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
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1895
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: A Derelict Convergence

Post by Sergey Romanov » 28 Feb 2017 04:05

The Black Rabbit of Inlé wrote: One thing that stands out for me after reading the English translation of the FG report is that he had very little to say about Jews following his afternoon in Auschwitz. He simply mentions that Jews made up the prisoners in Birkenau along with Gypsies, Poles and women; that the most of the Jews living in the town of Auschwitz had left, and finally, that Jews keep their lice wrapped in paper during their forced showers so they could put them into their clean clothes.

Compare that to what he wrote after spending two days with Globocnik in Lublin:
either this generation of ours succeeds in clearing up the Jewish problem completely and to its last consequences or, if their liquidation is not completely achieved, the Jewish people will rise again after this wave of oppression. Some individual cases may appear hard or even brutal but seeing these people in large masses and knowing how dangerous their passive attitude is to the life of the nations, one comes to the conclusion that this problem has to be cleared up completely to free the world once and for all of this pestilence.
Correct, which is why I speculated that he saved "the best" for the Umsiedlungsabschnitt of the report. Naturally it could also be that there is yet more of what he had written that is not known to us.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: 10 Mar 2011 20:12

Re: A Derelict Convergence

Post by The Black Rabbit of Inlé » 28 Feb 2017 22:12

Sergey Romanov wrote:Correct, which is why I speculated that he saved "the best" for the Umsiedlungsabschnitt of the report. Naturally it could also be that there is yet more of what he had written that is not known to us.
Is that your best guess for why Lipman's transcription of the "Resettlement Action of the Jews" [original copy now lost] doesn't mention anything about the action at B,S,T, is because FG *might* have written about them in further excerpts that have never been found?

It seems more plausible that the absence of any mention of what was occurring in B,S,T is due to the fact that in 1945 few, if any, US/British War Crimes Investigators knew that Action Reinhard[t] concerned B,S,T, nor that it had been run by Globocnik. Therefore FG's lengthy detailing of AR and his time with OG in his genuine report flew-over the head of the individual[s] who forged the *Auschwitz excerpt*.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1895
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: A Derelict Convergence

Post by Sergey Romanov » 01 Mar 2017 04:29

Very few Nuremberg-related docs can be shown to have been forged, so yes, exhausting other possibilities seems like a reasonable course of action before claiming forgery. Especially since the reason for the forgery is inexplicable in this case since we only have the admitted unofficial typed copy of the report, very poor one at that, which would have been inadmissible in a court in this form without the original.

I have always assumed that FG either used Umsiedlungsaktion as a designation specifically for the action in Auschwitz (with AR being a designation for, well, AR) or that this was a part of the report about Auschwitz so it was clear from context that the designation is limited to one camp. This would entail that if he did write about the AR extermination process, it would be in a different section.

Anyway, if we stay with the forgery hypothesis for a sec: what do you think were the sources used here?

The Black Rabbit of Inlé
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: 10 Mar 2011 20:12

Re: A Derelict Convergence

Post by The Black Rabbit of Inlé » 01 Mar 2017 22:57

Sergey Romanov wrote:Especially since the reason for the forgery is inexplicable in this case since we only have the admitted unofficial typed copy of the report, very poor one at that, which would have been inadmissible in a court in this form without the original.
Nice speech, but you've clearly forgotten that Lipman claimed to have handed his discovery [i.e. a carbon-copy of the *Auschwitz excerpt* typed by FG or a member of his staff] to *the American prosecutor at Nuremberg* [Pressac p.238], and that he retained the transcription, and its carbon-copies, that he made.

Sergey Romanov wrote:Anyway, if we stay with the forgery hypothesis for a sec: what do you think were the sources used here?
The GS copy that was forwarded to Belsen prosecutor Captain Stewart, or the subsequent English translation he had made.

Numerous former prisoners of Belsen worked for the British as translators in preparation for the Belsen trial. It's noteworthy that the War Crimes Teams' tradition of capitalising the names of people and places is only partially observed in the English translation. That suggests that a couple of translators worked on it and one of them may have been a civilian.

"FG" described Krema II as a "grösseres Haus"[!]. I recall that an affidavit by a former prisoner given at Belsen also described it in as looking like a big or impressive house. I'll try to find it amongst my photos when I get a chance.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1895
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: A Derelict Convergence

Post by Sergey Romanov » 02 Mar 2017 04:53

Nice speech, but you've clearly forgotten that Lipman claimed to have handed his discovery [i.e. a carbon-copy of the *Auschwitz excerpt* typed by FG or a member of his staff] to *the American prosecutor at Nuremberg* [Pressac p.238], and that he retained the transcription, and its carbon-copies, that he made.
And so I have.
The GS copy that was forwarded to Belsen prosecutor Captain Stewart, or the subsequent English translation he had made.

Numerous former prisoners of Belsen worked for the British as translators in preparation for the Belsen trial. It's noteworthy that the War Crimes Teams' tradition of capitalising the names of people and places is only partially observed in the English translation. That suggests that a couple of translators worked on it and one of them may have been a civilian.

"FG" described Krema II as a "grösseres Haus"[!]. I recall that an affidavit by a former prisoner given at Belsen also described it in as looking like a big or impressive house. I'll try to find it amongst my photos when I get a chance.
OK, Belsen then. So what, in your opinion, was the impulse behind the alleged forgery? Was that a one time thing or did they produce forgeries on a massive scale? If so, where are they?

Further considerations: the author of the report gets the big picture, some interesting details, as well as the terminology, right. Umsiedlungsaktion, Sonderzüge, sparing the lives of the lightly ill Jews needed for work, difference between the Umsiedlungsaktion of two kinds (which corresponds to the tactical change of policy in April of 1943) and the very fact that the author chose to focus on that at all, plus a pretty good description of the gassing (even mentioning as few as 300-400 people gassed at once, not the usual 1-2000), esp. considering some of the descriptions thrown around at the time, incl. at the Belsen trial. All this fits the authenticity hypothesis better than the forgery hypothesis.

Even the exaggeration at the end - 500000 Jews - does not really fit the immediate historical context of 1945, when multimillion figures of Jewish victims of Auschwitz were thrown around, which makes 500000 too low an estimate for mid-1943. The only exaggeration neatly compatible with the forgery hypothesis is the oven capacity.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: 10 Mar 2011 20:12

Re: A Derelict Convergence

Post by The Black Rabbit of Inlé » 07 Mar 2017 19:18

OK, Belsen then.
No; I think the document was likely concocted in Nuremberg in, or soon after, October 1947.

I've just documented that a copy of FG's authentic report was sent to a junior prosecutor at the Belsen trial who had an English translation made. The author[s] of the *Auschwitz excerpt* could have learnt of the dates of FG's visit to Auschwitz from either of these documents, whether directly [the author(s) saw it themselves], or, more likely, indirectly [the author(s) were told of the report and the dates by someone who had seen a copy but the significance of AR and Globocnik had eluded them so the authors never learnt of FG's detailing of them].

So what, in your opinion, was the impulse behind the alleged forgery? Was that a one time thing or did they produce forgeries on a massive scale? If so, where are they?
It may well of been concocted for shits' 'n' giggles by civilians working for the OCCWC using information gathered from various witnesses and experts who visited Nuremberg in October 1947; it certainly doesn't appear to have been concocted with intention of deceiving a trial, à la Dr. Spanner's soap recipe and the various documents and testimonies which *proved* German guilt for Katyn.

We only have Lipman's say-so, via Sydnor/Fleming/Pressac, that he passed the original carbon-copy onto Nuremberg prosecutors. Renk claims Lipman told him in Jan 1991 that he couldn't remember the FG "Resettlement" document

Further considerations: the author of the report gets the big picture, some interesting details, as well as the terminology, right. Umsiedlungsaktion, Sonderzüge, sparing the lives of the lightly ill Jews needed for work, difference between the Umsiedlungsaktion of two kinds (which corresponds to the tactical change of policy in April of 1943) ...
All of this was well known at the IMT. Shawcross said: "The need for labor became so urgent that not only were even Jews spared the gas chambers so long as they were fit for employment" [IMT 19:493].

"Umsiedlungsaktion" is used in the Stroop report [1061-PS], whilst "Umsiedlung" features in numerous docs about murdering Jews.

"Sonderzüge" features in Mueller to Himmler 16.12.42 [1472-PS].

The author[s] could also have known about "the tactical change of policy" from a wealth of sources, e.g. Gluecks to KL commandants 27.04.43 [NO-1007] and Hoess' "Endloesung" statement.

... the very fact that the author chose to focus on that at all, plus a pretty good description of the gassing (even mentioning as few as 300-400 people gassed at once, not the usual 1-2000), esp. considering some of the descriptions thrown around at the time, incl. at the Belsen trial. All this fits the authenticity hypothesis better than the forgery hypothesis.
"300-400" being gassed at once is the very same estimate Miklos Nyiszli gives for Bunker II in his 1946 book. The authors may well of mistaken his estimate range for being about Krema II.

Nyiszli was in Nuremberg in October 1947, as was the Belsen trial witness C.S. Bendel [both of whom were liberated at Ebensee in May 1945 along with a remarkably large number of former Birkenau Sonderkommandos]; knowledge of the authentic FG report may well have been known to Bendel from his time at the Belsen trial. Jan Sehn was also in Nuremberg in October 1947 providing U.S. War Crimes Investigators with an extract from Hoess' "Endloesung" statement [NO-4498].

Even the exaggeration at the end - 500000 Jews - does not really fit the immediate historical context of 1945, when multimillion figures of Jewish victims of Auschwitz were thrown around, which makes 500000 too low an estimate for mid-1943.
True, but it fits with the immediate historical context of late-1947. The 4 million figure had been discredited by the judgment of the Hoess trial, Hoess' "Endloesung" statement and his testimony during his trial, and the report and testimony of Nahman Blumenthal of Jewish Historical Commission in Poland at Hoess' trial.

There is nothing in the statement that was not already known by OCCWC staff by late-1947, nor that they couldn't have learnt from three men who visited Nuremberg in October 1947: Sehn, Nyiszli, and Bendel.

The critical fact is the absence of any similar detailing of what was happening at B,S,T and M. By late-1947 OCCWC staff preparing for the NMT Pohl trial were well aware of what Action Reinhard[t] was and that it was run by Globocnik. This suggests that they never saw an actual copy of the authentic FG report but merely heard of its existence, and the dates of his visit to Auschwitz, most probably from Bendel who had seen/heard about it during the Belsen trial.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1895
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: A Derelict Convergence

Post by Sergey Romanov » 07 Mar 2017 21:58

> No; I think the document was likely concocted in Nuremberg in, or soon after, October 1947.

This apparently conflicts with your earlier statement, based on which I assumed you were talking about the Belsen period:

"It seems more plausible that the absence of any mention of what was occurring in B,S,T is due to the fact that in 1945 few, if any, US/British War Crimes Investigators knew that Action Reinhard[t] concerned B,S,T, nor that it had been run by Globocnik. Therefore FG's lengthy detailing of AR and his time with OG in his genuine report flew-over the head of the individual[s] who forged the *Auschwitz excerpt*."

Anyway, if we are talking late 1947 we can exclude that the significance of the AR could have eluded the forgers. This would have been understandable for a certain period in 1945 but not in late 1947. Gerstein's report prominently features Globus. The Pohl trial dealt with the Pohl/Globus/AR/extermination connections. Etc. etc. It is improbable that an OCCWC forger wouldn't have known about it in Oct. 1947, as you yourself write.

Aware of that (after all, you later list plenty of source available by that time), you state:

> The author[s] of the *Auschwitz excerpt* could have learnt of the dates of FG's visit to Auschwitz from either of these documents, whether directly [the author(s) saw it themselves], or, more likely, indirectly [the author(s) were told of the report and the dates by someone who had seen a copy but the significance of AR and Globocnik had eluded them so the authors never learnt of FG's detailing of them].

This however is less than plausible, esp. in conjunction with the motivation you give later (shits and giggles). That someone would tell the forgers about a report is possible. That someone would, without showing them the report, recite the dates of the visit is already somewhat weird (such an exactitude!). That the forgers then immediately seize on the idea of forging a part of the report, for which purpose they write down the exact dates, but don't try to find a copy of the text (because if you want to make an OK forgery you have to check the basis of the forgery, not only to learn the details, but also to escape possible contradictions; and that the forger-author of the report would have to have been attentive to the details is clear - indeed, even writing down the dates for the use in the forging process shows that - but such an author would want to check if their interlocutor's memory about the details, incl. the dates, was correct), and all of this for something as vague as shits and giggles, frankly, doesn't look like anything that plausibly happened.

I must therefore reject the "they forged without having seen the text" hypothesis. On the "they forged having seen the text" they certainly wouldn't have been ignorant about the AR connection in 1947. Which means that your argument about the author not mentioning AR in the Au excerpt is moot on this hypothesis.

To this I should add a side note: on the forgery hypothesis it is weird that the forger didn't make FG mention in this small report any of the other exterminations of the deported Jews spoken of at Nuremberg and afterwards. I mean, Hoess mentioned the AR camps, Morgen testified about a visit, Rajzman testified about Treblinka, etc. Any forger would have known that Umsiedlung would include at least Treblinka. This doesn't have anything to do with knowing what "AR" stood for, only with what Umsiedlung meant.

A second side note: I want to return to the point you made earlier, about the author not mentioning the extermination in the "main" report directly or indirectly (and barely mentioning Jews) vs. him being so impressed by a visit to Globus.

Since FG and vH did travel around on Himmler's order and had an access to the top secret stuff (cf. FG's postwar statement), and did, as you apparently also agree, get info about the AR exterminations, and since FG does mention that one of the goals of the visit to Au. was to learn more of its purpose, it would seem that the absence of *any* mention of the role Au. played in the Final Solution (however one defines the term) in the main text implies that FG actually wrote more about it than the excerpt that you have contains. This implies some sort of an annex to the main report, or another section of it. I don't see, therefore, why this should not be considered an indirect piece of evidence for the Au-excerpt's authenticity.

> It may well of been concocted for shits' 'n' giggles

To be honest, the absence of a plausible motivation speaks strongly against the forgery hypothesis. As you correctly point out, the Katyn fakes were introduced at the IMT with a specific aim. I meant them when I wrote about fakes being very rare at Nuremberg. There certainly was no rampant, wanton fakery. The motivations for the fakery that did take place can be explained very precisely. This is also true if the soap recipe is fake (I haven't reached any conclusion about its authenticity yet but I'll admit that the forgery hypothesis in that case is at least plausible in light of all the evidence available to me).

Mere "shits and giggles" doesn't appear to me to be a psychologically (or otherwise) plausible explanation for concocting an elaborate hoax that wouldn't have even seen the light of the day. And yes, it would be elaborate. You proceed to correctly state that the information in the excerpt was, in principle, available. True, but it would have still taken a very informed person to concoct the text based on the bits and pieces you cite from various sources. It's one thing to hunt down the sources based on the text, it's another to write something like that from scratch (with all the sources available - but mixed in a pile of many other sources) and get things mostly right (though I'll again concede that the "oven" bit is more readily compatible with the forgery hypothesis, although it's not unexplainable if the document is authentic). And again, such a well-informed person would try to hunt down the main text of the FG report. It all just doesn't seem to hang together.

In the end: the forgery is very well-informed but has no aim and there don't seem to be any analogously aimless Nuremberg-related forgeries, much less such clever ones. This further decreases the plausibility of the forgery hypothesis.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1895
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: A Derelict Convergence

Post by Sergey Romanov » 11 Aug 2019 20:03

We have located an original wartime carbon copy of the Franke-Gricksch report:

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... on-of.html

To date this is the only contemporary Nazi document that explicitly and in detail describes the mass murder of Jews with gas in Auschwitz.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”