Eichmann in Jerusalem

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8800
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 04 Aug 2003 08:39

Demonio wrote:

On that visit to Auschwitz you mentioned he stood there with Hoess and determined that the North West corner of Birkenau was the most suitable place for the extermination apparatus.


That was a claim made by Hoess in his pre-trial statement "The Final Solution of the Jewish Problem at KL Auschwitz", dated November 1946.

However, serious historians have long recognised that Hoess's claims are untrustworthy, since they are irreconcilable with what we know about the development of homicidal gassing at Auschwitz.

In the above claim, Hoess states that after he received an order from Himmler in the summer of 1941 to establish an extermination centre for Jews at Auschwitz (which is known to be false), Eichmann came to Auschwitz, and together they identified two peasant houses as the places for the installation of gas-chambers.

In other words, the selection of the two houses (later Bunkers I and II) is supposed to have occurred BEFORE a gas was selected, BEFORE the experiements with Zyklon-B had taken place, BEFORE the conversion of Crematorium I in the Auschwitz main camp into a gas chamber, and even BEFORE the construction of Birkenau had started.

We know from other evidence the sequence of events leading to the establishment of homidical gassing at Auschwitz. First the camp staff carried out experiments in a building-cellar in Auschwitz main camp, using Zyklon-B to kill Soviet POWs. Then Crematorium I was converted to a gas-chamber, for killing Soviet POWs. Then a peasant house in the village of Brzezinka was converted to a gas-chamber; the exact date date is unknown, but it had occurred by May 1942. Finally, a second peasant house was converted to a gas-chamber.

The question is, if the two peasant houses had been selected as killing centres BEFORE all the above events took place, why were the experiments carried out in Auschwitz main camp and not in the two houses? Why was Crematorium I then concerted to a gas-chamber, rather than installing the gas-chambers directly in the two houses, which according to Hoess had already been selected for that purpose several months before?

The answer is that Hoess's claim is totally bogus. He was trying to divert responsibility for homicidal gassing from himself (and his organisation the WVHA) by loading it onto Eichmann (and the RSHA).

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 04 Aug 2003 13:59

michael mills wrote:Demonio wrote:

On that visit to Auschwitz you mentioned he stood there with Hoess and determined that the North West corner of Birkenau was the most suitable place for the extermination apparatus.


That was a claim made by Hoess in his pre-trial statement "The Final Solution of the Jewish Problem at KL Auschwitz", dated November 1946.

However, serious historians have long recognised that Hoess's claims are untrustworthy, since they are irreconcilable with what we know about the development of homicidal gassing at Auschwitz.


How is this irreconcilable ?



The answer is that Hoess's claim is totally bogus. He was trying to divert responsibility for homicidal gassing from himself (and his organisation the WVHA) by loading it onto Eichmann (and the RSHA).


RSHA was most directly responsible for the running of Auschwitz

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 04 Aug 2003 14:08

Fleming's account is quite tendentious, and based on uncritical acceptance of claims made about Eichmann by others, especially Hoess, in an effort to exculpate themselves.


Hoess did not try to exculpate himself and/or to get any of his friends in more trouble then they were already in. He told it as it was with terrifying cool,calmness and indifference. He was also perhaps the loyalest and most obedient Nazi monster to the cause.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8800
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 05 Aug 2003 07:42

Demonio wrote:

RSHA was most directly responsible for the running of Auschwitz.


Demonio here betrays his abysmal historical ignorance.

All concentration camps were run by the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, the Inspector being Richard Gluecks.

From 1942, the Inspectorate was situated in the WVHA, headed by Oswald Pohl.

All reports from the Auschwitz camp staff went to the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps in the WVHA. For example, reports about the arrival of transports of Jews were sent to Maurer. Gluecks' deputy.

The RSHA played no role in the running of concentration camps. Its role was to arrest people and send them there.

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 05 Aug 2003 10:35

michael mills wrote:Demonio wrote:

RSHA was most directly responsible for the running of Auschwitz.


Demonio here betrays his abysmal historical ignorance.

All concentration camps were run by the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, the Inspector being Richard Gluecks.

From 1942, the Inspectorate was situated in the WVHA, headed by Oswald Pohl.

All reports from the Auschwitz camp staff went to the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps in the WVHA. For example, reports about the arrival of transports of Jews were sent to Maurer. Gluecks' deputy.

The RSHA played no role in the running of concentration camps. Its role was to arrest people and send them there.


Wrong again Michael. RSHA ran Auschwitz as transpired during the Nuremberg trial.

The Security police ran the Reinhard Camps.

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 05 Aug 2003 12:41

Well, the arguments posted by Mr. Michael Mills seem to me sound, logic and reliable.

Hoess "confessions" and "statements" were and are unreliables, precisely because extorted him by his British captors and after by Polish authorities.

LFS
Best Regards

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 05 Aug 2003 13:10

Lucius Felix Silla wrote:Well, the arguments posted by Mr. Michael Mills seem to me sound, logic and reliable.

Hoess "confessions" and "statements" were and are unreliables, precisely because extorted him by his British captors and after by Polish authorities.

LFS
Best Regards


Anyone that has an insight into Hoess and the Nuremberg trials evidence would know that what Michael is saying is not really true.

There are many Reichs documents proving this. For example Purchase orders from RSHA to Tesch and Stabenowfor Cyklon B (a lot of it), (and no it was not all for fumigation either). Its destination, Auschwitz

RSHA requisition trains destination Auschwitz etc etc

RSHA gets paid by IG Farben and BUNA works plant for slave labour from Auschwitz. And RSHA Kaltenbrunner having jurisdiction over Auschwitz.

Hoess answering to RSHA. Why would he lie and substitute another department. He certainly was not a character that lacked courage of conviction. Everthing he said was backed up by as many documents

What department was Eichmann in ? RSHA

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 05 Aug 2003 13:26

All concentration camps were run by the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, the Inspector being Richard Gluecks.


All concentration camps perhaps. Auschwitz was more of a destruction camp similar to the Reinhard Camps. Also if Gluecks showed up to Treblinka, B or S.
He probably would have been gassed (or told to go away)
RSHA administered the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 05 Aug 2003 13:29

Demonio here betrays his abysmal historical ignorance.


When the personal attacks and insults begin you just know that you striking the right cord. God Bless

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 05 Aug 2003 17:47

Demonio write:

"Everthing [Hoess] he said was backed up by as many documents".

Also when Hoess states that:

"The "final solution" of the Jewish question meant the complete extermination of all Jews in Europe. I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time, there were already in the General Government three other extermination camps: Belzek, Treblinka, and Wolzek.[sic] ("Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal - the "blue series". The text appears at Vol. XI, p. 416, and Vol. XXXIII, p. 277. Document 3868-PS, Exhibit USA-819)."

Wolzek simply is an invention of Hoess.
Treblinka and Belzec at this time weren't yet constructed, so another invention.
In the summer 1941 the term "Final Solution" don't have anyone criminal significance.

More in general, very small parts of the Hoess memoirs can be utilized as historical source. If i say that at least another hundred of errors, falsifications, inventions are present in Hoess memoirs, i don't think to make an error...

Best Regards
LFS

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002 20:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

Post by chalutzim » 05 Aug 2003 19:41

Lucius Felix Silla wrote:(...) Wolzek simply is an invention of Hoess.


You've raised an interesting issue, signore Silla:

The "Wolzek" Paradox

The second error is that the last camp named, "Wolzek," does not exist, and never existed. And from this apparent contradiction, deniers rush to conclusions. The conclusion they prefer is that Höß was tortured, and that his whole confession, and his testimony, indeed everything Höß ever said or wrote, is wrong.


Fortunately, an explanation that requires much less mental contortion is readily available. Not only was Höß not tortured into inventing "Wolzek" and then forced to write about that torture to unvex future historians, Höß was not tortured into inventing "Wolzek" in the first place. Because "Wolzek" is not an invention.


http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... k-paradox/ by Jamie McCarthy

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Aug 2003 21:11

Demonio, Auschwitz and Majdanek were WVHA camps.
:)

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 06 Aug 2003 00:18

Scott Smith wrote:Demonio, Auschwitz and Majdanek were WVHA camps.
:)


But Auschwitz came to be under the RSHA jurisdiction once the extermination program was drafted.

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 03:54
Location: The Matrix

Post by demonio » 06 Aug 2003 00:20

Lucius Felix Silla wrote:Demonio write:

"Everthing [Hoess] he said was backed up by as many documents".

Also when Hoess states that:

"The "final solution" of the Jewish question meant the complete extermination of all Jews in Europe. I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time, there were already in the General Government three other extermination camps: Belzek, Treblinka, and Wolzek.[sic] ("Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal - the "blue series". The text appears at Vol. XI, p. 416, and Vol. XXXIII, p. 277. Document 3868-PS, Exhibit USA-819)."

Wolzek simply is an invention of Hoess.
Treblinka and Belzec at this time weren't yet constructed, so another invention.
In the summer 1941 the term "Final Solution" don't have anyone criminal significance.

More in general, very small parts of the Hoess memoirs can be utilized as historical source. If i say that at least another hundred of errors, falsifications, inventions are present in Hoess memoirs, i don't think to make an error...

Best Regards
LFS


Wolzek means Sobibor, it is in the vicinity of Sobibor and is the missing Reinhard camp that we all know existed.

Example Majdanek is also referred to as Lublin.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8800
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 06 Aug 2003 08:13

As usual, Chalutzim and Demonio ignore the crucial issue, which is that Hoess claimed that Belzec, Sobibor (Wolzek) and Treblinka were in existence as extermination camps in June 1941, when he claims he was given an order to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz.

That is a blatant historical falsehood. Although Belzec had been in existence as a transit camp since at least December 1939, it did not begin to operate as an extermination camp until March 1942. Sobibor did not begin operation until May 1942, and Treblinka not until July of that year.

Why have Chalutzim and Demonio ignored that falsification of history, and sought to side-track us over the non-issue of Wolzek as an alternative name (perhaps garbled form of Wolczyzne) for Sobibor?

The falsification shows that Hoess's whole account of the development of an extermination program at Auschwitz simply cannot be trusted. It is full of chronological impossibilities like the above.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”