Charles Bunch wrote:
[Why, do I need something to keep me occupied for a considerable time while waiting for you to support your claim that Oberhouser testified to killing and burning 600,000? Or will this just prove to be another empty Mills claim?]
Charles Bunch is indulging in his normal habit of twisting my words. What I wrote was that at the trial of Oberhauser and others, some of the former camp staff testified that 600,000 bodies had been exhumed and burnt. I did not say that Oberhauser himself gave that testimony.
The dishonesty of Charles Bunch's words is demonstrated by the fact that his ideological accomplice, Medorjurgen, had already posted precisely the testimony that I had referred to. It was Heinrich Gley, and his words, as posted by Medorjurgen, were:
“As I remember the gassing was stopped at the end of 1942, when there was snow already on the ground. Then the general exhumation and cremation of the corpses began; it MIGHT have lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The cremation was carried out day and night without a break, and indeed at first at one and then later at two fire sites. It was possible to cremate some 2 [sic! 2,000?] corpses at one fire site within 24 hours. About 4 weeks after the beginning of the cremation operation the second fire site was constructed. On average, therefore, some 300,000 corpses were cremated at the first site over 5 months, at the second site some 240,000 over 4 months. Naturally this is a matter of estimates based on averages. To figure the total number of corpses at 500,000 COULD be correct.”
I have highlighted two words in the text of Gley's testimony that indicate that he is not speaking with absolute certitude with his own memory. It is obvious that he is giving partial agreement to something that has been suggested to him.
What was suggested to Gley was of course the claim that the total number of victims of Belzec, as determined by the number of corpses buried there, was AT LEAST 500,000. Gley cautiously supports that claim by describing 300,000 bodies exhumed and burnt on one pyre, and 240,000 on another, for a total of 540,000.
What was the origin of the suggestion to Gley that the number of victims was at least 500,000. Charles Bunch himself has given us the answer in his earlier post; it was the Polish commission of enquiry immediately after the war, which made the claim that the total number of victims of Belzec was 600,000. It is obvious that the West German court trying Oberhauser and other former camp staff members took the Polish claim at face value, and encouraged the men on trial to agree with it and provide support for it in their own testimonies. One reason why it might have been possible for the court to obtain testimonies from the accused men supporting the figure of from 500,000 to 600,000 bodies is that the humbler camp staff may have had no information on how many bodies were buried at Belzec; they only knew that it was a very large number.
However, we now know, thanks to the documentary evidence that Medorjurgen kindly brings to our attention at every possible opportunity, that the total intake at Belzec (the German word used is "Zugang") was somewhat over 400,000. Therefore, even if all the arrivals were killed, buried, exhumed and burned, the number could not possibly be as high as 540,000 as Gley was induced (?) to claim.
Furthermore, we now know, thanks to the archeological investigation and Medorjurgen's own thorough and apparently reliable calculations that the number of bodies buried at Belzec was nowhere near the total intake, in fact it was about half, or a bit more, as shown by the capacity of the mass graves. Not only that, a substantial proportion of the bodies that were buried is still there, either unburnt or partially burnt.
Now, the conclusion of the Polish commission of enquiry was that the gassed victims were all buried immediately after their deaths; the exhumation and cremation of the bodies did not commence until after deportations to Belzec ceased at the end of 1942. That version of events was supported by the former camp staff at their trial.
Accordingly, the total number of bodies exhumed and burnt could not exceed the total number buried, which is estimated by Medorjurgen at something over 200,000 as demonstrated by the capacity of the mass graves discovered. In other words, Gley's testimony was a gross exaggeration at the very least.
Furthermore, the difference between the total intake (>400,000) and the total number of crpses buried (>200,000) cannot be accounted for by the cremation of gassed victims immediately after death without intervening burial, since that did not occur at Belzec according to the testimony of witnesses (except for Pfannenstiel, who seems to be the odd one out, and whose evidence must be treated with reserve as there is no other indication of the burning of bodies as early as August 1942).
Accordingly, it must be assumed that the approximately 200,000 Jews arrived at Belzec and were counted in the "Zugang" but did not end up buried in one of the mass graves within the camp, must have left Belzec and gone elsewhere. Their fate is unknown, but it is most probable that the great majority perished before the end of the War.
Another possible explanation relates to what the figures called "Zugang" in the Hoefle telegram actually represent. The figures are very exact, indicating a careful count of deportees at some point. However, survivor testimony indicates that no counting was done on arrival at the camp; the arriving Jews were simply driven off the trains and herded through the undressing and killing process at great speed and with great violence. There is no indication that any of the camp staff was keeping a count.
The alternative is that an accurate count was made when the deportees were loaded into the trains at their place of origin. That raises the possibility that not all deportees loaded onto a train scheduled to go to Belzec, or Sobibor or Treblinka, actually were offloaded at those destinations.
The way such a process worked is demonstrated by testimony from Bialystok District. There a selection of deportees took place at the place of origin. Those the German authorities did not want for labour, eg Orthodox talmudic scholars, were loaded into certain boxcars, those selected for labour in different boxcars. When the train arrived at Treblinka Station, the boxcars containing the unwanted Jews were uncoupled and shunted into Treblinka Camp; the rest of the train containg those selected for labour continued to places of forced labour utilisation such as the camp complex around Lublin. A similar process could well have happened in relation to the transports recorded as going to Belzec.
Belzec
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9002
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9002
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Discoloration of bodies
<<A lot can be read into “no unnatural discoloration”, especially when coming from someone who is not a physician. Dr. Pfannenstiel’s deposition before the Darmstadt Court on 6 June 1950 suggests that it took such an expert to take due notice of certain telling features on the bodies: >>
But the much-praised eyewitness Henryk Tauber, who was not a doctor, noticed the red or pink discoloration of bodies gassed with cyanide. Why would Reder not have noticed the same discoloration of bodies gassed with CO?
The discoloration is due to same cause, retention of oxygen in the blood because of the blockage of its transfer from the blood to the cells, which is the way both cyanide and CO work.
But the much-praised eyewitness Henryk Tauber, who was not a doctor, noticed the red or pink discoloration of bodies gassed with cyanide. Why would Reder not have noticed the same discoloration of bodies gassed with CO?
The discoloration is due to same cause, retention of oxygen in the blood because of the blockage of its transfer from the blood to the cells, which is the way both cyanide and CO work.
<<Charles Bunch is indulging in his normal habit of twisting my words. What I wrote was that at the trial of Oberhauser and others, some of the former camp staff testified that 600,000 bodies had been exhumed and burnt. I did not say that Oberhauser himself gave that testimony.>>
Michael Mills’ statement was the following:
Michael Mills doesn’t seem to be very familiar with the trials in question if he refers to a <<Belzec trial>> against <<Oberhauser and others>>. The only defendant at the Belzec trial before the Munich County Court that ended on 21.01.1965 was Josef Kaspar Oberhauser. At least this is what becomes apparent from the trial summary featured on the Justiz und NS-Verbrechen website of the University of Amsterdam, hosted by our common friend Mr. Dick de Mildt:
http://www.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brdengf ... eng585.htm
<<The dishonesty of Charles Bunch's words is demonstrated by the fact that his ideological accomplice, Medorjurgen, had already posted precisely the testimony that I had referred to. It was Heinrich Gley, and his words, as posted by Medorjurgen, were:>>
Wow, now I’m an <<ideological accomplice>>. Coming from Michael Mills, I guess I can take that as a compliment. I’m only wondering what the <<ideology>> is supposed to be.
<<“As I remember the gassing was stopped at the end of 1942, when there was snow already on the ground. Then the general exhumation and cremation of the corpses began; it MIGHT have lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The cremation was carried out day and night without a break, and indeed at first at one and then later at two fire sites. It was possible to cremate some 2 [sic! 2,000?] corpses at one fire site within 24 hours. About 4 weeks after the beginning of the cremation operation the second fire site was constructed. On average, therefore, some 300,000 corpses were cremated at the first site over 5 months, at the second site some 240,000 over 4 months. Naturally this is a matter of estimates based on averages. To figure the total number of corpses at 500,000 COULD be correct.”
I have highlighted two words in the text of Gley's testimony that indicate that he is not speaking with absolute certitude with his own memory. It is obvious that he is giving partial agreement to something that has been suggested to him.>>
Obvious to Michael Mills, perhaps, who has a penchant for reading his own wishful thinking into lines that take a lot of twisting to hint at what he would like them too. What is particularly amusing is that his speculations are made on a text that is an English translation of the protocol containing Gley’s statement, which of course was written in German.
<<What was suggested to Gley was of course the claim that the total number of victims of Belzec, as determined by the number of corpses buried there, was AT LEAST 500,000. Gley cautiously supports that claim by describing 300,000 bodies exhumed and burnt on one pyre, and 240,000 on another, for a total of 540,000.
What was the origin of the suggestion to Gley that the number of victims was at least 500,000. Charles Bunch himself has given us the answer in his earlier post; it was the Polish commission of enquiry immediately after the war, which made the claim that the total number of victims of Belzec was 600,000.>>
If the Munich County Court was so prone to asking suggestive questions, then why did they come up with 500,000 instead of the 600,000 given in the report of the Polish commission?
<<It is obvious that the West German court trying Oberhauser and other former camp staff members took the Polish claim at face value, and encouraged the men on trial to agree with it and provide support for it in their own testimonies.>>
On the contrary. What is more likely in the face of Gley’s statement is that he was not confronted with the 600,000 figure from the Polish Report but instead asked to provide his own assessment as to how many bodies were burned.
<<One reason why it might have been possible for the court to obtain testimonies from the accused men supporting the figure of from 500,000 to 600,000 bodies is that the humbler camp staff may have had no information on how many bodies were buried at Belzec; they only knew that it was a very large number.>>
Also a rather lame contention. Gley obviously had a rather accurate idea of the orders of magnitude involved.
Mr. Mills would be more convincing if, instead of his empty and unsubstantiated speculations about what only he considers <<obvious>>, he could show us the interrogation protocol at which Heinrich Gley made the quoted statements. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Gley did not make his statements at the Oberhauser trial, by the way.
<<However, we now know, thanks to the documentary evidence that Medorjurgen kindly brings to our attention at every possible opportunity, that the total intake at Belzec (the German word used is "Zugang") was somewhat over 400,000. Therefore, even if all the arrivals were killed, buried, exhumed and burned, the number could not possibly be as high as 540,000 as Gley was induced (?) to claim.>>
1. The Höfle memorandum only refers to <<Einsatz Reinhart>>, i.e. it only includes Jews from the General Government. In his quoted assessment of the archaeological report, Michael Tregenza tells us there were <<German Jews deported from the Reich in April-May to lzbica and Piaski, and thence to Belzec>>. This suggests that the figure of 434,508 mentioned in the Höfle memo does not include all Jews taken to Belzec.
2. The <<even if all the arrivals were killed, buried, exhumed and burned>> – stance is just hilarious. I strongly doubt that Michael Mills can provide even a shred of evidence that would hint at any of the deportees having met another faith.
<<Furthermore, we now know, thanks to the archeological investigation and Medorjurgen's own thorough and apparently reliable calculations that the number of bodies buried at Belzec was nowhere near the total intake, in fact it was about half, or a bit more, as shown by the capacity of the mass graves. Not only that, a substantial proportion of the bodies that were buried is still there, either unburnt or partially burnt.
Now, the conclusion of the Polish commission of enquiry was that the gassed victims were all buried immediately after their deaths; the exhumation and cremation of the bodies did not commence until after deportations to Belzec ceased at the end of 1942. That version of events was supported by the former camp staff at their trial.
Accordingly, the total number of bodies exhumed and burnt could not exceed the total number buried, which is estimated by Medorjurgen at something over 200,000 as demonstrated by the capacity of the mass graves discovered. In other words, Gley's testimony was a gross exaggeration at the very least.
Furthermore, the difference between the total intake (>400,000) and the total number of crpses buried (>200,000) cannot be accounted for by the cremation of gassed victims immediately after death without intervening burial, since that did not occur at Belzec according to the testimony of witnesses (except for Pfannenstiel, who seems to be the odd one out, and whose evidence must be treated with reserve as there is no other indication of the burning of bodies as early as August 1942).
Accordingly, it must be assumed that the approximately 200,000 Jews arrived at Belzec and were counted in the "Zugang" but did not end up buried in one of the mass graves within the camp, must have left Belzec and gone elsewhere. Their fate is unknown, but it is most probable that the great majority perished before the end of the War.>>
As Medorjurgen pointed out in his quoted Codoh article:
Michael Mills’ suggestion, on the other hand, is nothing other than hollow speculation. There is not a shred of evidence that anyone bound for Belzec went off the train at any place before Belzec, or that anyone arriving at Belzec was ever taken from there to anywhere else. All documentary and eyewitness evidence points to everyone taken to Belzec who did not die on the way having arrived there and everyone who arrived at Belzec, except for a handful of escapees, having been killed there.
<<Another possible explanation relates to what the figures called "Zugang" in the Hoefle telegram actually represent. The figures are very exact, indicating a careful count of deportees at some point. However, survivor testimony indicates that no counting was done on arrival at the camp; the arriving Jews were simply driven off the trains and herded through the undressing and killing process at great speed and with great violence. There is no indication that any of the camp staff was keeping a count.
The alternative is that an accurate count was made when the deportees were loaded into the trains at their place of origin. That raises the possibility that not all deportees loaded onto a train scheduled to go to Belzec, or Sobibor or Treblinka, actually were offloaded at those destinations.>>
And yet Höfle, the bloody idiot, reported them to his superior as having arrived at Belzec. Just how silly are Michael Mills’ speculations going to become?
<<The way such a process worked is demonstrated by testimony from Bialystok District. There a selection of deportees took place at the place of origin. Those the German authorities did not want for labour, eg Orthodox talmudic scholars, were loaded into certain boxcars, those selected for labour in different boxcars. When the train arrived at Treblinka Station, the boxcars containing the unwanted Jews were uncoupled and shunted into Treblinka Camp; the rest of the train containg those selected for labour continued to places of forced labour utilisation such as the camp complex around Lublin.>>
Was that so? Let’s have a comprehensive quote from a source backing up these contentions, together with an explanation as to why Michael Mills thinks that the above described procedure, assuming his description is accurate at all, was representative of transports to Treblinka from all locations.
<<A similar process could well have happened in relation to the transports recorded as going to Belzec.>>
Even assuming that was so, would those who <<continued to places of forced labour utilisation>> have been reported as <<Zugang>> at Belzec within the scope of <<Einsatz Reinhart>> by Mr. Höfle? Hardly so. Michael Mills’ <<could well have>> – speculations have much more to do with wishful thinking than with any realistic possibilities. And then, historiography is not made of <<could have been>> – considerations. It is made of evidence, and there is not a shred of evidence backing up his contentions that Michael Mills can provide.
++A lot can be read into “no unnatural discoloration”, especially when coming from someone who is not a physician. Dr. Pfannenstiel’s deposition before the Darmstadt Court on 6 June 1950 suggests that it took such an expert to take due notice of certain telling features on the bodies: ++
<<But the much-praised eyewitness Henryk Tauber, who was not a doctor, noticed the red or pink discoloration of bodies gassed with cyanide. Why would Reder not have noticed the same discoloration of bodies gassed with CO?
The discoloration is due to same cause, retention of oxygen in the blood because of the blockage of its transfer from the blood to the cells, which is the way both cyanide and CO work.>>
The cause of death is likely to have been suffocation rather than carbon monoxide poisoning, and the visible signs of suffocation, judging by the observations of Pfannenstiel and others, seem to have been a blue puffishness about the face or blue nostrils on some of the victims, something that an untrained observer with less attention to detail than Tauber could easily have failed to see. Anyway, it would be useful if Michael Mills could give us the full quote of Reder’s deposition wherein Reder speaks of <<no unnatural discoloration>>. I wonder why he is so reluctant about providing a quote that might help him make his point.
Michael Mills’ statement was the following:
Interesting. So the total was not 600,000 but a lower figure, 434,508. But at the Belzec trial (Oberhauser and others), some of the former camp-staff testified that the total number of bodies exhumed and burnet came to 600,000. Not only was that figure greatly in excess of the number now documented, but also failed to take into account that a very large number of the bodies was not exhumed and burnt, according to the results of the archeological investigation Medorjurgen quotes. So why would the former camp-staff on trial testify to a greatly inflated figure? To please the court by concurring what was then received wisdom, perhaps?
Michael Mills doesn’t seem to be very familiar with the trials in question if he refers to a <<Belzec trial>> against <<Oberhauser and others>>. The only defendant at the Belzec trial before the Munich County Court that ended on 21.01.1965 was Josef Kaspar Oberhauser. At least this is what becomes apparent from the trial summary featured on the Justiz und NS-Verbrechen website of the University of Amsterdam, hosted by our common friend Mr. Dick de Mildt:
Source:Case Nr.585
Crime Category: Mass Extermination Crimes in Camps
Accused:
Oberhauser, Josef Kaspar 4½ Years
Court:
LG München I 650121
BGH 651214
Country where the crime was committed: Poland
Crime Location: HS KL Belzec
Crime Date: 42
Victims: Jews
Nationality: Polish
Office: Haftstättenpersonal KL Belzec
Subject of the proceeding: Cooperation in the mass killing of Jews in Belzec through duty performance at the arrival ramp as well as by procuring the necessary building materials for the construction of the extermination installation
Published in Justiz und NS-Verbrechen Vol. XX
http://www.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brdengf ... eng585.htm
<<The dishonesty of Charles Bunch's words is demonstrated by the fact that his ideological accomplice, Medorjurgen, had already posted precisely the testimony that I had referred to. It was Heinrich Gley, and his words, as posted by Medorjurgen, were:>>
Wow, now I’m an <<ideological accomplice>>. Coming from Michael Mills, I guess I can take that as a compliment. I’m only wondering what the <<ideology>> is supposed to be.
<<“As I remember the gassing was stopped at the end of 1942, when there was snow already on the ground. Then the general exhumation and cremation of the corpses began; it MIGHT have lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The cremation was carried out day and night without a break, and indeed at first at one and then later at two fire sites. It was possible to cremate some 2 [sic! 2,000?] corpses at one fire site within 24 hours. About 4 weeks after the beginning of the cremation operation the second fire site was constructed. On average, therefore, some 300,000 corpses were cremated at the first site over 5 months, at the second site some 240,000 over 4 months. Naturally this is a matter of estimates based on averages. To figure the total number of corpses at 500,000 COULD be correct.”
I have highlighted two words in the text of Gley's testimony that indicate that he is not speaking with absolute certitude with his own memory. It is obvious that he is giving partial agreement to something that has been suggested to him.>>
Obvious to Michael Mills, perhaps, who has a penchant for reading his own wishful thinking into lines that take a lot of twisting to hint at what he would like them too. What is particularly amusing is that his speculations are made on a text that is an English translation of the protocol containing Gley’s statement, which of course was written in German.
<<What was suggested to Gley was of course the claim that the total number of victims of Belzec, as determined by the number of corpses buried there, was AT LEAST 500,000. Gley cautiously supports that claim by describing 300,000 bodies exhumed and burnt on one pyre, and 240,000 on another, for a total of 540,000.
What was the origin of the suggestion to Gley that the number of victims was at least 500,000. Charles Bunch himself has given us the answer in his earlier post; it was the Polish commission of enquiry immediately after the war, which made the claim that the total number of victims of Belzec was 600,000.>>
If the Munich County Court was so prone to asking suggestive questions, then why did they come up with 500,000 instead of the 600,000 given in the report of the Polish commission?
<<It is obvious that the West German court trying Oberhauser and other former camp staff members took the Polish claim at face value, and encouraged the men on trial to agree with it and provide support for it in their own testimonies.>>
On the contrary. What is more likely in the face of Gley’s statement is that he was not confronted with the 600,000 figure from the Polish Report but instead asked to provide his own assessment as to how many bodies were burned.
<<One reason why it might have been possible for the court to obtain testimonies from the accused men supporting the figure of from 500,000 to 600,000 bodies is that the humbler camp staff may have had no information on how many bodies were buried at Belzec; they only knew that it was a very large number.>>
Also a rather lame contention. Gley obviously had a rather accurate idea of the orders of magnitude involved.
Mr. Mills would be more convincing if, instead of his empty and unsubstantiated speculations about what only he considers <<obvious>>, he could show us the interrogation protocol at which Heinrich Gley made the quoted statements. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Gley did not make his statements at the Oberhauser trial, by the way.
<<However, we now know, thanks to the documentary evidence that Medorjurgen kindly brings to our attention at every possible opportunity, that the total intake at Belzec (the German word used is "Zugang") was somewhat over 400,000. Therefore, even if all the arrivals were killed, buried, exhumed and burned, the number could not possibly be as high as 540,000 as Gley was induced (?) to claim.>>
1. The Höfle memorandum only refers to <<Einsatz Reinhart>>, i.e. it only includes Jews from the General Government. In his quoted assessment of the archaeological report, Michael Tregenza tells us there were <<German Jews deported from the Reich in April-May to lzbica and Piaski, and thence to Belzec>>. This suggests that the figure of 434,508 mentioned in the Höfle memo does not include all Jews taken to Belzec.
2. The <<even if all the arrivals were killed, buried, exhumed and burned>> – stance is just hilarious. I strongly doubt that Michael Mills can provide even a shred of evidence that would hint at any of the deportees having met another faith.
<<Furthermore, we now know, thanks to the archeological investigation and Medorjurgen's own thorough and apparently reliable calculations that the number of bodies buried at Belzec was nowhere near the total intake, in fact it was about half, or a bit more, as shown by the capacity of the mass graves. Not only that, a substantial proportion of the bodies that were buried is still there, either unburnt or partially burnt.
Now, the conclusion of the Polish commission of enquiry was that the gassed victims were all buried immediately after their deaths; the exhumation and cremation of the bodies did not commence until after deportations to Belzec ceased at the end of 1942. That version of events was supported by the former camp staff at their trial.
Accordingly, the total number of bodies exhumed and burnt could not exceed the total number buried, which is estimated by Medorjurgen at something over 200,000 as demonstrated by the capacity of the mass graves discovered. In other words, Gley's testimony was a gross exaggeration at the very least.
Furthermore, the difference between the total intake (>400,000) and the total number of crpses buried (>200,000) cannot be accounted for by the cremation of gassed victims immediately after death without intervening burial, since that did not occur at Belzec according to the testimony of witnesses (except for Pfannenstiel, who seems to be the odd one out, and whose evidence must be treated with reserve as there is no other indication of the burning of bodies as early as August 1942).
Accordingly, it must be assumed that the approximately 200,000 Jews arrived at Belzec and were counted in the "Zugang" but did not end up buried in one of the mass graves within the camp, must have left Belzec and gone elsewhere. Their fate is unknown, but it is most probable that the great majority perished before the end of the War.>>
As Medorjurgen pointed out in his quoted Codoh article:
The assumption that a considerable number of bodies lying in the top layers of the mass graves were burned from the top is borne out not only by Pfannenstiel’s testimonial, but also by the physical features of the mass graves, as explained. The presence of unburned dead bodies underneath thick layers of burnt human fat points exactly in this direction. Another possibility is that the archaeological investigation did not uncover all the mass graves or the complete extension thereof.The resulting total of 258,794 bodies is 175,714 bodies below the figure of 434,508 deportees to Belzec indicated in the Höfle memo. There are several possible explanations for the delta:
i) The 1997/98 archaeological investigation failed to discover all the burial facilities of the camp and there are mass graves that have still not been found.
ii) The capacity of the pits was stretched by the procedure of “top down” burning, as suggested by the physical evidence and by Pfannenstiel’s above quoted testimonial.
iii) The difference is to be found “somewhere else”.
Alternative iii) immediately raises the question: Where?
Considering that
- there is no evidence whatsoever that people taken to Belzec were taken anywhere else from there;
- the nature and purpose of the camp, and the fate of people transported there, become clearly apparent from the documentary evidence and from the depositions of former members of the SS staff at trials before West German courts;
- there is only a handful of deportees known to have survived Belzec
this alternative must be considered the least probable of the three.
Michael Mills’ suggestion, on the other hand, is nothing other than hollow speculation. There is not a shred of evidence that anyone bound for Belzec went off the train at any place before Belzec, or that anyone arriving at Belzec was ever taken from there to anywhere else. All documentary and eyewitness evidence points to everyone taken to Belzec who did not die on the way having arrived there and everyone who arrived at Belzec, except for a handful of escapees, having been killed there.
<<Another possible explanation relates to what the figures called "Zugang" in the Hoefle telegram actually represent. The figures are very exact, indicating a careful count of deportees at some point. However, survivor testimony indicates that no counting was done on arrival at the camp; the arriving Jews were simply driven off the trains and herded through the undressing and killing process at great speed and with great violence. There is no indication that any of the camp staff was keeping a count.
The alternative is that an accurate count was made when the deportees were loaded into the trains at their place of origin. That raises the possibility that not all deportees loaded onto a train scheduled to go to Belzec, or Sobibor or Treblinka, actually were offloaded at those destinations.>>
And yet Höfle, the bloody idiot, reported them to his superior as having arrived at Belzec. Just how silly are Michael Mills’ speculations going to become?
<<The way such a process worked is demonstrated by testimony from Bialystok District. There a selection of deportees took place at the place of origin. Those the German authorities did not want for labour, eg Orthodox talmudic scholars, were loaded into certain boxcars, those selected for labour in different boxcars. When the train arrived at Treblinka Station, the boxcars containing the unwanted Jews were uncoupled and shunted into Treblinka Camp; the rest of the train containg those selected for labour continued to places of forced labour utilisation such as the camp complex around Lublin.>>
Was that so? Let’s have a comprehensive quote from a source backing up these contentions, together with an explanation as to why Michael Mills thinks that the above described procedure, assuming his description is accurate at all, was representative of transports to Treblinka from all locations.
<<A similar process could well have happened in relation to the transports recorded as going to Belzec.>>
Even assuming that was so, would those who <<continued to places of forced labour utilisation>> have been reported as <<Zugang>> at Belzec within the scope of <<Einsatz Reinhart>> by Mr. Höfle? Hardly so. Michael Mills’ <<could well have>> – speculations have much more to do with wishful thinking than with any realistic possibilities. And then, historiography is not made of <<could have been>> – considerations. It is made of evidence, and there is not a shred of evidence backing up his contentions that Michael Mills can provide.
++A lot can be read into “no unnatural discoloration”, especially when coming from someone who is not a physician. Dr. Pfannenstiel’s deposition before the Darmstadt Court on 6 June 1950 suggests that it took such an expert to take due notice of certain telling features on the bodies: ++
<<But the much-praised eyewitness Henryk Tauber, who was not a doctor, noticed the red or pink discoloration of bodies gassed with cyanide. Why would Reder not have noticed the same discoloration of bodies gassed with CO?
The discoloration is due to same cause, retention of oxygen in the blood because of the blockage of its transfer from the blood to the cells, which is the way both cyanide and CO work.>>
The cause of death is likely to have been suffocation rather than carbon monoxide poisoning, and the visible signs of suffocation, judging by the observations of Pfannenstiel and others, seem to have been a blue puffishness about the face or blue nostrils on some of the victims, something that an untrained observer with less attention to detail than Tauber could easily have failed to see. Anyway, it would be useful if Michael Mills could give us the full quote of Reder’s deposition wherein Reder speaks of <<no unnatural discoloration>>. I wonder why he is so reluctant about providing a quote that might help him make his point.
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9002
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Belzec
Medorjurgen wrote:
"Einsatz Reinhardt" (misspelled "Reinhart" by Hoefle) was the name given to the group of men under the command of Globocnik who operated the camps of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, and also managed the disposal of the booty taken from the deportees and stored at Lublin Camp. There is no reason to believe that in carrying their functions, and recording the statistics of their activities, they distinguished between Jews from the Generalgouvernement and the very small number of Jews from other countries who ended up at the camps run by Einsatz Reinhardt.
As to the Jews from Germany, the documentary record shows that they were deported to Izbica and Piaski, arrived there, sent letters home ubtil 1942 or 1943, and then disappeared. It is surmised that they were sent to Belzec, but it is only a surmise; they could just as easily have been sent somewhere else. Is Medorjurgen relying on Tregenza alone for his information? On what did Tregenza base his claim that the Germans deported to Izbica and Piaski ended up in Belzec?
By the way, a good book to read on the German Jews deported to the Lublin District is "Lebenszeichen aus Piaski", which shows that the last signs of life from the deportees occurred in 1943. A number of letters from the deportees are quoted in the book.
Medorjurgen fulminated further:
On what grounds does Medorjurgen claim that the numbers quoted in the Hoefle memorandum only refer to Jews from the Generalgouvernement, and not to Jews brought to Belzec from elsewhere?1. The Höfle memorandum only refers to <<Einsatz Reinhart>>, i.e. it only includes Jews from the General Government. In his quoted assessment of the archaeological report, Michael Tregenza tells us there were <<German Jews deported from the Reich in April-May to lzbica and Piaski, and thence to Belzec>> . This suggests that the figure of 434,508 mentioned in the Höfle memo does not include all Jews taken to Belzec.
"Einsatz Reinhardt" (misspelled "Reinhart" by Hoefle) was the name given to the group of men under the command of Globocnik who operated the camps of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, and also managed the disposal of the booty taken from the deportees and stored at Lublin Camp. There is no reason to believe that in carrying their functions, and recording the statistics of their activities, they distinguished between Jews from the Generalgouvernement and the very small number of Jews from other countries who ended up at the camps run by Einsatz Reinhardt.
As to the Jews from Germany, the documentary record shows that they were deported to Izbica and Piaski, arrived there, sent letters home ubtil 1942 or 1943, and then disappeared. It is surmised that they were sent to Belzec, but it is only a surmise; they could just as easily have been sent somewhere else. Is Medorjurgen relying on Tregenza alone for his information? On what did Tregenza base his claim that the Germans deported to Izbica and Piaski ended up in Belzec?
By the way, a good book to read on the German Jews deported to the Lublin District is "Lebenszeichen aus Piaski", which shows that the last signs of life from the deportees occurred in 1943. A number of letters from the deportees are quoted in the book.
Medorjurgen fulminated further:
Sheer laziness, I am afraid. I am not going to hobble off on my arthritic knees to the library again to reconsult the book that I have already advised readers of, since I know that Medorjurgen is not genuinely interested in getting the information. If some other reader who is genuinely interested in reading the full text of Reder's statement as quoted in the book referred to by me, I might think about it.I wonder why he is so reluctant about providing a quote that might help him make his point
-
Charles Bunch
- Member
- Posts: 846
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
- Location: USA
Re: Belzec trial
>>Why, do I need something to keep me occupied for a considerable time while waiting for you to support your claim that Oberhouser testified to killing and burning 600,000? Or will this just prove to be another empty Mills claim?
>Charles Bunch is indulging in his normal habit of twisting my words. What I wrote was that at the trial of Oberhauser and others, some of the former camp staff testified that 600,000 bodies had been exhumed and burnt. I did not say that Oberhauser himself gave that testimony.
That is but another outright lie by Michael Mills. What he said was: "Interesting. So the total was not 600,000 but a lower figure, 434,508. But at the Belzec trial (Oberhauser and others), some of the former camp-staff testified that the total number of bodies exhumed and burnet came to 600,000." So what Mills wrote was that Oberhauser testified that 600,000 bodies had been exhumed and burned. What Mills claimed was exactly what I called him on, which was that Oberhauser claimed that 600,000 were exhumed and burned. Of course, Mills can't support this charge, so he is attempting to foister an outright lie on the readers of this forum. I once again challenge him to provide support for his contention that Oberhauser testified that he independently knew of the exhumation and burning of 600,000 corpses.
>The dishonesty of Charles Bunch's words is demonstrated by the fact that his ideological accomplice, Medorjurgen, had already posted precisely the testimony that I had referred to. It was Heinrich Gley, and his words, as posted by Medorjurgen, were:
The dishonesty is Michael Mills', who has not even attempted to post Oberhauser's testimony in support of his lie.
He has yet to post testimony to support his claim that Oberhauser independently said that 600,000 were exhumed and burned. That is because no such testimony exists. Mills lied when he said it did. As I indicated in my intitial response, the 600,000 figure came from the Polish Commission of 1946-47, not from Oberhauser's testimony 20 years later. Mr Mills is once again caught in a lie, and is once again desperately trying to change the subject.
The question is clear Mr. Mills.
Show us the testimony that Oberhauser claimed 600,000 exhumed and burned at Belzec. That is what you claimed.
>Charles Bunch is indulging in his normal habit of twisting my words. What I wrote was that at the trial of Oberhauser and others, some of the former camp staff testified that 600,000 bodies had been exhumed and burnt. I did not say that Oberhauser himself gave that testimony.
That is but another outright lie by Michael Mills. What he said was: "Interesting. So the total was not 600,000 but a lower figure, 434,508. But at the Belzec trial (Oberhauser and others), some of the former camp-staff testified that the total number of bodies exhumed and burnet came to 600,000." So what Mills wrote was that Oberhauser testified that 600,000 bodies had been exhumed and burned. What Mills claimed was exactly what I called him on, which was that Oberhauser claimed that 600,000 were exhumed and burned. Of course, Mills can't support this charge, so he is attempting to foister an outright lie on the readers of this forum. I once again challenge him to provide support for his contention that Oberhauser testified that he independently knew of the exhumation and burning of 600,000 corpses.
>The dishonesty of Charles Bunch's words is demonstrated by the fact that his ideological accomplice, Medorjurgen, had already posted precisely the testimony that I had referred to. It was Heinrich Gley, and his words, as posted by Medorjurgen, were:
The dishonesty is Michael Mills', who has not even attempted to post Oberhauser's testimony in support of his lie.
He has yet to post testimony to support his claim that Oberhauser independently said that 600,000 were exhumed and burned. That is because no such testimony exists. Mills lied when he said it did. As I indicated in my intitial response, the 600,000 figure came from the Polish Commission of 1946-47, not from Oberhauser's testimony 20 years later. Mr Mills is once again caught in a lie, and is once again desperately trying to change the subject.
The question is clear Mr. Mills.
Show us the testimony that Oberhauser claimed 600,000 exhumed and burned at Belzec. That is what you claimed.
Charlie
Am I the only one sick of the High Priest Bunch? Everyone's a liar except him. We have someone praised as a scholar by the Wall Street Journal posting on this forum, and all this little fellow does is denigrate him. There ARE those who want to learn here.
Charlie, help me out; explain again to me how antiSemitism only applies to Jews and not to Arabs. I was confused when you mocked the poster at the other forum who contradicted you.
Charlie, help me out; explain again to me how antiSemitism only applies to Jews and not to Arabs. I was confused when you mocked the poster at the other forum who contradicted you.
-
Charles Bunch
- Member
- Posts: 846
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
- Location: USA
Re: Charlie
>Am I the only one sick of the High Priest Bunch?
Well frankly, I hardly care what an ignorant denier thinks of someone who is prone to point out his lies.
>Eeryone's a liar except him.
A lie by Dan. The only people who are accused of doing so are those whose statements have been specifically challenged and the record shows they have been unable to defend themselves against such charges.
>We hve someone praised as a scholar by the Wall Street Journal posting on this forum, and all this little fellow does is denigrate him.
Rubbish. The person referred to has been challenged to support statements he has made, and he has been unable to do so. Mr. Mills is far from a scholar, he is but another denier who is easily exposed by anyone with an understanding of the Holocaust.
>Charlie,help me out; explain again to me how antiSemitism only applies to Jews and not to Arabs.
Because the word antisemitism means hatred of Jews and has nothing to do with Arabs. Is this simple enough for you?
Well frankly, I hardly care what an ignorant denier thinks of someone who is prone to point out his lies.
>Eeryone's a liar except him.
A lie by Dan. The only people who are accused of doing so are those whose statements have been specifically challenged and the record shows they have been unable to defend themselves against such charges.
>We hve someone praised as a scholar by the Wall Street Journal posting on this forum, and all this little fellow does is denigrate him.
Rubbish. The person referred to has been challenged to support statements he has made, and he has been unable to do so. Mr. Mills is far from a scholar, he is but another denier who is easily exposed by anyone with an understanding of the Holocaust.
>Charlie,help me out; explain again to me how antiSemitism only applies to Jews and not to Arabs.
Because the word antisemitism means hatred of Jews and has nothing to do with Arabs. Is this simple enough for you?
Quick Charles I've found another liar....
Cop a squiz at this
Have at look at this:
You wrote on the 13th at 5.28pm:
"To date, virtually everything you've claimed about the POW issue is contradicted by the facts, or is a deliberate distortion of them. "
Let me refresh your memory with evidence of my distortion's, here's what I wrote on the 12th at 2.18pm:
" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque. And I do believe that if such an enormous crime occurred notice would have been served by the usual mob of anti-american groups, I suppose that if the conspiracy theorists can have their XFiles, they can add this to the collection"
So, if the above is an example of distortion and contradicted by the facts, does that mean that I have misunderstood what you are arguing, are you in fact attempting to prove that Eisenhower was a war criminal and Baque's right? Indeed, are you aware at all of what you are endeavouring to say? And what to make of this,
you wrote on the 12th at 9.28pm:
large enough for you, do you think you can bring yourself to read it now, but here Charles, let me demonstrate another of your choice offerings and my reply
Lets just pluck one Buncherism out for starters, here you write on the 13th at 5.28pm:
" The refutation of Bacque's lies, which you traffic with no concern for truth"
Now here's what I wrote a day before on the 12th at 2.18pm:
" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque"
Yes, very obvious isn't it, that I traffic the lie's of Bacques, obvious that is, if your desire to score a point outweighs your ethical concern, but of course Charles I admit you haven't truncated any quote, but merely invented one, but thats just the beginning of your pernacious claims. Take a squiz at this
You wrote on the 14th at 3.13pm:
" Bacque has nothing to do with Mr. Tobin of the Adelaide Institute. You posed Tobin"
So apparently, I'm trafficking Baques lies one moment, than when such proves inconvienent for your arguments, I'm posing Tobin? Hmm, you must have a fabulous imagination, sort of provides a balance for your paucity of truth, but wait, there's more fine examples of a vivid imagination at work
Have a good look Charles and do take off the darkened sunnies or whatever blocks your optical sensors, and here, as repeated endlessly, the reason why the Eisenhower center should not be the last word:
written on the 12th at 7.37am:
"Considering that if the allegations were proved true, it certainly wouldn't assist the Eisenhower Center in any way conceiveable, it would be rather like asking the police if it was true whether they were corrupt,"
See Charles, above are lies, deceit, and just plain fabrication
but wait, aren't these the words of St Charles Bunch the man constantly obsessed with truthfulness
Have at look at this:
You wrote on the 13th at 5.28pm:
"To date, virtually everything you've claimed about the POW issue is contradicted by the facts, or is a deliberate distortion of them. "
Let me refresh your memory with evidence of my distortion's, here's what I wrote on the 12th at 2.18pm:
" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque. And I do believe that if such an enormous crime occurred notice would have been served by the usual mob of anti-american groups, I suppose that if the conspiracy theorists can have their XFiles, they can add this to the collection"
So, if the above is an example of distortion and contradicted by the facts, does that mean that I have misunderstood what you are arguing, are you in fact attempting to prove that Eisenhower was a war criminal and Baque's right? Indeed, are you aware at all of what you are endeavouring to say? And what to make of this,
you wrote on the 12th at 9.28pm:
large enough for you, do you think you can bring yourself to read it now, but here Charles, let me demonstrate another of your choice offerings and my reply
Lets just pluck one Buncherism out for starters, here you write on the 13th at 5.28pm:
" The refutation of Bacque's lies, which you traffic with no concern for truth"
Now here's what I wrote a day before on the 12th at 2.18pm:
" Of course it is ludicrous to suggest that millions died in western captivity or even eastern given this plausible theory, that would stretch the credulity somewhat, and I can't quite percieve Eisenhower as a mass-murderer as such is implied by Bacque"
Yes, very obvious isn't it, that I traffic the lie's of Bacques, obvious that is, if your desire to score a point outweighs your ethical concern, but of course Charles I admit you haven't truncated any quote, but merely invented one, but thats just the beginning of your pernacious claims. Take a squiz at this
You wrote on the 14th at 3.13pm:
" Bacque has nothing to do with Mr. Tobin of the Adelaide Institute. You posed Tobin"
So apparently, I'm trafficking Baques lies one moment, than when such proves inconvienent for your arguments, I'm posing Tobin? Hmm, you must have a fabulous imagination, sort of provides a balance for your paucity of truth, but wait, there's more fine examples of a vivid imagination at work
Have a good look Charles and do take off the darkened sunnies or whatever blocks your optical sensors, and here, as repeated endlessly, the reason why the Eisenhower center should not be the last word:
written on the 12th at 7.37am:
"Considering that if the allegations were proved true, it certainly wouldn't assist the Eisenhower Center in any way conceiveable, it would be rather like asking the police if it was true whether they were corrupt,"
See Charles, above are lies, deceit, and just plain fabrication
but wait, aren't these the words of St Charles Bunch the man constantly obsessed with truthfulness
Dan, by putting up with old Chalie boy we're actually....
doing the community a service, if it wasn't for this site he would probably be out stalking a celebrity
Cheers
Julian
Cheers
Julian
Re: Charlie
Charles says"Because the word antisemitism means hatred of Jews and has nothing to do with Arabs. Is this simple enough for you?"
Well, I'll admit that it's simple, perhaps why it appeals to you. A "60 minutes" program (popular American news program) once had a special about American prejudice against Arab Americans, and they called it "antisemitism".
You see, Arabs and Jew both come from Noah's son Shem, and they speak languages which are called "Semitic".
Well, I'll admit that it's simple, perhaps why it appeals to you. A "60 minutes" program (popular American news program) once had a special about American prejudice against Arab Americans, and they called it "antisemitism".
You see, Arabs and Jew both come from Noah's son Shem, and they speak languages which are called "Semitic".
<img src="http://members.odinsrage.com/nsindustry/BallBelzec.jpg" width=560 height=612 border=0>
Much like Treblinka, the Belzec camp could easily be looked into from the nearby rail line and road. The town of Belzec was located about 1 mile north of the camp, which had been built on a hillside, into the forest. Air photos from 1944,[12] in other words from after the camp was dismantled, show that the area of the camp where witnesses claim mass graves containing some 600,000 bodies as well as their later cremation sites were located, had an area of approximately 7,000 m2 (75,300 sq.ft.). No more than 70,000 bodies could thus have been buried there - provided that the rocky soil would even have allowed for the excavation of 12-ft.-deep graves in the first place. There is no evidence of any foundations left over from former buildings, nor of any large-scale movements of the soil or of mass cremations. There are no signs of any such activity anywhere in the surrounding area either.
Much like Treblinka, the Belzec camp could easily be looked into from the nearby rail line and road. The town of Belzec was located about 1 mile north of the camp, which had been built on a hillside, into the forest. Air photos from 1944,[12] in other words from after the camp was dismantled, show that the area of the camp where witnesses claim mass graves containing some 600,000 bodies as well as their later cremation sites were located, had an area of approximately 7,000 m2 (75,300 sq.ft.). No more than 70,000 bodies could thus have been buried there - provided that the rocky soil would even have allowed for the excavation of 12-ft.-deep graves in the first place. There is no evidence of any foundations left over from former buildings, nor of any large-scale movements of the soil or of mass cremations. There are no signs of any such activity anywhere in the surrounding area either.
-
Helly Angel
- Member
- Posts: 5139
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 21:00
- Location: Florida, USA
When read at this neonazi I can´t avoid remember the fanatical guys of Hugo Chavez here in Venezuela. The country is broken and they still believed in his Diva.
Proofs in great LOT, testimonies, photos, places like museums and they still lost the time in a cruel political system that never come back.
I recomend you buy the planes and tanks of Tamiya and build dioramas.
Maybe you can make beautifull scenes.
Proofs in great LOT, testimonies, photos, places like museums and they still lost the time in a cruel political system that never come back.
I recomend you buy the planes and tanks of Tamiya and build dioramas.
Maybe you can make beautifull scenes.
“Revisionist” mathematics seem to neglect i) the findings of the archaeological investigation in 1997/98 and ii) elementary mathematics. Here are my calculations based on the measurements of the mass graves according to the 1997/98 archaeological findings:Tchort wrote:<img src="http://members.odinsrage.com/nsindustry/BallBelzec.jpg" width=560 height=612 border=0>
Much like Treblinka, the Belzec camp could easily be looked into from the nearby rail line and road. The town of Belzec was located about 1 mile north of the camp, which had been built on a hillside, into the forest. Air photos from 1944,[12] in other words from after the camp was dismantled, show that the area of the camp where witnesses claim mass graves containing some 600,000 bodies as well as their later cremation sites were located, had an area of approximately 7,000 m2 (75,300 sq.ft.). No more than 70,000 bodies could thus have been buried there - provided that the rocky soil would even have allowed for the excavation of 12-ft.-deep graves in the first place. There is no evidence of any foundations left over from former buildings, nor of any large-scale movements of the soil or of mass cremations. There are no signs of any such activity anywhere in the surrounding area either.
1. A closer look at the online excerpts from the report on the archaeological investigations at Belzec in 1997/98 leads me to revise my assumption that the presence of human fat on the bottom of some graves indicates “bottom up” burnings. Grave no. 10 is described as follows:
"Grave No. 10. One of the largest mass graves in the camp, lies 15 m. N of the monument/mausoleum and measures 25 m. x 20 m. At depth 4 m. a 80 cm thick layer of human fat was found below which lay unburnt human remains and pieces of unburnt large human bones. The drill core brought to the surface several lumps of foul smelling fatty tissue still in a state of decomposition, mixed with greasy lime.”
Source of quote:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... enza_VI.98
The presence of human remains underneath the layer of human fat actually indicates that burning in this grave was done in the way suggested, i.e. “top down”, thus not reaching the lower layers of corpses which remained unburned and covered by the fat flowing out of the corpses burnt above them.
The question now is, why and when was this method used? Was this the way in which the large-scale burning of bodies dug out from the mass graves, described before German courts by former members of the SS staff such as Heinrich Gley, was carried out?
Hardly so. Evidence points to the following possibilities:
i) It was an initial attempt at erasing the physical traces of the crimes, which was reckoned to be ineffective and thus replaced by the more efficient method of burning the bodies upon grids made of railroad tracks laid on concrete blocks, using brushwood drenched with fuel placed underneath the grid.
ii) The “top down” burning occurred before it was decided to erase the traces of all the corpses, and its purpose was to “downsize” the contents of the mass graves in order to make room for further bodies.
Alternative i) is suggested by Tregenza in his analysis of the report:
"* Evidence of the subsequent failed attempt at cremating corpses in graves may be found in the small graves near the N fence, Nos. 27, 28 and 32, in which a layer of burnt human remains and pieces of carbonized wood. The bottom of each of these graves is lined with a layer of human fat.”
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... lusions.98
I have found no eyewitness depositions indicating such a “failed attempt” at Belzec in the few sources at my disposal, which of course doesn’t necessarily mean that there are no such depositions. Evidence to a trial-and-error approach at Treblinka, on the other hand, is provided by the testimonial of Ya'akov Wiernik at the Eichmann trial:
“Q. The burning of the bodies — was it always in the manner in which you described it, or was it perhaps in crematoria, inside buildings?
A. Until the end of 1942, they did not burn those who had been gassed, but they would bury them in enormous pits. The bodies were placed inside. Only at the beginning of 1943 did they make various experiments of how to burn them, and they did not succeed. The a certain Scharführer arrived, an SS man, and he brought this model for the grids, and he always used to stand near the fire and shout: "Tadellos, tadellos!" (perfect, perfect!).
Q. And were they burned only in this way?
A. Yes. This is the way they burned them.”
Source of quote:
http://www.ukar.org/eichma02.shtml
It seems plausible that similar unsuccessful experiments, followed by the successful adoption of the grids method, were carried out at Belzec.
As to alternative ii), we have the deposition of Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, who described his visit to Belzec on 18./19. August 1942 at a trial in Munich in 1961. His deposition, transcribed on pages 173 and 174 of Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, contains the following statement:
“Nachdem in den Kammern Stille eingetreten war, wurden die an der Außenwand der Gebäudes angebrachten Türen geöffnet. Durch diese wurden die Leichen von jüdischen Häftlingen herausgeschafft und in große Gruben geworfen. In diesen Gruben wurden die Leichen verbrannt.”
If Pfannenstiel got the time of his visit to Belzec right, this means that the bodies were being burned in the pits into which they were thrown in August of 1942. While this is borne out by the above described physical evidence, which suggests a “top down” burning using wood and tar paper in the pits, it is apparently not related to the overall burning of the corpses described by Heinrich Gley, former member of the SS staff of Belzec, at the already mentioned trial in Munich. A translation of Gley’s deposition is provided in Prof. Browning’s expert opinion at the Irving-Lipstadt trial:
“As I remember the gassing was stopped at the end of 1942, when there was snow already on the ground. Then the general exhumation and cremation of the corpses began; it might have lasted from November 1942 until March 1943. The cremation was carried out day and night without a break, and indeed at first at one and then later at two fire sites. It was possible to cremate some 2 corpses at one fire site within 24 hours. About 4 weeks after the beginning of the cremation operation the second fire site was constructed. On average, therefore, some 300,000 corpses were cremated at the first site over 5 months, at the second site some 240,000 over 4 months. Naturally this is a matter of estimates based on averages. To figure the total number of corpses at 500,000 could be correct.”
While Gley’s estimate on the number of corpses has been recently revealed by the Höfle memo to be a bit too high, his description of the general exhumation and cremation of the corpses is interesting in that it dates the commencement of this procedure to November 1942. This suggests that the burning in the pits in August 1942, described by Pfannenstiel, was not related to the general exhumation and cremation of the corpses but to an attempt to “downsize” the contents of the pits by burning the bodies as far as possible, in order to make room for further bodies. It would be interesting to have a look at the files of the West German Belzec trials in the court archives to see if there is further eyewitness evidence supporting this assumption, which is in line with the physical evidence, as explained. I shall try to do that during my next stay in Germany.
2. As to the dimensions of the mass graves found in the 1997/98 investigation and their presumable contents prior to the “general exhumation and cremation of the corpses” described by Gley, the online excerpts from the report on that investigation allow for the following calculations:
Grave No.; Length (m); Width (m); Area (m2); Depth (m); Volume (m3); Number of Bodies
1; 40.00; 11.00; 440.00; 5.00; 2,200.00; 17,600
2; 15.00; 5.00; 75.00; 2.00; 150.00; 1,200
3; 20.00; 15.00; 300.00; 5.00; 1,500.00; 12,000
4; 20.00; 8.00; 160.00; 5.00; 800.00;
6,400
5; 35.00; 15.00; 525.00; 5.00; 2,625.00; 21,000
6; 33.00; 14.00; 462.00; 5.00; 2,310.00; 18,480
7; 30.00; 14.00; 420.00; 5.00; 2,100.00; 16,800
8; 30.00; 14.00; 420.00; 5.00; 2,100.00; 16,800
9; 10.00; 10.00; 100.00; 2.00; 200.00;
1,600
10; 25.00; 20.00; 500.00; 5.00; 2,500.00; 20,000
11; 11.00; 9.00; 99.00; 2.00; 198.00;
1,584
12; 20.00; 28.00; 560.00; 4.00; 2,240.00; 17,920
13; 5.00; 5.00; 25.00; 5.00; 125.00;
1,000
14; 70.00; 30.00; 2,100.00; 3.00; 6,300.00 50,400
15; 12.00; 7.00; 84.00; 2.00; 168.00;
1,344
16; 20.00; 8.00; 160.00; 4.00; 640.00;
5,120
17; 16.00; 8.00; 128.00; 3.50; 448.00;
3,584
18; 15.00; 10.00; 150.00; 2.00; 300.00;
2,400
19; 14.00; 8.00; 112.00; 3.50; 392.00;
3,136
20 30.00; 10.00; 300.00; 5.00; 1,500.00; 12,000
21 7.00; 7.00; 49.00; 2.00; 98.00;
784
22 27.00; 10.00; 270.00; 3.50; 945.00;
7,560
23; 10.00; 7.00; 70.00; 4.20; 294.00; 2,352
24 ?; ?; 0,00; 4.80; ?;
?
25; 14.00; 8.00; 112.00; 3.00; 336.00;
2,688
26; 9.00; 9.00; 81.00; 4.20; 340.20;
2,722
27; 10.00; 4.00; 40.00; 2.00; 80.00;
640
28; 5.00; 5.00; 25.00; 5.00; 125.00;
1,000
29; 30.00; 10.00; 300.00; 2.00; 600.00;
4,800
30; 10.00; 4.00; 40.00; 4.00; 160.00;
1,280
31; 10.00; 5.00; 50.00; 4.00; 200.00;
1,600
32; 15.00; 5.00; 75.00; 4.00; 300.00;
2,400
33; 5.00; 5.00; 25.00; 3.00; 75.00;
600
TOTALS (without grave no. 24):
Area: 8,257.00 square meters
Volume: 32,349.20 cubic meters
Estimated number of corpses: 258,794
Where data as to the depth of the graves were not given, I assumed the lowest depth found in the other graves, i.e. ca. 2 meters. The data provided for grave no. 24, on the other hand, are too vague to allow for assumptions regarding its length and width:
"Grave No. 24. A narrow trench near the N fence and next to the E corner of grave No. 14. Contains burnt human remains to a depth of 4.80 m.”
which is why there are question marks in regard to these data and the volume of the grave in the above list.
In order to establish the number of dead bodies prior to burning, I multiplied the volume of the pits in cubic meters with an average established by the calculations already explained, i.e. 8 bodies per cubic meter.
The resulting total of 258,794 bodies is 175,714 bodies below the figure of 434,508 deportees to Belzec indicated in the Höfle memo. There are several possible explanations for the delta:
i) The 1997/98 archaeological investigation failed to discover all the burial facilities of the camp and there are mass graves that have still not been found.
ii) The capacity of the pits was stretched by the procedure of “top down” burning, as suggested by the physical evidence and by Pfannenstiel’s above quoted testimonial.
iii) The difference is to be found “somewhere else”.
Alternative iii) immediately raises the question: Where?
Considering that
- there is no evidence whatsoever that people taken to Belzec were taken anywhere else from there;
- the nature and purpose of the camp, and the fate of people transported there, become clearly apparent from the documentary evidence and from the depositions of former members of the SS staff at trials before West German courts;
- there is only a handful of deportees known to have survived Belzec
this alternative must be considered the least probable of the three. I consider alternative ii) to be the most likely possibility, but I wouldn’t rule out alternative i) either. I’ll try to contact people more familiar with the excavations for further information.
Anything wrong with my calculations, which your peer Michael Mills expressly referred to as “thorough and apparently reliable calculations”? Mathematics, please, not articles of “Revisionist” Faith.
<<Medorjurgen wrote:
Quote:
1. The Höfle memorandum only refers to <<Einsatz Reinhart>>, i.e. it only includes Jews from the General Government. In his quoted assessment of the archaeological report, Michael Tregenza tells us there were <<German Jews deported from the Reich in April-May to lzbica and Piaski, and thence to Belzec>> . This suggests that the figure of 434,508 mentioned in the Höfle memo does not include all Jews taken to Belzec.
On what grounds does Medorjurgen claim that the numbers quoted in the Hoefle memorandum only refer to Jews from the Generalgouvernement, and not to Jews brought to Belzec from elsewhere?
"Einsatz Reinhardt" (misspelled "Reinhart" by Hoefle) was the name given to the group of men under the command of Globocnik who operated the camps of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, and also managed the disposal of the booty taken from the deportees and stored at Lublin Camp. There is no reason to believe that in carrying their functions, and recording the statistics of their activities, they distinguished between Jews from the Generalgouvernement and the very small number of Jews from other countries who ended up at the camps run by Einsatz Reinhardt.>>
I see Michael Mills is conveniently changing the subject instead of providing the requested backup to the far-fetched allegations in his last post. Contrary to Michael Mills’ fantasies, my assumption that reporting on “Einsatz Reinhart” referred only to the General Government is everything other than far-fetched. “Reinhard”, “Reinhardt” or “Reinhard”, whatever the spelling, seems to have been implemented pursuant to the request formulated by State Secretary Bühler at the Wannsee Conference:
http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/wanngerm.html
Translation:
http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/wanneng.html
Another indication is Goebbels’ diary entry of 27 March, 1942:
The above is a translation of Goebbels' diary entry of 27 March 1942, featured under the link
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... 942-mar-27
Emphases are mine. The Gauleiter of Vienna whom Goebbels mentions as being the head of the operation is no other that Odilo Globocnik, the man whom Himmler put in charge of Aktion Reinhard(t). Globocnik had been Gauleiter of Vienna until 1939. Deportations to Belzec extermination camp had begun on 17 March 1942, ten days before this entry was written.
Still another indication is the fact that deportations to Treblinka started after Himmler’s order of 19 July 1942 that the General Government must be cleansed of Jews until the end of the year. Reporting on progress within the scope of that order would accordingly have focused on Jews from the General Government only. Höfle’s mention of the number of Jewish “arrivals” at the various camp until 31.12.1942 was obviously related to that reporting.
Last but not least, there is the wording of the Korherr Report:
<<As to the Jews from Germany, the documentary record shows that they were deported to Izbica and Piaski, arrived there, sent letters home ubtil 1942 or 1943, and then disappeared. It is surmised that they were sent to Belzec, but it is only a surmise; they could just as easily have been sent somewhere else. Is Medorjurgen relying on Tregenza alone for his information? On what did Tregenza base his claim that the Germans deported to Izbica and Piaski ended up in Belzec?>>
If Medorjurgen relied on Tregenza alone for his information, he would hardly have worded the corresponding passage as he did:
Belzec" (p. 209). The scholarship displayed in his article The Dissappeance of Lorenz Hackenholt, featured under
http://www.mazal.org/archive/documents/ ... enza01.htm
doesn’t seem to be negligible either. Maybe it’s just the envy of the neglected “dissident historian” that prompts Michael Mills to letting out his venomous slander?
<<Medorjurgen fulminated further:
Quote:
I wonder why he is so reluctant about providing a quote that might help him make his point++
Sheer laziness, I am afraid. I am not going to hobble off on my arthritic knees to the library again to reconsult the book that I have already advised readers of, since I know that Medorjurgen is not genuinely interested in getting the information.>>
Michael Mills is dead wrong. I’m very interested in seeing the backup of his contentions, and from his uncharacteristic laziness I conclude that he is not too comfortable about the source he referred to. Could it be that said source does not exactly support Mr. Mills’ contentions?
<<If some other reader who is genuinely interested in reading the full text of Reder's statement as quoted in the book referred to by me, I might think about it.>>
Oh, the dissident historian and expert from Australia is angry at me, or at least conveniently pretending to be. That being so, I hereby ask a poster who has not yet been involved in the discussion to kindly ask Mr. Mills to provide the full text of Reder’s statement as quoted in the book referred to by him.
I found the original German text of the deposition of Heinrich Gley commented in Michael Mills’ last post, by the way. It is quoted as follows in Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, page 174, after StA München I, AZ: 22 Js 64-83/61 (AZ. ZSL: 208 AR-Z 252/59, Bd. IX, Bl. 1697):
My translation:
The German term “dürfte” in the context of Gley’s deposition signifies not a mere possibility, but a suposition that is held to be very probably correct, hence my translating it as “should” instead of “might” or “could”, as Prof. Browning did. Browning’s translation suffers from a little inexactitude, in my opinion, one that admittedly becomes apparent only to native speakers of the German language like myself. It was on this inexactitude that Michael Mills based his far-fetched speculations, for which the original German text offers no support whatsoever.
Quote:
1. The Höfle memorandum only refers to <<Einsatz Reinhart>>, i.e. it only includes Jews from the General Government. In his quoted assessment of the archaeological report, Michael Tregenza tells us there were <<German Jews deported from the Reich in April-May to lzbica and Piaski, and thence to Belzec>> . This suggests that the figure of 434,508 mentioned in the Höfle memo does not include all Jews taken to Belzec.
On what grounds does Medorjurgen claim that the numbers quoted in the Hoefle memorandum only refer to Jews from the Generalgouvernement, and not to Jews brought to Belzec from elsewhere?
"Einsatz Reinhardt" (misspelled "Reinhart" by Hoefle) was the name given to the group of men under the command of Globocnik who operated the camps of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, and also managed the disposal of the booty taken from the deportees and stored at Lublin Camp. There is no reason to believe that in carrying their functions, and recording the statistics of their activities, they distinguished between Jews from the Generalgouvernement and the very small number of Jews from other countries who ended up at the camps run by Einsatz Reinhardt.>>
I see Michael Mills is conveniently changing the subject instead of providing the requested backup to the far-fetched allegations in his last post. Contrary to Michael Mills’ fantasies, my assumption that reporting on “Einsatz Reinhart” referred only to the General Government is everything other than far-fetched. “Reinhard”, “Reinhardt” or “Reinhard”, whatever the spelling, seems to have been implemented pursuant to the request formulated by State Secretary Bühler at the Wannsee Conference:
Source:Staatssekretär Dr. B ü h l e r stellte fest, daß das Generalgouvernement es begrüssen würde, wenn mit der Endlösung dieser Frage im Generalgouvernement begonnen würde, weil einmal hier das Transportproblem keine übergeordnete Rolle spielt und arbeitseinsatzmäßige Gründe den Lauf dieser Aktion nicht behindern würden. Juden müßten so schnell wie möglich aus dem Gebiet des Generalgouvernements entfernt werden, weil gerade hier der Jude als Seuchenträger eine eminente Gefahr bedeutet und er zum anderen durch fortgesetzten Schleichhandel die wirtschaftliche Struktur des Landes dauernd in Unordnung bringt. Von den in Frage kommenden etwa 2 1/2 Millionen Juden sei überdies die Mehrzahl der Fälle arbeitsunfähig.
Staatssekretär Dr. B ü h l e r stellt weiterhin fest, daß die Lösung der Judenfrage im Generalgouvernement federführend beim Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD liegt und seine Arbeiten durch die Behörden des Generalgouvernements unterstützt würden. Er hätte nur eine Bitte, die Judenfrage in diesem Gebiet so schnell wie möglich zu lösen.
http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/wanngerm.html
Translation:
Source:State Secretary Dr. Bühler stated that the General Government would welcome it if the final solution of this problem could be begun in the General Government, since on the one hand transportation does not play such a large role here nor would problems of labor supply hamper this action. Jews must be removed from the territory of the General Government as quickly as possible, since it is especially here that the Jew as an epidemic carrier represents an extreme danger and on the other hand he is causing permanent chaos in the economic structure of the country through continued black market dealings. Moreover, of the approximately 2 1/2 million Jews concerned, the majority is unfit for work.
State Secretary Dr. Bühler stated further that the solution to the Jewish question in the General Government is the responsibility of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and that his efforts would be supported by the officials of the General Government. He had only one request, to solve the Jewish question in this area as quickly as possible.
http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/wanneng.html
Another indication is Goebbels’ diary entry of 27 March, 1942:
"Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.
The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophesy which the Fuehrer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us. It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.
The ghettoes that will be emptied in the cities of the General Government now will be refilled with Jews thrown out of the Reich. This process is to be repeated from time to time. There is nothing funny in it for the Jews, and the fact that Jewry's representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany must be paid for dearly by its representatives in Europe - and that's only right."
The above is a translation of Goebbels' diary entry of 27 March 1942, featured under the link
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... 942-mar-27
Emphases are mine. The Gauleiter of Vienna whom Goebbels mentions as being the head of the operation is no other that Odilo Globocnik, the man whom Himmler put in charge of Aktion Reinhard(t). Globocnik had been Gauleiter of Vienna until 1939. Deportations to Belzec extermination camp had begun on 17 March 1942, ten days before this entry was written.
Still another indication is the fact that deportations to Treblinka started after Himmler’s order of 19 July 1942 that the General Government must be cleansed of Jews until the end of the year. Reporting on progress within the scope of that order would accordingly have focused on Jews from the General Government only. Höfle’s mention of the number of Jewish “arrivals” at the various camp until 31.12.1942 was obviously related to that reporting.
Last but not least, there is the wording of the Korherr Report:
My translation:4. Transportierung von Juden aus den
Ostprovinzen nach dem russischen
Osten: ............................1 449 692 "
Es wurden durchgeschleust
durch die Lager im General-
gouvernement..................... 1 274 166 Juden
durch die Lager im Warthegau..... 145 301 Juden
The figure 1,274,166 mentioned in the above passage is obviously the figure from the Höfle memorandum, which Korherr refers to Jews from the “eastern provinces”. These provinces were the former Polish territories annexed to the Reich and the General Government. This means that the Jews “sifted through the camps in the General Government” mentioned in the above passage came from either one or the other. As the Jews from the Warthgau were “sifted through” the “camps” located there (i.e. Chelmno extermination camp), the Jews “sifted through” the camps in the General Government according to the above passage can only have been Jews from the General Government.4. Transportation of Jews from the
eastern provinces to the Russian
East: ............................ 1 449 692 "
The following numbers were sifted
through the camps in the General
Government ............. ........ 1 274 166 Jews
through the camps in the Warthegau..... 145 301 Jews
<<As to the Jews from Germany, the documentary record shows that they were deported to Izbica and Piaski, arrived there, sent letters home ubtil 1942 or 1943, and then disappeared. It is surmised that they were sent to Belzec, but it is only a surmise; they could just as easily have been sent somewhere else. Is Medorjurgen relying on Tregenza alone for his information? On what did Tregenza base his claim that the Germans deported to Izbica and Piaski ended up in Belzec?>>
If Medorjurgen relied on Tregenza alone for his information, he would hardly have worded the corresponding passage as he did:
Anyway, I’ll ask Tregenza on what his contention is based. He doesn’t seem to be as bad a historian as Michael Mills would like him to be. I’m told that Sir Martin Gilberts Holocaust Journey, names Tregenza as someone "who knows more than anyone else aboutIn his quoted assessment of the archaeological report, Michael Tregenza tells us there were <<German Jews deported from the Reich in April-May to lzbica and Piaski, and thence to Belzec>> . This suggests that the figure of 434,508 mentioned in the Höfle memo does not include all Jews taken to Belzec.
Belzec" (p. 209). The scholarship displayed in his article The Dissappeance of Lorenz Hackenholt, featured under
http://www.mazal.org/archive/documents/ ... enza01.htm
doesn’t seem to be negligible either. Maybe it’s just the envy of the neglected “dissident historian” that prompts Michael Mills to letting out his venomous slander?
<<Medorjurgen fulminated further:
Quote:
I wonder why he is so reluctant about providing a quote that might help him make his point++
Sheer laziness, I am afraid. I am not going to hobble off on my arthritic knees to the library again to reconsult the book that I have already advised readers of, since I know that Medorjurgen is not genuinely interested in getting the information.>>
Michael Mills is dead wrong. I’m very interested in seeing the backup of his contentions, and from his uncharacteristic laziness I conclude that he is not too comfortable about the source he referred to. Could it be that said source does not exactly support Mr. Mills’ contentions?
<<If some other reader who is genuinely interested in reading the full text of Reder's statement as quoted in the book referred to by me, I might think about it.>>
Oh, the dissident historian and expert from Australia is angry at me, or at least conveniently pretending to be. That being so, I hereby ask a poster who has not yet been involved in the discussion to kindly ask Mr. Mills to provide the full text of Reder’s statement as quoted in the book referred to by him.
I found the original German text of the deposition of Heinrich Gley commented in Michael Mills’ last post, by the way. It is quoted as follows in Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, page 174, after StA München I, AZ: 22 Js 64-83/61 (AZ. ZSL: 208 AR-Z 252/59, Bd. IX, Bl. 1697):
“Dann begann die allgemeine Exhumierung und Leichenverbrennung; sie dürfte von November 1942 bis März 1943 gedauert haben. Die Verbrennungen wurden Tag und Nacht ununterbrochen durchgeführt, und zwar zunächst an einer, dann an zwei Feuerstellen. Eine Feuerstelle bot die Möglichkeit, binnen 24 Stunden etwa 2 000 Leichen zu verbrennen. Etwa 4 Wochen nach Beginn der Verbrennungsaktion wurde die zweite Feuerstelle errichtet. Im Durchschnitt wurden demnach an der einen Feuerstelle etwa 5 Monate lang insgesamt 300 000 Leichen, an der zweiten etwa 4 Monate lang
240 000 Leichen verbrannt. Es handelt sich hier natürlich um durchschnittliche Schätzungen. Die Gesamtzahl der Leichen auf 500 000 zu beziffern, dürfte richtig sein ...
Es handelte sich bei den Verbrennungen der wieder ausgegrabenen Leichen um einen menschlich, ästhetisch und geruchsmäßig so schauerlichen Vorgang, daß die Phantasie jener Menschen, die heute in bürgerlichen Verhältnissen zu leben gewohnt sind, wohl nicht ausreicht, dieses Grauen nachzuempfinden.”
My translation:
“After that begann the general exhumation and burning of the corpses; it should have lasted from November 1942 to March 1943. The burnings were carried out night and day without interruption, first at one, then at two fire sites. At one fire site it was possible to burn about 2 000 corpses within 24 hours. About 4 weeks after the beginning of the burning action the second fire site was erected. This means that on average a total of 300 000 people were burned at one fire site during 5 months, and on the other 240 000 were burned during 4 months. These, of course, are average estimates. To put the total number of corpses at 500 000 should be correct....
The burning of the again disinterred corpses was such a grisly process in human and aesthetic respects and in matters of odor that the fantasy of people who today live under burgeois conditions is probably not suffient to recall this horror.”
The German term “dürfte” in the context of Gley’s deposition signifies not a mere possibility, but a suposition that is held to be very probably correct, hence my translating it as “should” instead of “might” or “could”, as Prof. Browning did. Browning’s translation suffers from a little inexactitude, in my opinion, one that admittedly becomes apparent only to native speakers of the German language like myself. It was on this inexactitude that Michael Mills based his far-fetched speculations, for which the original German text offers no support whatsoever.