An Odd Statement by Rudolph Hoss, Commandant of Auschwitz

[Dan]

Scott, that must be your great-great grandpa, no?
Dan

[Scott Smith]

Scott, that must be your great-great grandpa, no?
Dan

My Grandmother's great-grandpa, actually. Her grandfather was orphaned and he told her the story, which she told to me. I researched the details myself.
8) 8)

[Roberto]

Medorjurgen-

From what i remember the number given by Höss was 4 million. That number was upheld until it couldn't be defended anymore (note the change of the plaque outside Auschwitz-birkenau) but this change in 1990 doesn't take into consideration the total number of victems (which drops more every year. originally it was 6 million, now its dwindled to 5 million.)

You should do some reading, buddy. I suggest you start with my transcription from William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and the following site:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/questi ... bers.shtml

You are likely to find that out that the four million figure never came from Höss but from a Soviet investigation commission, that Höss was in fact the first to provide an accurate figure in the range of one million for Auschwitz-Birkenau that corresponds to the estimates of most historians and that there never was an “original” figure of 6 million for the Holocaust either that has “dwindled” – there are various scholarly estimates ranging from slightly above 4 million to slightly above 6 million.

[Roberto]

<<Although I think that Höß wrote the memoirs himself and are thus "authentic," this does not necessarily mean that they are true and accurate. Adolf Eichmann, for example, testified that Jews were killed with diesel submarine engines, and he should know, right?And Ted Bundy confessed to a lot of stuff that was simply bogus. Höß, if you will remember, was billed as the greatest mass-murderer of history.>>

The good old falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus baloney. Does the
the inaccurate description of the Treblinka gassing engine by Eichmann, not exactly an expert in technical details who never saw the engine himself, tell us anything at all about the accuracy of Höss’ depositions before the Polish court and in his memoirs, corroborated as they are by the depositions of other perpetrators and witnesses and by documentary and physical evidence? Only in the minds of True Believers like our dear Reverend Smith, I would say.

<<By some people's reckoning if Höß claimed to have exterminated people with Death Rays we should believe him.>>

Wrong. The reckoning would be that the description of the killing device might be inaccurate, but that this wouldn’t change the fact of the killing having taken place in the face of the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence that it did. But we are not talking about an implausible killing device here. We are talking about one of the most lethal poisons known to man, a substance that could easily be used to kill large numbers of people with minimum effort.

<<I think we should be cautious considering the political and ideological baggage this subject brings with it for historians.>>

I think we should be cautious with the considerations of people as loaded with a political and ideological baggage as our dear Reverend is and just follow the evidence where it leads. Care to take another look at the evidence and try to answer some questions, Reverend?

<<Auschwitz, by any measure, is regarded as the 20th century's locus of Evil. Surely a unique and polemical concept for historians of fact over mythology.>>

Historians deal in facts, not in mythology. Except for the “historians” who call themselves “Revisionist”, of course. For them, Faith comes first.

<<I think that Höß, on Himmler's instructions, might have liquidated some inmates who were unfit for work to alleviate relentless and almost uncontrollable overcrowding. I do not know if he gassed anybody or not. However, I do not think that 500 thousand were gassed in the basement of Krema II for example. Call me skeptical. Very skeptical.>>

That’s not a skeptic, buddy, that’s a True Believer. The basement of Krema II was in operation for ca. 20 months, from April 1943 to November 1944, and it could process as many people a day as could be cremated in the ovens. The theoretical capacity of the ovens, according to a letter by the Auschwitz-Birkenau Bauleitung of 28 June 1943, was 1,440 dead bodies within 24 hours. Let’s assume that, as seems to have been demonstrated by Pressac, the theoretical capacity was never reached in practice and the daily average was in fact something like 800. Simple mathematics then tell us that within 20 monts = 600 days, 600 * 800 = 480,000 dead bodies could be cremated in the ovens of Krema II. Whether that many were actually cremated there depends on nothing other than the number of people deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau during the period in question.

<<About fifteen years ago if I said I doubted that four million were gassed and burned at Auschwitz I would be an anti-Semite or worse. Now this figure is universally recognized to have been in error; the actual number is a little over a million. But given with a straight face as if it doesn't matter if it was a million, four million, or four billion. "Petty details" DO matter for historians.>>

Yawn. A “Revisionist” lie that is as old as it is transparent. Here are some renowned historians who would have been considered anti-Semites fifteen years ago, according to the Reverend:

- Dr Josef Kermisz, from the Jewish Historical Commission in Poland, wrote in 1949 that this Commission had evaluated the number of victims of Auschwitz at 1 500 000;

- Gerald Reitlinger in 1953 estimated at 800 000 to 900 000 the number of Jewish victims of Auschwitz;

- Raul Hilberg, in The Destruction of European Jews, 1961, estimated the number of Jewish victims of Auschwitz at 1 million and the total number of victims of Auschwitz at 1.1 million;

- Helmut Krausnick declared in 1964, at the process against former members of the Auschwitz staff in Frankfurt, that the total number of victims of Auschwitz was between on million and one and a half million;

- The same figure was mentioned by German historians Ino Arndt and Wolfgang Scheffler in an article written in 1976 in the Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, the quarterly publication of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Munich;

- Georges Wellers in 1983 provided an estimate of 1.3 million Jewish victims at Auschwitz and a total of 1.5 million victims of the camp.

The Reverend should begin to understand that repeating his propagandistic untruths a hundred times over again does not make them into truths.

[Roberto]

<<Calm down, Senor, the Colonel did NOT insult your family.

You said that your Grandma had compared the British Blockade in WWI with Harris' Terror Bombing in WWII and found the blockade to be worse. He said that her opinion might be different if she or someone she knew was hit by a bomb or something like that. In other words, such things are subjective for the people involved and their OWN degree of personal suffering.

Now, YOU choose to bring up your Grandma as an example and he was therefore entirely justified, in his curmudgeonly way, of pointing out the obvious. So do lighten up, will you?>>

Wow, the Reverend is trying to ingratiate himself with my friend Stafü as the paladin of the oppressed. Not very convincing, old pal, and quite unnecessary. Stafü has just sent me an interesting account about his wartime experiences, and there’s a chance that we might get along and have a lot to talk about. Poor Smith once again made a bloody fool out of himself.

<<Thus, whether the Blitz is "worse" than the Blockade depends largely on one's circumstances, doesn't it? That's the trouble with anecdotes. Next time don't use a personal anecdote and then wax indignant if somebody, well, laughs in your face. With deepest respect to your folks who experienced those wars, by the way.>>

The wartime experiences of my relatives are not “personal anecdotes”, but first-hand oral history. And I’m sure I can count on their blessing if I tell the Reverend where he can stick his deepest respect.

[Scott Smith]

Medojurgen wrote:

Poor Smith once again made a bloody fool out of himself.

LOL. How do ya figure that?

++Thus, whether the Blitz is "worse" than the Blockade depends largely on one's circumstances, doesn't it? That's the trouble with anecdotes. Next time don't use a personal anecdote and then wax indignant if somebody, well, laughs in your face. With deepest respect to your folks who experienced those wars, by the way.++

<<The wartime experiences of my relatives are not "personal anecdotes," but first-hand oral history. And I'm sure I can count on their blessing if I tell the Reverend where he can stick his deepest respect.

They seem like nice people. Actually, if you had taken a course on "first-hand oral history" you would know something of the methodology in weighing empirical evidence in cultural context.

[Roberto]

Medojurgen wrote:

Poor Smith once again made a bloody fool out of himself.

LOL. How do ya figure that?

++Thus, whether the Blitz is "worse" than the Blockade depends largely on one's circumstances, doesn't it? That's the trouble with anecdotes. Next time don't use a personal anecdote and then wax indignant if somebody, well, laughs in your face. With deepest respect to your folks who experienced those wars, by the way.++

<<The wartime experiences of my relatives are not "personal anecdotes," but first-hand oral history. And I’m sure I can count on their blessing if I tell the Reverend where he can stick his deepest respect.

They seem like nice people. Actually, if you had taken a course on "first-hand oral history" you would know something of the methodology in weighing empirical evidence in cultural context.

1. Smith made a bloody fool out of himself because his noble defense of poor Stafü was quite uncalled for and unnecessary. The old man can speak for himself and has done so.

2. Though not a PhD historian like Smith pretends to be (if he really is one, that's all the worse, because a historian trying to sell "Revisionist" propaganda is a very sorry sight), I know that oral history is a source not exactly considered negligible within the scope of historical research.

[Scott Smith]

1. Smith made a bloody fool out of himself because his noble defense of poor Stafü was quite uncalled for and unnecessary. The old man can speak for himself and has done so."

Who is saying that he can't? Certainly not me.

2. Though not a PhD historian like Smith pretends to be (if he really is one, that's all the worse, because a historian trying to sell "Revisionist" propaganda is a very sorry sight), I know that oral history is a source not exactly considered negligible within the scope of historical research.

Gee, that's funny. I never said I was anything more than a shoeshine boy with a history degree who works for the Ministry of Truth. But "Doctor Smith" has a nice ring to it.
8) 8)

[Roberto]

++1. Smith made a bloody fool out of himself because his noble defense of poor Stafü was quite uncalled for and unnecessary. The old man can speak for himself and has done so.++

<<Who is saying that he can't? Certainly not me.>>

Well, that was the impression conveyed by Smith’s shining knight cavalcade.

++2. Though not a PhD historian like Smith pretends to be (if he really is one, that's all the worse, because a historian trying to sell "Revisionist" propaganda is a very sorry sight), I know that oral history is a source not exactly considered negligible within the scope of historical research.++

<<Gee, that's funny. I never said I was anything more than a shoeshine boy with a history degree who works for the Ministry of Truth. But "Doctor Smith" has a nice ring to it.>>

Could it be that Dr. Smith’s “Revisionist” madness is the reason why the graduated historian is only a shoeshine boy at the “Ministry of Truth?

[Tchort]

oh no, not the paedophile from Lost In Space!

[Scott Smith]

oh no, not the paedophile from Lost In Space!

Danger Will Robinson!

[Birgitte Heuschkel]

The jews were given their own state after WWII. Today, the jews have a 'free pass' to do whateevr they want and be as hypocritical as they possibly can. To criticise the jews for anything is taboo, while it is ok to criticise any other group in the world. They benefitted from WWII more than any other group.

No, no, no. The state of Israel. Not Jews, any Jews. I know a good many Jews who aren't Israeli. Big difference.

--Birgitte

[Tchort]

Many,many,MANY jews have dual citizanship-I remember reading something to the effect that any jew can have dual citizansship. 75% of the jews i've ever come into contact with or talked to have claimed dual citizanship to israel.

And yes, every jew will tell you Israel is the jewish state in the middle east.

[michael mills]

Birgitte Heuschkel wrote:

No, no, no. The state of Israel. Not Jews, any Jews. I know a good many Jews who aren't Israeli. Big difference.

Birgitte makes an error here that is quite common among those unfamiliar with the Hebrew language.

The phrase "State of Israel" is a translation of the official name, in Hebrew, of that particular political entity, namely "Medinat Yisrael".

English-speakers usually misunderstand the word "Israel" in the above phrase as a place-name, by analogy with such fomulations as "United States of America", where "America" is indeed a place-name.

In fact, "Yisrael" is an ethnic denominator, the name of a people. It is derived from the name of the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrew tribes, also known as "Ya'akov", or "Jacob" in English. In the Hebrew Bible the terms "Yisrael" and "Ya'akov" are used interchangeably to denote the Hebrew amphictyony.

The best translation of "Yisrael" is "the collective Jewish people". Wherever Jews lived in the world, their local community was known in Hebrew as "Kehillat Yisrael", normally translated as "Jewish Community".

Therefore, the essential meaning of "Medinat Yisrael" is "the state belonging to the whole Jewish people". A more manageable term would be "Jewish state" or even "Jew-State".

The term "Judenstaat" used by Herzl is in fact a very precise rendition of "Medinat Yisrael".

The name "Medinat Yisrael" is a precise indication of the intention of the founders of that political entity that is was to be the state belonging to the entire Jewish people, wherever they might live, and not a state belonging to the people living within its borders.

Accordingly, it is incorrect to make a distinction between Jews living within the borders of the Jewish State, and those living outside those borders. All have the right to citizenship of that state, no matter where they live (and whether they want to exercise that right or not). The declaration of independence of "Medinat Yisrael" states that it is the state belonging to the entire Jewish people, and the Law of Return extends the right of citizenship in that state to all members of that people.

[Dan]

Hear ye O Israel!

Great post. The American media does sometimes use the phrase "Jewish State".