Camps and Transports reference thread

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8917
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 11 Mar 2006 04:16

A comment on Czech's figures for the number of Jews arriving at Auschwitz.

In a large number of cases she gives very precise figures, particularly of numbers gassed. That might lead the unwary reader to come to the conclusion that original German records of the number of Jews arriving and the number subjectred to "Sonderbehandlung" or "Sonderunterbringung" are available to the researcher.

In fact, Czech's figures are to a large extent calculations, based on certain assumptions.

The only German record available (actually a secret copy of a German original made by prisoners working in the Camp Registry) is a list of registration numbers issued on a certain day to persons arriving on a certain transport from a particular destination.

Thus an entry would read along the lines of:

Day X. Numbers Y to Y+450 issued to arrivals from place Z.

The total number of persons on the transport, if different from the number registered, was not recorded in the Camp books.

What Czech did was to assume a total number of persons arriving on a transport, subtract from that assumed figure the known number of persons registered, and call the difference, which was an exact'looking figure, the number gassed. But the latter figure, although it looks exact, is a calculation that may or may not be correct.

In certain cases, the number of Jews on particular transports is known from other sources. For example, a complete list of the transports from France was found among the records left behind by the Paris Gestapo. That list showed the identification number of each transport, the place of origin, the date of departure, and the names of all the persons on the transport.

Thus Czech's calculation of the numbers arriving on each transport from France, and the number not registered from each transport, is pretty exact.

In the case of other places of origin, eg from places in Poland, there is no source for the number of persons on each transport (apart from , in some cases, German planning figures, which do not indicate whether the planned complement of a transport was actua;lly reached), so the figures Czech gives for the numbers arriving are really guesstimates.

User avatar
Fritz the Rat
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 13 Jun 2004 12:34
Location: Europe

ARC

Post by Fritz the Rat » 03 Dec 2006 19:05

new address: http://www.death-camps.org (now with hyphen).

Fritz

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006 14:23
Location: Moscow

Re: Transports to Auschwitz, early 1944

Post by Sergey » 05 Dec 2006 18:46

nickterry wrote:1944

The most contentious year of all. When the time comes, the unregistered Hungarian and Lodz ghetto transports will be separated out.

Once again, transports from Stapostellen and Sipo are excluded since I did them before. One thing worth noting: there are hardly any transports of Polish political prisoners from the Generalgouvernement during the whole of the first half of 1944, these only resume with the evacuation of Warsaw after the Uprising. By contrast, Auschwitz is receiving tens of thousands prisoners from the BdS Generalgouvernenment in each of its previous three years of existence.

January 1944

Sondertransporte
12.1.44 KL Stutthof > KLA 1000 Jews (746 gas, 254 select)
13.1.44 Bedzin/Sosnowitz 2000 Jews (896 gas, 357 select)
896+357=1253 and what happened to remaining 747?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23587
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 05 Dec 2006 18:53

Sergey -- When posting questions, please include the research you've done into getting an answer from other sources. That way we'll all learn more.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006 14:23
Location: Moscow

Post by Sergey » 05 Dec 2006 20:06

David Thompson wrote:Sergey -- When posting questions, please include the research you've done into getting an answer from other sources. That way we'll all learn more.
Dear mr.Thompson!

Would you be so kind to refer to the rules of this forum? Is my post violating them? I dare suggest that no. Moreover our friend Nick Terry who is an excellent historian and highly intelligent person would probably thank me for discovering of this apparently misprint.

Sincerely yours Sergey Poleshchuk.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23587
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 05 Dec 2006 20:36

Sergey -- You wrote:
David Thompson wrote:
Sergey -- When posting questions, please include the research you've done into getting an answer from other sources. That way we'll all learn more.

Dear mr.Thompson!

Would you be so kind to refer to the rules of this forum? Is my post violating them? I dare suggest that no.
This is from the rules of the forum, posted for all to see at:

H&WC Section Rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962
E. Questions, Claims and Proof

1. Questions


Because the H&WC section is a research area of the forum, we ask the posters to be reasonably well-prepared, and not ask others for information which they could easily get for themselves. The purpose of this section of the forum is to provide a place where historical matters can be intelligently discussed. It is not a research service.
There's no reason to bristle prematurely, Sergey. I asked you to include any information you had. If you didn't attempt to research the question because it really didn't interest you that much and consequently you had nothing but an unanswered question to add to the discussion, that allows our readers to accurately gauge the level of your interest in getting an answer.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006 14:23
Location: Moscow

Post by Sergey » 06 Dec 2006 06:33

I see your point mr.Thompson. So I would like to reformulate my post.

Dear Nick.
I see a factual mistake in your post
896+357=1253. 1253 is not equal to 2000.

Now, my post doesn't contain any questions. I suppose that messages that point to factual mistakes are allowed (moreover welcomed) here.

Regards.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006 14:23
Location: Moscow

Re: Transports to Auschwitz, spring-summer 1944

Post by Sergey » 06 Jan 2008 16:24

nickterry wrote:As the history of Auschwitz becomes so convoluted from here on, it's worth a separate section.


The Hungary Action

Hungarian transports that left their departure points on the given days. Generally speaking they arrived 3 days later at Auschwitz.
...
From Hungarian Gendarmerie sources: the following trains passed Kosice (Kassa) on the Slovak-Hungarian border

The Gendarmerie list at Kosice (Kassa)
...
109 25.6.1944 Debrecen HU 3006
...
111 27.6.1944 Debrecen HU 3842
...
118 29.6.1944 Debrecen HU 3026
However according to this source

http://www.jewishgen.org/databases/holo ... recen.html
In summer 1944 some 20,000 Jews of the Sixth District were deported to Strasshof ( Austria ) instead of Auschwitz, so the rate of survivors was relatively high.
...
...at the end of June 1944 the Jews were deported. One transport was sent to Auschwitz, two more arrived at Strasshof.
...
By 1946 4,640 Jews had returned to Debrecen, making it the largest Jewish community in the area.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”