IMT Testimony of Mme. Marie Claude Vaillant-Couturier

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 15:12
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by xcalibur » 13 Apr 2004 05:55

michael mills wrote:The nub of the issue is that Mme Vaillant-Couturier, in her evidence-in-chief, gave a grossly inflated figure of 700,000 as the number of Hungarian Jews that arrived in Auschwitz.

When challenged on the accuracy of that figure in cross-examination, she gave a devious answer, implying falsely that she had obtained it through her contacts in the camp secretariat.

It is impossible that anyone in the camp secretariat with access to official camp records could have communicated that figure to Mme Vaillant-Couturier, since the maximum figure that could have been recorded in the official camp records would have been in the order of 400,000. Therefore her implied claim that she received the 700,000 figure from the camp secretariat was a falsehood.

An honest answer to Dr Marx's questioning of the accuracy of the 700,000 figure given by her would have been to admit that she was not sure of it, and that it was not a figure derived from the official camp records, but one that she had heard somewhere or made up. But being a Communist politician with a political agenda, she was not prepared to give that honest answer.

Side-stepping the issue with speculation about whether Dr Marx was confusing Wisliceny with Eichmann, or whether the figure he quoted should have been 450,000, is simply classic pilpul. It does not alter Mme Vaillant-Couturier's dishonesty in making a false implied claim about the source of the inflated figure given by her, in an attempt to back up her expertise.



Speculation: You need an education on what that word means when you speculate as to what documents or reports were available to a defense attorneys at the IMT. Try and address the post rather than to submerge it in bullshit. In case you hadn't noticed, I'd already said that it was a distinct possibility that the witness was lying. Some of us would rather err on the side of truth rather than a fixed agenda. If the figure does turn out to be the lower number, so be it. I don't care. You've made it clear that you have no interest in the truth, you have no interest examining the historical record, and you have no interrest in anything other than advancing your own personal reputation vis a vis this subject. You, sir, are an arrogant ass and your pomposity is only matched by the breadth of your know.ledge. You insult yourself.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23254
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 13 Apr 2004 06:12

Personal insults and profanity are forbidden here. This thread is closed for 24 hours

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23254
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 14 Apr 2004 04:08

This thread is re-opened for civil discourse.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 14 Apr 2004 04:23

I guess we'll have to have a "gentlemen's disagreement" on this one.

I still think Mme Vaillant-Couturier revealed herself to be a rather slippery customer, appealing to the judges' presumed bias against the veracity of Gestapo statistics in order to get out of a tight spot. After all, she said in response to Dr Marx:

I have never quoted anything which has not previously been verified at the sources and by several persons, but the major part of my evidence is based on personal experience.


Obviously, her 700,000 figure could not have been based on her personal experience, and could not possibly have been verified at the sources and by several persons. So when she made that statment, she was not telling the truth.

Perhaps we can have a look at some of the other interesting things in her testimony which I highlighted. For example her account of pregnant women being forced to undergo abortions.

As I wrote, that suggests that the German aim was to preserve those women for forced labour, which in turn suggests that for the German the imperative was the utilisation of the prisoners to the greatest possible extent for forced labour, rather than killing them. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of aborting the pregnant women?

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 14 Apr 2004 07:57

michael mills wrote:As I wrote, that suggests that the German aim was to preserve those women for forced labour, which in turn suggests that for the German the imperative was the utilisation of the prisoners to the greatest possible extent for forced labour, rather than killing them. Otherwise, why go to the trouble of aborting the pregnant women?


Non sequitur. Pregnant women can and do work. Of course not breaking stones in the yard, but in those camps there would have been a lot of work for them.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 14 Apr 2004 23:28

Andreas wrote:

Non sequitur. Pregnant women can and do work. Of course not breaking stones in the yard, but in those camps there would have been a lot of work for them.


Yes. But why preserve their lives at all? It would have been easy enough to send all the pregnant women straight to gas-chamber, keeping for labour only those young, healthy women who were not pregnant.

Do you not agree that the fact that pregant women were preserved forlabour shows that the German emphasis was on using the imprisoned Jews for forced labour to the greatest extent possible, rather than on extermination per se?

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
Location: Europe

Post by Andreas » 15 Apr 2004 10:07

No I still do not agree with you there. To me the concentration camp system was set up to be an extermination system. Be that extermination by straightforward mass-murder, or extermination by working the victims to death.

Even where slave workers with particular skill were kept alive, the question needs to be asked what would have happened to them if Germany had won the war - IMO they would have been killed once they were no longer needed. Forced abortions fit into this pattern - i.e. get the most work out of them. Non-pregnant women can undertake more strenous forms of work then pregnant women. They would still die at sometime in the process, but until then, more work was gotten out of them then if the pregnancy had not been terminated, or indeed they had been gassed immediately.

I see the distinction you attempt to draw, but I think that so far (i.e. since I have been following your arguments in this debate, which is not for very long), you have not provided a convincing evidence base that would tell me that anything else then extermination of whole groups of the European population was going on.

Ostuf Charlemagne
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 18 Dec 2002 12:33
Location: Honduras

Post by Ostuf Charlemagne » 15 Apr 2004 18:27

I don't understand why Alf ( or how Alf) may see any difference in a Marie Vaillant -Couturier being a stalinist or " simply" a left wing communist .By this time ,1945/50 ,the french communist party was a stalinist one .And Vaillant-Couturier was a hard -line follower .
And she was certainly not a little angel ,neither.

xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 15:12
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by xcalibur » 15 Apr 2004 19:04

Ostuf Charlemagne wrote:I don't understand why Alf ( or how Alf) may see any difference in a Marie Vaillant -Couturier being a stalinist or " simply" a left wing communist .By this time ,1945/50 ,the french communist party was a stalinist one .And Vaillant-Couturier was a hard -line follower .
And she was certainly not a little angel ,neither.


"Little angel"? Perhaps not.

This woman's testimony at the IMT had probative value because of her prior encarceration in Auschwitz and Ravensbruck despite her political affiliations.

Ostuf Charlemagne
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 18 Dec 2002 12:33
Location: Honduras

Post by Ostuf Charlemagne » 16 Apr 2004 00:12

Don't get overcombative ,xcalibur .... I am just asking for a detail . I don't want to enter fully this topic (even if I have the russian number of Auschwitz victims (KGB archives) and it would reduce to nothing the declaration of this woman .)
But since this is not permitted in this forum ,I know what I know ,and I gone wander in other topic .See you in any part of the forum ,but not here . ...

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23254
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 16 Apr 2004 00:21

Ostuf. -- You said:
I don't want to enter fully this topic (even if I have the russian number of Auschwitz victims (KGB archives) and it would reduce to nothing the declaration of this woman .)
But since this is not permitted in this forum ,I know what I know ,and I gone wander in other topic .See you in any part of the forum ,but not here . ...


If you "have the russian number of Auschwitz victims (KGB archives) and it would reduce to nothing the declaration of this woman," do not hesitate it to post it here. If and when you post it, please point out the parts of "the declaration of this woman" [Mme. Vaillant-Couturier] which were reduced "to nothing" by the Russian number in the KGB archives. Our readers prefer facts to hints and allusions.

xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 15:12
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by xcalibur » 16 Apr 2004 05:24

Ostuf Charlemagne wrote:Don't get overcombative ,xcalibur .... I am just asking for a detail . I don't want to enter fully this topic (even if I have the russian number of Auschwitz victims (KGB archives) and it would reduce to nothing the declaration of this woman .)
But since this is not permitted in this forum ,I know what I know ,and I gone wander in other topic .See you in any part of the forum ,but not here . ...


No sir, not trying to be "overcombative". Curious as to the reference for the witness being "not a little angel". If you prefer not to post it here maybe send me a PM so I can understand.

As to the KGB archives, I must say I'm more than surprised that you, of all posters here ,would rely on any figures compiled by the KGB or any of it's previous incarnations as being remotely accurate. Even more so considering the fact that any numbers so compiled could only have been the product of the judeo-bolshevik conspiracy of which you've been known to deride.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1886
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 12 Jun 2004 20:09

I don't see why it cannot be assumed that V-C was given a probable number of the Hungarian Jews that were to arrive (700,000), and, probably not knowing better, assumed that all of them had indeed arrived.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 13 Jun 2004 01:55

Then why did she not say it was an assumption on her part?

When questioned by Dr Marx, who put to her an alternative figure that he said had been given by Eichmann, why did she not say that the figure of 700,000 she had mentioned in passing had been given to her as an estimate, and that she did not know how many had actually arrived, rather than dodging the question with a trick answer?

Her resposne to cross-questioning does reflect on her honesty as a witness.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1886
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 13 Jun 2004 12:02

That's simply a nit-picking on your part. Probably she told what she believed to be true. If she was told that about 700,000 Jews were to arrive, and then she sees thousands and thousands of them arriving and destroyed, she might have no reason to doubt the figure she was told personally, giving it subjective preference over what "Gestapo" would say.

I fully understand that this is speculation on my part, but so are your accusations.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”