers, the same Ingenieur Prüfer commented on them thus:

"Frage: Was erzählte Ihnen Karl Schultze über die Leichen im Krematorium?

Prüfer: Schultze sagte mir, die 60 Männer, Frauen und Kinder seien vergast worden.

Frage: Welche technischen Anlagen baute und installierte die Firma Topf & Söhne für die Gaskammern?

Prüfer: Zuerst wurden die Gaskammern als Leichenkeller bezeichnet. Dort wurde ein Belüftungssystem eingebaut: doch uns war danach klar, daß in den Gaskammern Menschen starben.

(Interrogations of Topf Engineers as part of a Soviet Inquiry of SMERSH, 5 March 1946, reproduced in DER SPIEGEL Nr. 40 / 47. Jahrgang, page 158)

Gas-chambers in other words, existed in the crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Since Snafu has already established in his mind that we can believe Kurt Prüfer blindly and without asking further questions, I would like to note that his testimony proves the presence and use of homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz. End of discussion.

(BTW, if analysed according to "revisionist" standards, Prüfer appears to be a shameless liar. Here is the proof: Prüfer claimed in the interorgations that he visited Auschwitz 5 times in total, which is a lie, he was there 11 times. Further, he stated that the ovens in the KZ's had three incineration chambers, which is a lie, the ovens in crematorium IV and V in Auschwitz had eight. Consequently, the alleged Kurt Prüfer is a shameless liar and his statements about multiple cremations and the cremation capacity cannot be taken serious - according to "revisionist" standards.)

The meaning of Prüfer's testimony becomes clear when we add a break(?) before the last sentence and when we put what Prüfer told Sander into quotation marks :

"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."

(here Prüfer changes the time, he jumps from the conversation with Sander in spring 1943 to September 1943 when he was sent to Auschwitz to inspect the damage of crematorium II, and he concluded)

The furnaces could not stand the strain."

In other words, the final sentence has to be read as a confirmation of his worry expressed towards Sander and the statement "In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver" has to be understand as the reason why the furnaces were overused in his opinion.

This interpretation is fully confirmed by the testimony of the man, who Prüfer told this, Carl Sander:

"Im Sommer 1943 erzählten mir Prüfer und Schultze, daß in den Gaskammern der KZs in Auschwitz viele Menschen vernichtet und ihre Leichen in den Krematorien verbrannt würden, wobei die Belastung der Öfen sehr groß sei, weil man jeweils drei Leichen in die einzelnen Öffnungen hineinstoß."

(ibid)

The furnaces couldn't stand this excessive use. The multiple cremations and excessive use of the ovens was put to an end when the crematorium was damaged after 3 months and it had to be shut down. Prüfer inspected the crematorium three months later or six months after he put it into operation. According to Prüfer:

"Wegen der kolossalen Belastung der Öfen waren die Ziegel schon nach sechs Monaten beschädigt."

(Ibid)

In conclusion, multiple cremations of three or two corpses was possible, the excessive use lead eventually to the damage of the crematorium after three months of operation.

Now, here is an interesting detail. This excessive use of the furnaces took place exactly when Franke-Gricksch visited Auschwitz. The SS had pushed the ovens to their limit and thought a) they could go on with these cremation rates and b) that the other crematoria were able to stand the same strain. Perhaps the SS guide who gave the 10.000 figure to Franke-Gricksch really believed that Auschwitz would be able to reach this number pretty soon. However, few weeks after Franke-Gricksch left Auschwitz, the crematorium was damaged and could no longer be used. The SS noticed that they would have to slow down the cremations if they want to avoid further damage of the crematoria. As a consequence, Jährling reduced the number of corpses which were pushed into each oven he prolonged the cremation cycle. This considerations could have lead to the calculated cremation capacity in the Zentralbauleitung letter to Kammler. This would explain why Franke-Gricksch published a figure that was twice as high as the official cremation capacity, which was however established one month later and, this is important, after the overuse of the ovens had damaged crematorium II. They were learning by doing.

Hans

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

SQUARING THE DISK

Post by Scott Smith » 24 Apr 2002 01:38

AndyW wrote:So the Holocaust never happened and the Earth is a flat disk... :lol:


Depends on a precise definition of "the Holocaust." If you deviate from the norm then you are a Denier. Simple as that.

As far as the flat-earth theory, that comes close to some of the Holocaust claims.
:aliengray
Last edited by Scott Smith on 24 Apr 2002 07:17, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Snafu
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 13 Apr 2002 20:19
Location: Sweden

Post by Snafu » 24 Apr 2002 03:33

To Hans:

Yes, you may be right. Your speculative reasoning looks coherent to me. Or you may be wrong. In an interrogation with SHMERSH there are naturally a few things that you are expected to confirm as an accused: above all, the mass gassings themselves.
As to cremation capacity and duration, it's possible that the SHMERSH interrogators couldn't have cared less. No need to direct the script in that regard.
There is no doubt the crematoria broke down a LOT. This could have been because of overburdened use and strain. If thousands of people were gassed in the basements apart from the people who died of 'natural' causes in the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex, the SS would have needed every bit of cremation capacity they had.
That does not explain however, why at least one Birkenau crematorium was kept idle throughout 1943. This in addition to the 6 Auschwitz retorts that were permanently taken out of action by spring or early summer of the same year, corresponding to the completion of the new Birkenau crematoria.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”