David Irving and the Klessheim Conference

[michael mills]

Tarpon wrote:

The argument that the camps were to be in Hungary comes from where? If one is to argue that there is no direct inference that the "concentration camps" were outside of Hungary, let alone the extermination camps in the east, how does one argue that Ribbentrop is arguing that Horthy set up his own camps in Hungary when the intention of the Nazis was to remove all the Jews of Europe?

Have you read the material posted by me, Tarpon? I quoted the relevant section from Schmidt's record of the first day of the Klessheim meeting (16 April). Here it is again:

The Fuehrer replied that this [killing the Jews, adverted to by Horthy] was also not necessary. Hungary could accommodate the Jews in concentration camps as Slovakia did [my emphasis].

Here Hitler is clearly saying that the Hungarian Government should intern its Jewish citizens, and the logical implication is that those camps would be situated in Hungary and run by the Hungarian Government.

That is made clear by the reference to Slovakia. The Slovakian Government had taken the initiative in interning its Jews and putting them into labour camps. Early in 1942, the Slovakian Government had handed over to Germany a number of the Jews, in response to a request from Germany for labour. The Jews capable of labour were sent to Auschwitz, where they were registered for forced labour and not gassed. Those incapable of labour were sent to the Lublin District, where their later fate is unclear. (The deportation of the nonworking Jews was not requested by Germany, but the Slovak Government had insisted that if Germany wanted the Jews capable of work, it had to take the unfit ones as well).

However, only part of the Jews interned in Slovakia had been handed over to the Germans. As of 1943, some 32,000 remained in labour camps in Slovakia; some 57,000 had been handed over.

The fact that in 1944 close to 400,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz is not relevant to the issues dealt with at the Klessheim conference in April 1943, since the situation had changed radically by then.

In April 1943, the main German concern was security; accordingly, it demanded that the Hungarian Jews be interned in concentration camps in Hungary.

In May 1944, the main German concern was to obtain forced labour to build the vast subterranean factories into which German jet-fighter production was to be relocated. Hitler had just rescinded his ban on the importation of Jewish labour into Germany; thus he was able to promise Speer 100,000 male Hungarian Jews as labour for the excavation project.

The impetus for the deportation of Hungarian Jews in 1944 was to obtain slave labour. Most of the Jews were sent to Auschwitz for sorting and classification; the old men, women and children with which the Hungarian Gendarmerie had filled the transports (contrary to German intentions) were weeded out and disposed of by gassing and shooting, those judged fit for labour (an unknown proportion, but quite high) were held in Birkenau and gradually transferred to places of employment in Germany. A smaller number was deported directly to destinations in Germany.

Hence, the events of 1944 cannot be taken as a model for what Hitler's intentions were at Klessheim in 1943.

[chalutzim]

Here Hitler is clearly saying that the Hungarian Government should intern its Jewish citizens, and the logical implication is that those camps would be situated in Hungary and run by the Hungarian Government.

A very good information about the camps in Slovakia:

At http://www.vasecka.sk/dcvss/hol/hol4.htm

It is worth mentioning:

The Slovak non-Jews saved no less than ten thousand Jewish lives during the Shoah, while putting their own lives at risk.

http://www.holocaustforum.gov.se/confer ... huster.htm

That is, one third of the slovakian jews was saved by non-jews, not because it was interned in camps, under Slovak supervision.

(...) That is made clear by the reference to Slovakia. The Slovakian Government had taken the initiative in interning its Jews and putting them into labour camps. Early in 1942, the Slovakian Government had handed over to Germany a number of the Jews, in response to a request from Germany for labour. The Jews capable of labour were sent to Auschwitz, where they were registered for forced labour and not gassed. Those incapable of labour were sent to the Lublin District, where their later fate is unclear. (The deportation of the nonworking Jews was not requested by Germany, but the Slovak Government had insisted that if Germany wanted the Jews capable of work, it had to take the unfit ones as well). However, only part of the Jews interned in Slovakia had been handed over to the Germans. As of 1943, some 32,000 remained in labour camps in Slovakia; some 57,000 had been handed over.

The "unfits" for work were their families.

What actually happened with those incapable of labour? Maybe Wisliceny's deposition at Nuremberg will help us solve the "mistery":

LT. COL. BROOKHART: Will you tell the Tribunal under what circumstances and what was the substance of the order?

WISLICENY: In the spring of 1942 about 17,000 Jews were taken from Slovakia to Poland as workers. It was a question of an agreement with the Slovakian Government. The Slovakian Government further asked whether the families of these workers could not be taken to Poland as well. At first Eichmann declined this request.

In April or at the beginning of May 1942 Eichmann told me that henceforward whole families could also be taken to Poland. Eichmann himself was at Bratislava in May 1942 and had discussed the matter with competent members of the Slovakian Government. He visited Minister Mach and the then Prime Minister, Professor Tuka. At that time he assured the Slovakian Government that these Jews would be humanely and decently treated in the Polish ghettos. This was the special wish of the Slovakian Government. As a result of this assurance about 35,000 Jews were taken from Slovakia into Poland. The Slovakian Government, however, made efforts to see that these Jews were, in fact, humanely treated; they particularly

357

3 Jan.46

tried to help such Jews as had been converted to Christianity. Prime Minister Tuka repeatedly asked me to visit him and expressed the wish that a Slovakian delegation be allowed to enter the areas to which the Slovakian Jews were supposed to have been sent. I transmitted this wish to Eichmann and the Slovakian Government even sent him a note on the matter. Eichmann at the time gave an evasive answer.

Then at the end of July or the beginning of August, I went to see him in Berlin and implored him once more to grant the request of the Slovakian Government. I pointed out to him that abroad there were rumors to the effect that all Jews in Poland were being exterminated. I pointed out to him that the Pope had intervened with the Slovakian Government on their behalf. I advised him that such a proceeding, if really true, would seriously injure our prestige, that is, the prestige of Germany, abroad. For all these reasons I begged him to permit the inspection in question. After a lengthy discussion Eichmann told me that this request to visit the Polish ghettos could not be granted under any circumstances whatsoever. In reply to my question "Why?" he said that most of these Jews were no longer alive. I asked him who had given such instructions and he referred me to an order of Himmler's. I then begged him to show me this order, because I could not believe that it actually existed in writing. He...

at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/p ... #wisliceny

Here is another source. One of the 600 to 800 survivors speaks:

"The deportation of the Jews from Slovakia to the ghettos in the Lublin district and to Auschwitz, which began on March 25, 1942, was based on an agreement between the Slovakian and German governments. By October 20, 1942, about 58,000 Slovakian Jews had been deported, 39,000 of them to the Lublin district, the remainder to Auschwitz.<1> The transports were carried out in Slovak trains and under Slovak guard up to the border. At the first station within the confines of the General Government, the train and its human cargo passed into the hands of the Germans, who escorted the train to its destination. In some of the ghettos to which the Slovakian Jews were brought, there were still some local Jews left. In some places they found empty ghettos; the former inhabitants had already been annihilated in the death camps. A survivor of such a journey, who passed through Sobibor and some labor camps but who succeeded in escaping and
returning to Slovakia, testified about his experience:

On May 21, 1942, our transport, consisting of about 1,000 Jews, was deported from Sabinov via Zilinia, Cadca, directly to Poland. At the boundary we were told to line up. We were counted by the
SS [men] on the station platform, while the women were counted in the carriages. Then we continued our journey for thee or four days until we reached Rejowiec-Lubelski [Lublin district], where we left the carriages... ... On the next day, May 27, two transports of a size similar to ours
arrived from Stropov and Humenne, so that we were then all together 3,000 Slovakian Jews.

On August 9, 1942, German police suddenly ordered a general lineup. The entire Jewish population, including all the Jews of the ghetto as well as the labor camp, all together about 2,700 people, had to line up on the main square before the school with their luggage. All those who had not been able to obey the order owing to illness or exhaustion were shot in their quarters....

We were taken over at Rejowiec railway station by the so-called `Black Ukrainians.' There we were squeezed into waiting cattle trucks, 120 to 150 persons per truck, without being registered.
The doors were then closed from the outside, and the trucks were left standing at the station till 8 p.m

We arrived at Sobibor shortly past midnight, where SS men with nagaikas [horse whips] received us. There at last we got a little water, through no food. We were subsequently lined up in a pine
alley, divided by sexes, and twenty-five men were told to fall out to clear luggage and corpses out of the trucks. We never saw those men again. In the morning we saw most of the women move in
ranks of four to a yard some distance away. At 8 a.m. the SS lieutenant came to us and told all those who had previously worked at draining swamps to fall out. About 100 men and 50 women stepped forward, 155 in all, to whom the lieutenant remarked cryptically: `You are born a new.' From the remaining group, mechanics, locksmiths, and watchmakers were separated, while the rest had to follow the women to the yard n the distance, and shared their fate. ...


Our group of 155 was brought to Ossowa, where we spent one night.We were very well received and fed there by the Jews. At Ossowa there were about 500 Germans and Czech Jews. Jewish Ghetto Police accompanied us to Krychow....

On October 16 we were told that a certain proportion of workers was to be sent to the `Jewish City' of Wlodawa on the Bug, 25 km from Krychow.... Four days after they arrived at Wlodawa, the
entire Jewish population was deported to Sobibor....<2>

From the 39,000 Slovakian Jews who had been deported to the Lublin district, about 24,500 were murdered in Sobibor, 7,500 in Belzec, and 7,000
in Treblinka. <3>"

<1> Livia Rotkirchen, "Churban Yahadut Slovakia" (The Destruction of Slovak
Jewry), Jerusalem, 1961, p.104
<2> Yad Vashem Archives, M-2/236
<3> Ruckerl, Adalbert, "NS-Vernichtungslager in Spiegel deutscher
Strafprozesse, DTV Dokumente", Munich, 1977, p. 148

At http://www.angelfire.com/hi/ZNO3/deportacie.html

After all this, the internment of hungarian jews, proposed at Klessheim, has only one meaning: a first step to deportation for Poland. The nazis would leave the Hungarian fascists do the dirty work for them.

Chalutzim ( = "Pioneers" in Hebrew; a quintessentially Socialist Zionist nom de plume, no doubt proclaiming ideological adherence) wrote:

Nice try Mr. Mills. But you missed completely the point. Only our fellow poster, Roberto, guessed it at once.

[Scott Smith]

Irving was charged as being a Hitler apologist and of attempting to historically redefine the image of Hitler as one who, according to Irving, was not involved with the extermination of the Jews.

Well, I did not get this impression from Hitler's War at all. Irving truthfully relates that there is no proof of a Hitler Order for the extermination of the Jews, a fact that his first publisher refused to allow.

In fact, his Goebbels book is an attempt to make Goebbels the author of Jewish extermination.

Whether this nonsense initiates from Lipstadt or Evans, I have actually read Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich and I cannot see how Irving makes Goebbels (and not Hitler) out to be the "Mastermind" of Jewish extermination. Irving merely shows Goebbels as a champion of ruthless anti-Semitism (a point that Roberto seems to agree with as he has made it so many times here on the forum).

Of course, if one has the view that the war revolved around the Jews--as Zionists and neo-Nazis might have it--then I can understand how one might think that Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich is about the Jewish Holocaust. In my opinion, and I could be wrong, the world does not revolve around the Holocaust™. Certainly Irving's two books were not about the war against the Jews. As Irving himself has pointed out, he is "not an Holocaust historian." Goebbels' mental energies in the Third Reich were focused on far more than The Joos, as Irving shows.

And besides, who of us can "truthfully" approximate Goebbels' mind (masterly or otherwise) despite his volumious diaries, let alone Hitler's? The book Hitler's War was Irving's bold attempt to view WWII through the Führer's eyes. It was coldly reviewed as "the memoirs that Hitler did not live to write." Certainly that approach would require some imagination on the part of the author, a point that seems lost here. Have Bullock, Shirer, Rosenbaum, et al, treated the subject (Hitler) with less imagination?

Remember that History is both an Art and a Science.

[michael mills]

A Brazilian contributor to this forum who goes under a nom de plume derived from the mythology of Socialist Zionism posted some very interesting information derived from a post-war statement about a Jew from Slovakia deported to the Generalgouvernment.

That Jew stated that after being housed in a ghetto for a few months, he, together with the rest of those Jews in that ghetto, was transported to a locality he claimed to be Sobibor (how did he know?) where he underwent a selection process.

Afterwards, he and the other persons selected were taken to another place called Ossowa, where the local Jews obviously still enjoyed some measure of freedon of action, since they were able to provide food for the arriving Slovak Jews. From Ossowa, the small group of Jews from Slovakia was taken to Krychow by Jewish police (NOT by Germans).

Obviously, the person who made the above statement was not an eyewitness to what happened to the remainder of the group of 3,000 Jews from Slovakia, from whom he was selected out at a place he claimed to be Sobibor, and therefore cannot be a source for what their fate was. Perhaps they were taken somewhere else.

The Brazilian contributor who fancies himself as a Zionist "pioneer" also quotes some figures derived from Rueckerl, to the effect that 24,500 Jews from Slovakia were taken to Sobibor, 7,500 to Belzec and 7,000 to Treblinka. I would like to know what hard evidence Rueckerl's claim is based on. Is there perhaps a German document listing the numbers of Jews from Slovakia taken to each camp? Or are the quoted figures somebody's inspired guess? The Jews from Slovakia who had been temporarily housed in ghettos in the Generalgouvernement could have ended up almost anywhere in the German-occupied East.

Only one thing is certain; only a handful of those Jews appears to have returned to Slovakia after the war. How many did not return to Slovakia but were part of the illegal smuggling of Jews into Palestine can only be guessed at. It does seem clear, however, that the great majority did not survive the war, whatever their fate was.

I note that the source used by our Brazilian colleague uses the tendentious, even mendacious formulation "Slovak non-Jews". What on earth is that supposed to mean? It has about as much sense as a formulation like "Nigerian non-Eskimos".

Just as Nigerians are by definition not Eskimos, so Slovaks are by definition not Jews; they are a European people, Slavic, almost all Roman Catholic in their religio-cultural identity.

The term "Slovak non-Jews" suggests that some Slovaks are Jews and some are non-Jews. That is a dishonest perversion of historical reality. There are Slovaks, the native inhabitants of Slovakia, and then there are Jews living in Slovakia, who had migrated there from Poland in the 18th and 19th centuries.

When the Slovakian Government deported Jews to the Generalgouvernement in 1942, it was merely sending them back where they had come from originally.

[walterkaschner]

Michael Mills wrote:

I note that the source used by our Brazilian colleague uses the tendentious, even mendacious formulation "Slovak non-Jews". What on earth is that supposed to mean? It has about as much sense as a formulation like "Nigerian non-Eskimos".

Just as Nigerians are by definition not Eskimos, so Slovaks are by definition not Jews; they are a European people, Slavic, almost all Roman Catholic in their religio-cultural identity.

The term "Slovak non-Jews" suggests that some Slovaks are Jews and some are non-Jews. That is a dishonest perversion of historical reality. There are Slovaks, the native inhabitants of Slovakia, and then there are Jews living in Slovakia, who had migrated there from Poland in the 18th and 19th centuries.

When the Slovakian Government deported Jews to the Generalgouvernement in 1942, it was merely sending them back where they had come from originally.

Under this theory, I suppose, we white Anglo-Saxon Americans could for example legitimately deport all of our citizens of Japanese (or Chinese, or Vietnamese, or Mexican, or African, etc.) origin and send them back from whence they came!

Of course the US Government did employ a milder form of Mr. Mills' theory when it placed its West Coast citizens of Japanese ancestry in detention camps during WWII. And I guess it may conceivably be of some small comfort for some of us to know that, at least in Mr. Mills' view, this was not as utterly shameful an act of tyranny as most Americans have now come to realize it was. Gosh, in light of present circumstances, this theory would allow us to proceed with a clear conscience to just deport all our Arab-American citizens and residents back to the Middle East. What a relief to get rid of all those pesky and potential trouble making Muslims!

But wait a minute! That means that if the US had an American Indian as President he could deport ME! My ancestors came to the US in the 18th and 19th Century long after his ancestors, and were of a different faith, color and culture. A difficulty might stem from the fact that I'm now such a mixed-origin mongrel that it would be tough to determine to just where I should be deported. But of course the problem could readily be solved à la Slovakia by simply shipping me off to an extermination center in Western Europe, where apparently all of my progenitors stemmed from. Suddenly Mr. Mills' theory becomes not so appealing after all.

I wonder if Mr. Mills would be faced with the same problem if the Aborigenes took over the Australian Government. I would hope, for the sake of those of us who have followed his posts with interest and enjoyed tilting an occasional lance with him on this forum, that in the highly unlikely event the Abos ever came to power they would prove to be far gentler than Slovakia was in the 1940s.

Regards, Kaschner

[witness]

I wonder if Mr. Mills would be faced with the same problem if the Aborigenes took over the Australian Government.

I think that he would be just happy.
At least so it could be undersood from one of his previous pearls.
mills wrote :

No doubt the country would have been ruled by a bunch of German thugs, solely interested in their own wealth and power, totally uncaring of the welfare of the people they dominated.

So what is different from the current situation, resulting from the Soviet victory in 1945?

Of course if there is no difference who is ruled by whom by the same token why somebody should care if some people who happened to belong to a certain ethnic minority are snatched out of their houses and get deported to KZs ?
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... php?t=6803

[michael mills]

Walterkaschner wrote:

I wonder if Mr. Mills would be faced with the same problem if the Aborigenes took over the Australian Government. I would hope, for the sake of those of us who have followed his posts with interest and enjoyed tilting an occasional lance with him on this forum, that in the highly unlikely event the Abos ever came to power they would prove to be far gentler than Slovakia was in the 1940s.

An interesting concept. But most so-called Aborigines are actually lower-class whites with a small amount of Aboriginal ancestry, real or putative, who have only become Aboriginal in the past couple of decades, once there was a financial benefit in their doing so. Hardly analogous with the situation of the Slovaks and the Slovakian Jews, quite separate peoples, with little if any intermixing.

A better analogy would be with the European settlers in Southern Africa. The formerly sizable European communities in Mozambique and Angola have largely disappeared, while that in Zimbabwe is in the process of being violently uprooted. In ten years' time the same fate will probably befall the much larger European settlement in South Africa. Interestingly, the Jews of South Africa had largely emigrated to Australia before the collapse of European rule.

[chalutzim]

(...) Obviously, the person who made the above statement was not an eyewitness to what happened to the remainder of the group of 3,000 Jews from Slovakia, from whom he was selected out at a place he claimed to be Sobibor, and therefore cannot be a source for what their fate was. Perhaps they were taken somewhere else.

I guess that even if he had photographed what happened to those people you would not believe him. But we (?) know what the nazis did to them, the unfit ones, don't we (?)?

Oh yes, they, the "unfits", received medical care, a time for rest and a free ticket to Palestine...

(...) I note that the source used by our Brazilian colleague uses the tendentious, even mendacious formulation "Slovak non-Jews". What on earth is that supposed to mean? It has about as much sense as a formulation like "Nigerian non-Eskimos".

Just as Nigerians are by definition not Eskimos, so Slovaks are by definition not Jews; they are a European people, Slavic, almost all Roman Catholic in their religio-cultural identity.

Mr. Mills, for me, to be or not a Jew is a religious option. If you prefer to treat Jews as a race, you will make no sense to me. An individual who had born or had acquired Slovak nationality is a Slovakian citizen, no matter what is his religion. I'm afraid the tendentiousness, even the mendacity, resides in your very mind.

(...) The term "Slovak non-Jews" suggests that some Slovaks are Jews and some are non-Jews. That is a dishonest perversion of historical reality. There are Slovaks, the native inhabitants of Slovakia, and then there are Jews living in Slovakia, who had migrated there from Poland in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Dishonest pervesion of historical reality? I'm confident you're already quite used to it. So no wonder you see it everywhere ...

(...) When the Slovakian Government deported Jews to the Generalgouvernement in 1942, it was merely sending them back where they had come from originally.

Sending back? If they were Slovakian citizens, they actually were being deported. I don't think your cynicism is funny, Mr. Mills, or if the death of thousands people deserves least than your empty comments.

See you trying to whitewash your beloved friend is already pathetical enough.

[michael mills]

Mr. Mills, for me, to be or not a Jew is a religious option. If you prefer to treat Jews as a race, you will make no sense to me.

I am afraid you do not understand the essence of Jewish identity, Zionist Pioneer. It is based on descent, not personal belief.

That applies to Orthodox Jews as well as those who are totally secular. For traditional Jews, membership in "the Chosen People of God" depended on descent from Abraham via Isaac, not on what the individual believed, or even on personal morality. Thus a born Jew could deny God and do naughty things like eating pork, and not cease to be a Jew; he would be a "bad" Jew, but still fully Jewish, and hence morally superior to the most worthy gentile.

The "Law of Return" of the Jewish State likewise works on the basis of physical descent rather than belief systems. Thus, any person who can prove a genetic connection to the Jewish people is eligible for citizenship in that state, regardless of religious belief or affiliation. Thus today, there are some hundreds on thousands of "Jews" living in the Jewish State who practice Russian Orthodoxy to a greater or lesser extent.

Finally, Jews certainly believe that they constitute a physical race distinguishable from other races. I have seen publications by Jewish geneticists that purport to prove, on the basis of gene frequencies, that all Jews are genetically related and genetically distant from other peoples.

[Dan]

The "Law of Return" of the Jewish State likewise works on the basis of physical descent rather than belief systems. Thus, any person who can prove a genetic connection to the Jewish people is eligible for citizenship in that state, regardless of religious belief or affiliation. Thus today, there are some hundreds on thousands of "Jews" living in the Jewish State who practice Russian Orthodoxy to a greater or lesser extent

That is basically true, but a Russian athiest has an advantage over a Russian Orthodox, or any other type of Christain. Those Jews who convert to Christianity are put on probation for 3 years when immegrating to Israel, unlike the non-synagoge-goers, who are given immediate voting rights.

So, the Pioneer is wrong in stating the definition of Jewish is religious, and Michael is wrong when saying that there are no differences at to the way Jews are treated by the State of Israel when it comes to religion.

[michael mills]

I think that I was right in essence, if not in detail.

The essential point is that applicants for entry under the "Law of Return" are assessed according to their descent rather than their religious adherence.

If they are of Jewish descent, they have a prima facie right to entry and citizenship, regardless of whether they practice the Jewish religion or are members of a Jewish religious community. Since descent implies a genetic tie, we can say that the test for Jewishness is essentially racial, not religious.

However, Jews have traditionally regarded members of their people who convert to Christianity as "traitors", who need to rehabilitate themselves before they can be accepted back into full membership of "Kehillat Yisrael", the Jewish Community. Hence the three-year probation period referred to by Dan.

However, Jews who convert to Christianity do not lose their Jewishness thereby, and are always potentially able to "return to the fold". Thus it is that the descendants of Spanish Jews who converted to Christianity several centuries ago are regarded by the Jewish establishment as being of Jewish race and hence able to return to Judaism if they want to. Indeed, there are various groups of Jewish enthusiasts who make it their task to locate persons of Jewish descent who were "lost" to the Jewish community and encourage them to "return". Most of the recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union belong to the category of those who were "lost" and have "returned".

The attitude to persons of Jewish descent who have simply lost their faith and become non-religious, or who practice religions other than Christianity (and perhaps Islam; I am not sure) eg Jews who practice Buddhism or Hinduism, or are members of Hare Krishna, is different. They are not regarded as "traitors", since atheism and other religions and philosophies are not regarded as "enemies", as is Christianity. Hence, such persons can reclaim their Jewish immediately, even without giving up their atheism, or Buddhism or Confucianism, whatever. They have not gone over to the "enemy", and do not need to rehabilitate themselves.

[David Thompson]

The discussion is beginning to wander a long way from 1943 Klessheim, gentlemen.

[chalutzim]

The discussion is beginning to wander a long way from 1943 Klessheim, gentlemen.

David, let the two rabbis discuss that very important question if it please them.

[Scott Smith]

The discussion is beginning to wander a long way from 1943 Klessheim, gentlemen.

David, let the two rabbis discuss that very important question if it please them.

I agree it's off-topic but the question must be settled somehow if there is ever to be any peace in the Middle East.

Here is a new thread:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 249#160249

[lisset]

The subject of the talks - people.
Some of these very people can be seen in the book " The Auschwitz Album - The Story of a Transport" ( Auschwitz -Birkenau State Museum / Yad Vashem ).
The truth of the pudding can be seen in the images of infants waiting in the birchwood beside 4 and 5 , waiting to be murdered.