More Meyer

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

More Meyer

#1

Post by Dan » 23 Oct 2002, 21:27

Here's more on that Meyer article about revising the Auschwitz numbers.

Hamburg/Berlin, 9. September 2002
[German original ]

Nazi apologists never use the truth
In response to: "left-wing liberal key witness for Holocaust deniers"; Die Welt, 28th August 2002

MANY thanks to Sven Felix Kellerhof for confirming that I am "anything else but a Holocaust Denier". I am a confessed anti-fascist.

Yes, one can makes things either more difficult or easier for the neo-Nazis. Indeed, whereas proven, believable testimony makes things harder for these men of yesteryear, exaggerations only make things easier for the Nazi apologists. If the mouthpiece of the right-wing radicals, the "Nationalzeitung", now confirms the mass murder of more than half a million people at Auschwitz, then this is a defeat for the Auschwitz deniers.

My essay, as it says at the conclusion, "does not relativise the barbarity, but rather verifies it -- a hardened warning ahead of new breaches of civilization." Thanks also to Sven Felix Kellerhoff for having reproduced essentially correctly my study, which was intended for academic readers, concerning the number of victims of Auschwitz. Of course, its conclusion does not substantially differ from the most recent research conclusions of the expert, Jean-Claude Pressac's, who calculated at least 631,000 dead at Auschwitz, of which at least 470,000+ were Jews murdered by gas.

Pressac calls SS-Bauleiters Bischoff's letter concerning the "capacity" of the crematoria an "internal propaganda lie of the SS." I expressed the view that doubt about the authenticity of the document is justified. There are several reasons for this, above all the existence of three different facsimile versions.

I call David Irving a "successful author of proven research ability who increasingly aligned himself with the crazy views of his Nazi colleagues [MS-Gesprächspartner]" and who "persisted in maintaining the absurd position that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz for the purpose of killing people". In much the same vein, Richard Evans quotes the verdicts of several acknowledged historians on Irving: "A giant of research", "profound research", "endless scholarly diligence". But surely the Auschwitz denier Irving cannot now employ me as a "key witness".

Fritjof Meyer
20457 Hamburg


The Reply
THE Holocaust is one of the most terrible topics in contemporary history -- and one of the most sensitive, for the incorrigible Auschwitz deniers are only waiting for direct or indirect "confirmation" of their crude perceptions from authorities of the, according to them, controlled "media and academic devices". Therefore one must be ultra-cautious if one is to question, for example, the findings of serious research into Auschwitz. In my opinion, you were not -- with the consequence that right-wing radicals are now swaggering with their "success" because a "Spiegel" editor surrendered to their side.

There is a big difference between calling SS-Bauleiter Bischoff's letter an "internal propaganda lie" -- and, without citing weighty reasons, speaking of a "forgery". There are also worlds between the previous opinions of historians of consequence quoted by Richard Evans and his own judgement, to which I referred: Evans called Irving a "falsifier of history".

Of course historiography can and must revise the findings of previous researchers -- and if need be reject them. Only, historians must, according to the topic, handle such revisions (literally) particularly attentively -- otherwise they play into the hands of those who unjustly call themselves "revisionists".

Sven Felix Kellerhoff
From Irving's site.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: More Meyer

#2

Post by Roberto » 23 Oct 2002, 22:20

Meyer wrote:Of course, its conclusion does not substantially differ from the most recent research conclusions of the expert, Jean-Claude Pressac's, who calculated at least 631,000 dead at Auschwitz, of which at least 470,000+ were Jews murdered by gas.
Meyer obviously didn't read Pressac very carefully.

At the end of his book The Crematoria of Auschwitz, Pressac provided the following figures:
Pressac wrote:Number of Jews deported to Auschwitz

Hungary: 438,000 minus 118,000 transferred = 320,000
Poland: 150,000
France: 69,000
Netherlands: 60,000
Greece: 55,000
Bohemia and Moravia (Theresienstadt): 46,000
Slovakia: 27,000
Belgium: 25,000
Germany and Austria: 23,000
Yugoslavia: 10,000
Italy: 7,500
Norway: 700
Various camps and others: 34,000

Total: 945,200
Remaining total [after deduction of tranferees]: 827,200

Of the 827,200 Jews of Auschwitz, rounded up to 830,000, about 200,000 were registered (thus making up half of the registered inmates) and 630,000 were gassed. Thus the total number of victims would be the following:

Non-registered Jews gassed: 630,000
Dead registered inmates (Jew and non-Jews): 130,000
Soviet prisoners of war: 15,000

Total dead: 775,000
I translated the above from the Portuguese translation of The Crematoria of Auschwitz, edited in 1993.

Pressac basically accepted the figures established by Polish historian Franciszek Piper, who in 1991 estimated at ca. 1,100,000 the number of victims of Auschwitz. He disagreed with Piper in what concerns the number of registered inmates who perished (Pressac assumes 130,000 vs. 200,000 according to Piper, arguing on the basis of the Sterbebücher found in the Moscow Central Archives) and the number of Polish Jews deported to Auschwitz (which could not have been higher than 150,000, according to Pressac's calculation, while Piper's estimate is twice as high).
Meyer wrote:Pressac calls SS-Bauleiters Bischoff's letter concerning the "capacity" of the crematoria an "internal propaganda lie of the SS."


This is also an inaccurate rendering of what Pressac wrote.
Pressac wrote:These official numbers are propaganda and a lie, and yet they are valid. The apparent validity resides in the fact that the time for incinerating two children weighing 10 kg and one women weighing 50 kg is equal to that for a man weighing 70 kg, which introduces a multiplying coefficient varying from 1 to 3 and makes all numbers on crematory performance random.
The above, again, is my translation from the Portuguese translation of Pressac's a.m. book.
Meyer wrote:I expressed the view that doubt about the authenticity of the document is justified. There are several reasons for this, above all the existence of three different facsimile versions.
A rather feeble reason if, as is suggested by one of the facsimiles viewable online:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... pacity.jpg

the existing facsimile are "Abschriften" of the original, a term that suggests copies laboriously typed down after the carbon copies had run out (photocopying machines did not yet exist at the time, as far as I know) and the correctness of which (i.e. the textual coincidence with the original) was certified by the signature of the SS - clerk on duty on the day each "Abschrift" was issued.

In the online scan, the clerk's signature can be seen at the bottom next to the remark "Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift", which I means "I hereby certify the correctness of the copy".

As to Kellerhoff's reply:
Kellerhoff wrote: Of course historiography can and must revise the findings of previous researchers -- and if need be reject them. Only, historians must, according to the topic, handle such revisions (literally) particularly attentively -- otherwise they play into the hands of those who unjustly call themselves "revisionists".
I couldn't have said it better myself.


User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 16:48
Location: Germany

Re: More Meyer

#3

Post by Hans » 24 Oct 2002, 23:00

Roberto,

two corrections. Pressac has again revised his Auschwitz death toll in the German edition (Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, 1994) of his book "Les crématoires d'Auschwitz" and he has indeed estimated the figures given by Meyer.

However, the error in Meyer's reasoning is that he considers Pressac's 1994 estimation the "letzte Forschungsstand" (most recent research), although no expert on these matters accepted Pressac's revision and repeated his results, and that he considers Pressac a "Sachkenner" (expert) on demographics and deportations to Auschwitz, which Pressac clearly isn't.

The fact that Pressac's estimation corresponds with Meyer's own study, which is explained by the fact that he has simply adapted Pressac's reasoning by the way, only shows how very wrong his own estimation is.

This reasoning on the Polish Jews deported and killed in Auschwitz is addressed by Robert Jan Van Pelt in his expert report for the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial:
Van Pelt wrote: Are Pressac's challenges to Piper's numbers to be taken seriously?Let us first consider the general credibility of his research.There is no doubt that Pressac has rendered important service to the historiography of Auschwitz through his research on the development of the gas chambers and the crematoria.Yet it is also true that,having achieved a deserved recognition through the study of one aspect of the history of Auschwitz,Pressac did not hesitate to pronounce himself,at least in my own presence,not only the ultimate expert in all matters relating to the history of Auschwitz,but even to claim expertise in all matters relating to the Holocaust.As a result,Pressac did not hesitate to make far-reaching claims on issues he had not studied,and which were beyond his judgement.His desire to ";escape " the narrow perspective of his study of the gas chambers by offering his contribution to the question of the number of victims is a case in point.His lack of true expertise becomes clear when one considers how he radically changed his assessment of the number of people murdered in Auschwitz from one edition to the next.

Reviewing his arguments,it seems to me that Pressac could have a point,which he however fails to prove,when he claims that Piper was too low in his assessment of the number of Hungarian Jews who were qualified as Durchgangsjuden on arrival in Auschwitz.Given the German policy during the Hungarian Action to use Auschwitz as a selection station,I have always had some problem with Piper's number -but would have no data to prove him wrong.If Pressac were to be right,or somewhat right on this issue,then it could be that the total number of Jewish people murdered in Auschwitz would be lower than 960,000,and that the total number of victims would be closer to 1 million than the 1.1 million people which Piper calculated.Pressac's argument that 150,000 and not 300,000 Polish Jews were deported to Auschwitz is,however,based on some very arbitrary observations regarding the liquidation of the ghetto of Bendin and Sosnowitz in early 1943. It is clear that,in the first week of August,more than 30,000 Jews from these ghettos arrived with convoys of either 2,000 or 3,000 people in the camp,and that more than 22,000 of them were killed in the gas chambers.Pressac reasons that the average killing and incineration rate should have been close to 4,000 per day during this period.Theoretically,this should have been possible,given the fact that the official daily incineration capacity of the crematoria was 4,756 corpses.54 Pressac reasons, however,that in the first week of August the total incineration capacity of the camp had been less than halved because of problems with crematoria 2 and 5,and that as a result the camp incinerators could not have ";accommodated " within the given period the ((close to)22,000 victims.Hence, Pressac assumes that because the incineration capacity of the crematoria was half during this period, the number of victims was half,and that therefore the number of Bendin and Sosnowitz Jews deported to Auschwitz was half -ignoring the fact that there was independent confirmation from the chief of police of Sosnowitz of the number of 30,000 deported Jews.Undeterred by this,Pressac reasons that because the number of deportees was half,the size of each of the transports was half (that is 1,000 or 1,500 people per transport and not 2,000 or 3,000 people per transport)and, committing the fallacy of composition,he now assumes that all transport of Polish Jews were half of what they were supposed to have been,and that therefore the total number of Polish Jews had been half of the 300,000 people Piper assumed.55 Thus a potentially legitimate observation that during the first week of August 1943 half of the ovens were out of order led Pressac to conclude that,over the whole history of the camp,only 150,000 and not 300,000 Polish Jews had been deported to the camp.And he ";saves " these 150,000 Polish Jews in an argument that takes a little over a page..

It will be clear that Pressac's methodology,and hence his revision of the number of Polish Jews deported to Auschwitz,is not to be taken seriously.As a result,Piper's numbers remain the only ones that are supported by substantial investigation into the matter.As a scholar working on the history of Auschwitz,I reviewed Dr.Piper's methodology and his conclusions both in conversation, through study of his writings,and by considering the evidence he has presented,and I fully join the scholarly consensus that he has put the matter to rest.And while it is not impossible that at some future date they could be revised if,for example,more information becomes available about the number of Hungarian Durchgangsjuden I do not expect such a revision to be beyond a range of about 10 per cent.Even if the total number of Jewish victims of Auschwitz were to be closer to 900,000 than 1,000,000,Auschwitz was to remain the center of the Holocaust,and as such the likely focus of Holocaust denial.
His reasoning on the Hungarian Jews deported and killed in Auschwitz was adressed by me in the "Osteuropa" thread:
Hans wrote: Meyer has made an obvious error in his calculation. He has adapted the reasoning from Jean-Claude Pressac's second book Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. In fact, Pressac has done the same mistake.

He argues that 60 transports arrived in Auschwitz from Hungary according to Danuta Czech's Kalendarium and since each transport carried 3000 people, 180.000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz. However, Czech had no documents saying that so much transports arrived on that day from SS archives in Auschwitz. She had data on the number of registered prisoners. Based on this data, she could not give the exact number of transports from Hungary. In fact, sometimes she simply wrote

"Aus den Transporten des RSHA aus Ungarn werden nach der Selektion 20 Jüdinnen ins Lager eingewiesen."

implying that she cannot state how many transports arrived in Auschwitz on this day.

The number of people deported from Hungary and the number of transports is well known: 434.351 Jews in 147 transports, according to the reports of Laszlo Ferenczy. Several thousand Jews were deported to Straßhoff, more than 400.000 Jews were sent to Auschwitz. By assuming that only 180.000 Hungarian Jews were sent to Auschwitz, Meyer has simply omitted 220.000 Hungarian Jews in his calculation who were most likely deported to Auschwitz and gassed there.
Secondly, the scan provided by Nizkor is not a good example, since this version does indeed differ from the others. The notes "Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift" and "Abschrift" and the signature was not written by the SS but after the war by the person who made the fascimile , also the signature of Jährling has been placed wrongly (this document is unsigned). The same is true for the other facsimiles Meyer has in mind, there were all made after the war by archivists etc.. So there are some different facsimiles of the document made by archivists and book authors, but what Meyer completely ignores is that there is only one - ONE - original (no facsimile) of the document, thus Meyer's argument against the authenticy of the document ("there are different versions") is bunk.
Attachments
kapazität.gif
Photocopy of the original document
kapazität.gif (89.98 KiB) Viewed 1261 times

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#4

Post by Roberto » 25 Oct 2002, 13:59

Hans,

Your corrections are appreciated. They show this forum at its best.

Cheers,

Roberto

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

#5

Post by Erik » 26 Oct 2002, 02:51

Secondly, the scan provided by Nizkor is not a good example, since this version does indeed differ from the others. The notes "Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift" and "Abschrift" and the signature was not written by the SS but after the war by the person who made the fascimile , also the signature of Jährling has been placed wrongly (this document is unsigned). The same is true for the other facsimiles Meyer has in mind, there were all made after the war by archivists etc.. So there are some different facsimiles of the document made by archivists and book authors, but what Meyer completely ignores is that there is only one - ONE - original (no facsimile) of the document, thus Meyer's argument against the authenticy of the document ("there are different versions") is bunk.
Document reading does indeed show this forum at it’s best, as Roberto remarks. But I guess many of us lack both the patience and abilities that are demanded to follow the close arguments of some exchanges on such matter.

Among those abilities is language command.

Without any pretence to document assessment( maybe even the word is mis-applied? Can you “assess” documents of this kind at all?) competence, I probably make an “ass” of myself when I confess to having trouble with the passage above.

The “scan” from Nizkor is called “this version”, and it differs from “the others”(“versions”??).Still, “Meyer’s argument” that (quote from Meyer in the parenthesis at the end?) “there are different versions”, is “bunk”.

Next sentence:
“The notes "Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift" and "Abschrift" and the signature was not written by the SS but after the war by the person who made the fascimile , also the signature of Jährling has been placed wrongly (this document is unsigned).”
An unsigned document has “the signature not written by the SS but after the war by the person who made the facsimile” – that sounds like a “falsification” to me! It’s “original” cannot date from the war?

Still it has “the signature of Jährling”? “…placed wrongly(this document is unsigned)”.(SIC!!)
“The same is true for the other facsimiles Meyer has in mind, there were all made after the war by archivists etc..”
“The same is true”…? Unsigned? With the signature not written by the SS but by a “facsimilist”? Placing the signature of Jährling wrongly? After the war? On unsigned documents?
“…but what Meyer completely ignores is that there is only one - ONE - original (no facsimile) of the document..”
Well, could it be otherwise? I mean, more than ONE original? That is not a facsimile? How could Meyer "completely" ignore something like that? Is he a “revisionist”(sneer quote), even?

If it exists, in what way is it at all “the same” as the “other versions”, although “the scan provided by Nizkor does indeed differ from the others”? How can it be differed from the “other versions”?

What does the parenthesis “(no facsimile)” mean?

That the original is not a facsimile? (“Big deal”, as Roberto is wont to say!)

Or is there no facsimile available, on the Net or in print?

OK, now I have "assessed"(?) enough. In the still of the night.

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 16:48
Location: Germany

#6

Post by Hans » 26 Oct 2002, 12:44

Hi Erik!
The "scan" from Nizkor is called "this version" and it differs from "the others"("versions"??).Still, "Meyer's arguments" that (quote from Meyer in the parenthesis at the end?) there are different versions, is "bunk".
Erik, my argument is, Meyer's different documents have no relevance whatsoever for document assessment, since they are just post-war facsimiles of the same original (that still exists).

Or, Erik, what do you think, which would be relevant for a document assessment, the original document or the 99 post-war facsimiles of this original or all together?

Meyer thinks all 100 versions, maybe because he doesn't know that 99 are just post-war facsimiles.

I say only the original. The fact that 99 different post-war facsimiles exist of this original is completely irrelevant when we have the original. However, Meyer has based his reasoning on exactly this irrelevant fact:

"I expressed the view that doubt about the authenticity of the document is justified. There are several reasons for this, above all the existence of three different facsimile versions." (Meyer)

Isn't it irrelevant how many different post-war facsimile he has seen? There is only one relevant version for the document assessment, the original. Period.

Maybe Meyer has some more arguments against the authenticy of the document in question ("several reasons"), but the existence of different post-war facsimiles when the original is available is clearly none.

In short, his argument is about the accuracy of the post-war facsimiles of the original, but not about the authenticy of the original itself.
An unsigned document has the signature not written by the SS but after the war by the person who made the facsimile that sounds like a falsification to me! It's "original" cannot date from the war?

Still it has "the signature of Jährling"? "…placed wrongly(this document is unsigned)".(SIC!!)
Okay, Erik, it sounds absurd if you just read the text, but I think it you could have understand what I meant when you simply compare the nizkor scan with the photocopy of the original I posted, which is what I've done too.

We are talking about three different types of signatures:

1. the signature of the person who has made the facsimile (posted at nizkor) after the war, certifying it as a true copy. This signature belongs only to the facsimile and does not appear on the original document of course. (compare the nizkor scan with the original I posted)

2. The handwritten name "Jährling", a member of the central construction office in Auschwitz, in the distribution list, on the left side of the original document. This name could have been written by Jährling signing the distribution list (but not the whole document!), or maybe his name was written by somebody else to put him on the distribution list, also this is possible.
Anyway, this handwritten name appears as "gez. Jährling" on the right side, as signature for the whole document, in the nizkor scan. That's an obvious error of the person who has made the facsimile. This signature (if is one at all) has been placed wrongly in the nizkor scan.

3. the signature for the whole document by the head of the central construction office, Karl Bischoff. This signature should appear on the right side of the document between his title "Der Leiter der Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz" and his rank "SS-Sturmbannführer" (there, where the "gez. Jährling" has been put wrongly in the nizkor scan). But if you look at the photocopy of the original document I posted, you see that there is no signature, so the document was not signed by Bischoff.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#7

Post by Dan » 26 Oct 2002, 14:53

"I expressed the view that doubt about the authenticity of the document is justified. There are several reasons for this, above all the existence of three different facsimile versions." (Meyer)

Isn't it irrelevant how many different post-war facsimile he has seen? There is only one relevant version for the document assessment, the original. Period.
Hans, a facsimile is a copy. I have a facsimile of the Geneva Bible, complete with ink blots. If there are different facsimilies, someone has doctored all but one. And this should be enough to raise suspecion. How do you know which one is the original? Why are there different versions?

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 16:48
Location: Germany

#8

Post by Hans » 26 Oct 2002, 16:17

Dan,
If there are different facsimilies, someone has doctored all but one
No, a "Dipl.-Ing. Manfred Gerner" has compiled the different (respectively "different") versions:

A: http://www.vho.org/VffG/1998/3/Image0.gif

B: http://www.vho.org/VffG/1998/3/Image1.gif

C: http://www.vho.org/VffG/1998/3/Image2.gif

D: http://www.vho.org/VffG/1998/3/Image3.gif

E: http://www.vho.org/VffG/1998/3/Image4.gif

Now, D is the original from Tsentr Chranenija Istoriko-dokumental'nich Kollektsiiin in moscow.

B is simply a photocopy of D for the Auschwitz State Museum and Archive with a rubber stamp of the Archive.

E is simply a photocopy of D for Der Spiegel with a stamp at the bottom. The header has been snipped.

C is a facsimile from the book "SS im Einsatz". The differences to D are: there is no space between Bischoff's title and his rank, "Akt - Janisch" appears in the distribution list, although it has been crossed out and substituted by "Bauw." in the original, and "Registratur" in the distribution list is mispelled "Registrator". These are just irrelevant inaccuracies of the person who has made the facsimile.

A (the nizkor scan) is a facsimile of D for some archive. The differences to D are the nessecary notes of the person, who has made the facsimile, "Abschrift" and "Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift: [signature]". Further, the handwritten note "Janisch" in the distribution list in D was erroneously interpreted as signature for the whole letter and so placed wrongly.

So we see, the differences between A and D and C and D are merely mistakes, inaccuracies or legetimate notes of archivists, but there is no indication for deliberate doctoring!

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#9

Post by walterkaschner » 26 Oct 2002, 20:45

Hans, I think Dan's problem with your posts may simply be a semantic one. The word "facsimile" in English has the connotation of an exact copy, such as a photostat or a Fax. Perhaps simply the word "copy" would more aptly convey your meaning here - it has a broader meaning than facsimile, and includes something of the sense of an imitation or a transcript. I think "transcript" is probably more accurate technically, but in English (or at least American) that often has a connotation of a written memorialization of an oral presentation.

But I think your painstaking analysis deserves the highest praise, and the logic of your conclusion - that the original must govern, and that differences in copies or transcripots are irrelevant - is IMHO impeccable.
Thank you for it.

Regards, Kaschner

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#10

Post by Dan » 27 Oct 2002, 00:20

Thanks to Mr. Kaschner for clarifying my problem, and to Hans for the explaination.

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

#11

Post by Erik » 27 Oct 2002, 16:28

Hans,

Thank you for your answer.

Perhaps my “nit-picking” of your posting needs some justification.

I’m aware that your posting Thu Oct 24, 2002 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: More Meyer was addressed to Roberto. You could rely on his command of the materials at hand, and his competence to make out the short-cuts in the reasoning and the correct appliances of the terms you used.

But Roberto wrote:

Kellerhoff wrote:

Of course historiography can and must revise the findings of previous researchers -- and if need be reject them. Only, historians must, according to the topic, handle such revisions (literally) particularly attentively -- otherwise they play into the hands of those who unjustly call themselves "revisionists".


I couldn't have said it better myself.


(My emphasis).

I take for granted that both you and Roberto agree to the emphasized parts of the Kellerhoff statement.

“Mumbo-jumbo” (as Roberto is wont to call most of Erik’s contributions to this forum) has it’s appliances, too. When you’re in power and represent orthodoxy, you have an interest in hiding the technique of orthodoxy maintenance. Obfuscating the issues by imprecise use of language is one method.

To quote John Locke:
To break in upon the sanctuary of vanity and ignorance will be, I suppose, some service to human understanding; though so few are apt to think they deceive or are deceived in the use of words; or that the language of the sect they are of has any faults in it which ought to be examined or corrected, that I hope I shall be pardoned if I have in the Third Book dwelt long on this subject, and endeavoured to make it so plain, that neither the inveterateness of the mischief, nor the prevalency of the fashion, shall be any excuse for those who will not take care about the meaning of their own words, and will not suffer the significancy of their expressions to be inquired into.
Locke: An Essay concerning Human Understanding, ”The epistle to the reader”.

(I expect some ” Is-Too/Is-Not” to the passage ; and of course it is applicable to all sorts of “Mumbo-Jumbo”. But it is no exaggeration to maintain that chiefly those in power has an interest in “the prevalency of the fashion”.)
Erik, my argument is, Meyer's different documents have no relevance whatsoever for document assessment, since they are just post-war facsimiles of the same original (that still exists).

Or, Erik, what do you think, which would be relevant for a document assessment, the original document or the 99 post-war facsimiles of this original or all together?
You have posted a “photo copy” of the original. But a “photo copy” is not the “original”, is it?

You write in a parenthesis:
(compare the nizkor scan with the original I posted)
Here you say you have posted an “original”!! I.e., NOT a “photocopy of the original”!

But some lines above you write:
Okay, Erik, it sounds absurd if you just read the text, but I think it you could have understand what I meant when you simply compare the nizkor scan with the photocopy of the original I posted, which is what I’ve done too.
(My underlining.)

Now I have probably only given you a feeling for the frustration of Mr Bunch on another thread, but I think that you will understand the “language problem”, just the same!

You wrote:
Or, Erik, what do you think, which would be relevant for a document assessment, the original document or the 99 post-war facsimiles of this original or all together?
If a person/criminal etc has several different alias and alibi, you cannot draw the conclusion that she/he “doesn’t exist” or “haven’t been anywhere at all”. But you are allowed either the conclusion that she/he doesn’t know who she/he is, and where she/he has been, or that she/he is hiding a certain identity and a certain “presence”.

There must be an “original”.

You remove one alias after another from the different “aliases”, and one alibi after another from the different “alibis”, and hopefully you will arrive at the “original”.

But what is the conclusion if you cannot “arrive” at such?

There is a public debate in Sweden presently on the plight of refugees that come here to seek asylum. If take years in many cases to arrive at a conclusion of their “original”. They have several “aliases” and “alibis”.

You cannot allow them all (alias and alibi, that is).

A solution of a “time out” has been suggested. Then they will “arrive” to a satisfactory “original”, i.e., asylum.

If you “retouch” a facsimile, by removing the irrelevancies that “…are merely mistakes, inaccuracies or legetimate notes of archivists,”(from your reply to Mr Dan (Sat Oct 26, 2002 3:17 pm), do you arrive at the “original”?

Or is this only a “clean copy”? A compromise?

Mr Dan can perhaps compare with a “Nicaean” compromise concerning the composition of the True Gospel. Early Christianity was brimming with different(?) “copies” of both the Gospel and of the four Evangelists. Some were “apocryphal”(“of doubtful authenticity”), even.

Which is the original Gospel?

Here we have a language problem too. There is only one Gospel : the glad tidings preached by Christ – that is, the Truth.

But Gospel also means the record of His Life and of His preachings as written by the four Evangelists. And those four are different in many details. (And each one of them has it’s own “copies”, it seems.)

Which “copy”is true? All of them? Together, as a Whole? Even if they, taken "apart", by "themselves", contradict each others?

Is the “original”( i.e., the first) true? Or “more true” than the others?

Which one is it? Is there “internal evidence” to the original?

You can skip all this and try to get at the WHOLE Truth of the Gospel.

The “converged” truth, even!! (I’m sorry, Mr Dan; I know you will wince at the terminology!)

The “converged” truth concerning the asylum seekers is that they seek asylum. They are in distress, fleeing from oppression and inhuman conditions of living.

That ought also to be the “whole” truth, “the nothing but” truth, according to some.

Their identities and origins are ALL true, since there are people in distress everywhere, and their aliases and alibis are “copies” of true victims somewhere.

That is one way to look at it. Perhaps the only “good” way, the one without any ideological bubbles.

The “original” truth can only be grasped by good will and good faith.

In Holocaust matters that would entail a good will to maximize the numbers of cremations possible in the Auschwitz crematoria, and read the documentation accordingly.

The only falsifications are those that minimize such numbers, and readings and assessments of documents showing such tendencies are labouring under ideological bubbles that – among other impudences – seek ‘…"confirmation" of their crude perceptions from authorities of the, according to them, controlled "media and academic devices".(Kellerhof).

Kellerhof continues :
Therefore one must be ultra-cautious if one is to question, for example, the findings of serious research into Auschwitz.
“Media and academic devices” must accordingly be “ultra-cautious”, in order not to confirm “crude perceptions” of the Holocaust murders.

“Media and academic devices” confirming “refined”(?) perceptions of those murders – “the more the better”? – will probably not need any “caution”, since they cannot but preach a “Gospel” of Truth. “The more Truth the better”, obviously.
Meyer thinks all 100 versions, maybe because he doesn't know that 99 are just post-war facsimiles.

I say only the original. The fact that 99 different post-war facsimiles exist of this original is completely irrelevant when we have the original. However, Meyer has based his reasoning on exactly this irrelevant fact:

"I expressed the view that doubt about the authenticity of the document is justified. There are several reasons for this, above all the existence of three different facsimile versions." (Meyer)

Isn't it irrelevant how many different post-war facsimile he has seen? There is only one relevant version for the document assessment, the original. Period.
The “photo copy” you posted wears the stamped capital letter “D”. Is that “lettering” from the vho.org- site you quoted?

You write:
Now, D is the original from Tsentr Chranenija Istoriko-dokumental'nich Kollektsiiin in moscow.

B is simply a photocopy of D for the Auschwitz State Museum and Archive with a rubber stamp of the Archive.

E is simply a photocopy of D for Der Spiegel with a stamp at the bottom. The header has been snipped.
(My emphases).

You designated the “D” document that you posted in your reply above to Roberto, as a
photo copy
in its “heading”.

How do we know that it is the original? Because there is a “D” on it? (“Fassungs-Buchstabe hingefügt”, say the captions, I know! But by whom? Gerner? Or an archivist? Where?)

YOU know that it is the original, but how can WE know? On your authority? Or vho.org:s? Have you SEEN the original?

Roberto has somewhere, unless I misremember, stated his refusal to even look at the “cattle manure” produced at vho.org, and more specifically at the “BS” published by Mattogno. He prefers to rely on the Augean labours performed by Prof Zimmerman.

Mr Mills doesn’t rely on any “revisionist authorities” either, as far as I can see.

In your position as moderator you naturally can take liberties that go against the directives given by the Founding Father of ThirdReich Forum – and I have no intention to pit you against those rules (no “pit-bull”!).

But how do you KNOW that the facsimiles produced at this site are correct? Are you, as a German, in a position and place to assess the originals (and facsimiles) in German archives?

But if they are filed at different archives in different countries? Are there archivist verifications? “Notarii publici”?
Maybe Meyer has some more arguments against the authenticy of the document in question ("several reasons"), but the existence of different post-war facsimiles when the original is available is clearly none.

In short, his argument is about the accuracy of the post-war facsimiles of the original, but not about the authenticy of the original itself.


The “Gerner” you mentioned has a quote from an German historian concerning document assessment:
»Bei der Überprüfung von Dokumenten auf ihre Echtheit geht die Geschichtswissenschaft vom Grundsatz aus, daß entweder ein überprüfbares oder schon überprüftes Original vorliegen muß oder der Weg von der Behörde, Person oder Institution, die das Dokument erstellt hat, bis zu dessen Abschrift oder Kopie lückenlos verfolgt werden kann.«
(Brigitte Bailer-Galanda, Wolfgang Benz und Wolfgang Neugebauer (Hg.), Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge, Deutike, Wien 1995, S. 69.)

When verifying documents concerning their authenticity does the science of history assume as a tenet that either a verifiable or an already verified original must exist or that the possibility exists to pursue its uninterrupted way from the agency, person or institution that issued the document, to its duplicate(?)/transcript(?) or copy.
(My translation.)

What “tenet” make it possible to “back-pedal” – pursue it the other way – the copies and duplicates to an assumed original?

That is the obvious problem for “history science”, isn’t it? (See “Gospel” discussion above.)

Bailer-Galanda seems to be describing the “copyright” problem of the “publisher”!?! The “police” problem? Tracing copyists?

“Internal” evidence? Paper and print qualities?

Master-readers of documents like Roberto and Mr Mills rely on second hand relations of documents, accessible through public libraries and book-shops, unless I misunderstand – perhaps by necessity (at least Australia seems to be far off from Holocaust Archives).

That is “history” reading, for sure. But David Irving wouldn’t call it “science”, would he?

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 16:48
Location: Germany

#12

Post by Hans » 27 Oct 2002, 19:51

Hi Erik!
You have posted a "photo copy" of the original. But a "photo copy" is not the "original", is it?

You write in a parenthesis:
(compare the nizkor scan with the original I posted)
Here you say you have posted an "original"!! I.e., NOT a "photocopy of the original"!

But some lines above you write:
Okay, Erik, it sounds absurd if you just read the text, but I think it you could have understand what I meant when you simply compare the nizkor scan with the photocopy of the original I posted, which is what I’ve done too.
(My underlining.)

Now I have probably only given you a feeling for the frustration of Mr Bunch on another thread, but I think that you will understand the "language problem", just the same!
Yes, that was very sloppy by me. But you had obviously no problem to understand what I meant!
The "photo copy" you posted wears the stamped capital letter "D". Is that "lettering" from the vho.org- site you quoted?
Yes.
YOU know that it is the original, but how can WE know? On your authority?
Not on mine, but on the authority of all specialists on Auschwitz construction documents, Carlo Mattogno, Robert Jan Van Pelt, Jean-Claude Pressac, who agree that the document Gerner says he photocopied in the Moscow Special Archive reference 502-1-314 is the original.

best regards,

Hans

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 16:48
Location: Germany

#13

Post by Hans » 27 Oct 2002, 20:08

walterkaschner wrote:Hans, I think Dan's problem with your posts may simply be a semantic one. The word "facsimile" in English has the connotation of an exact copy, such as a photostat or a Fax. Perhaps simply the word "copy" would more aptly convey your meaning here - it has a broader meaning than facsimile, and includes something of the sense of an imitation or a transcript. I think "transcript" is probably more accurate technically, but in English (or at least American) that often has a connotation of a written memorialization of an oral presentation.
Many thanks!
:)

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 16:48
Location: Germany

#14

Post by Hans » 27 Oct 2002, 20:44

But how do you KNOW that the facsimiles produced at this site are correct?
Well, I've just checked C (from "SS im Einsatz") and E (from Der Spiegel Nr. 40/ 47. Jahrgang).

Gerner's scan A is simply the nizkor scan from Pressac "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers".

Scan B, the photocopy of the Auschwitz State Museum, has the characteristic rubber stamp [Panstwowe Muzeum w Oswiecimiu A R C H I W U M] of documents from this archive, compare with

http://www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20Docs/A ... 01-002.htm

So scan B seems to be correct.

According to Pressac and Mattogno, the document of the Auschwitz State Museum is an identical copy (a photocopy) of the original document in Moscow and Gerner's scans B (Auschwitz State Museum) and D (Moscow) are actually identical, so it is reasonable to assume that also D is correct.

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

#15

Post by Erik » 27 Oct 2002, 21:04

Thanks for your answer, Hans!
Yes, that was very sloppy by me. But you had obviously no problem to understand what I meant!


I could postulate a “good will” on your part, that would exclude anything else than that your “meaning” could be “properly” understood.

And "read" accordingly! And skip the nit-picking!

But can you rely on MY “good will” to understand your meaning? I think that was the problem addressed by Mr Kellerhof in the emphasized (by Erik) part of the quote supplied above.

You have posted on other boards, where such a “good will” on the part of your opposition could not be postulated, so I’m sure that you are aware of the problem.


Quote:
The "photo copy" you posted wears the stamped capital letter "D". Is that "lettering" from the vho.org- site you quoted?
Yes.

Quote:
YOU know that it is the original, but how can WE know? On your authority?
Not on mine, but on the authority of all specialists on Auschwitz construction documents, Carlo Mattogno, Robert Jan Van Pelt, Jean-Claude Pressac, who agree that the document Gerner photocopied from the Moscow Special Archive reference 502-1-314 is the original.
Thanks for the information.The “revisionist”(?) Gerner has supplied a photocopy of the original, apparently.

Was this original known to the “serious” (i.e., non-“revisionist”) research before Gerner? But never “photocopied” before?

Why do you trust him? Has a responsible archivist from the Moscow Special Archive attested the “photocopy”?

Excuse my “sloppy” and probably not “up-to-date” reading concerning this document, but according the the “revisionist” polemics that I’ve “sloppied” with, has this Gerner published his view that this “original” is a falsification, too!!

Mattogno disagrees. Doesn’t he?

Now you can say : “find out for yourself”! If I want to slop around in “revisionist” BS, I can obviously find my way, since I know these names!

But you know the truth, don’t you?

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”