"Das letzte Kapitel": Book on deportation of Hunga

[michael mills]

I am currently reading the book "Das letzte Kapitel" on the deportation of the Hungarian Jews in 1944. The authors, Goetz Aly and Christian Gerlach, are both leftist German historians who stress the primacy of objective factors over ideology in causing the episodes of extermination.

I am finding the book very interesting and informative, and can recommend it to forum members who can read German. I myself looked it up on the recommendation of Hans.

I was gratified to see that Aly and Gerlach support the position that I have previously taken in this forum, namely that the primary German motive in deporting Jews from Hungary was to obtain slave labour rathr than extermination per se. The two authors show how the lead-up to the deportation was determined by German efforts to induce the Hungarian Government to hand over up to 100,000 fit Hungarian Jews capable of forced labour, and how the Hungarian Government insisted that the Germans take all the Jews, not just those who could be used for labour. Furthermore, the Hungarian Government to a certain extent frustrated the German efforts to obtain usable Jewish labour by retaining 80,000 Jewish men of military age in the Auxiliary Labour Service. As a result, the German staff at Auschwitz found itself lumbered with a large number of unemployables that had to be disposed of by the usual methods.

Aly and Gerlach's material also supports me on another point. I had previously argued that some 100,000 Jews deported from Hungary to Auschwitz had been made available to the Jaegerstab for the construction of subterranean aircraft factories. Certain members of the forum, proceeding from a dogmatic and ideologically-determined viewpoint, contested my argument, and claimed that the number could only have been a few thousand.

Here is what Aly and Gerlach write on page 296 of their book:

Noch schwerer wiegt die Nachkriegsaussage des ehemaligen Leiters des Arbeitsinsatzes im >>Jaegerstab<<, Fritz Schmelter, also eines wichtigen zustaendigen Funktionaers, etwa 100.000 ungarische Juden habe man als Zwangsarbeiter eingesetzt.

My translation:

Even more weight must be given to the post-war statement of the director of labour-allocation in the "Jaegerstab", Fritz Schmelter, an important responsible functionary, that about 100,000 Hungarian Jews had been employed as forced labourers.

100,000 Hungarian Jews, used as forced labour by the Jaegerstab. Exactly the figure I have previously used.

[Hans]

I don't think it is very usefull to refer to the old Forum, which is no longer available, and what you and other posters wrote - or not wrote - there.

But while you already are at it, then let's do it. As far as I remember, you did not limit your claims to 100,000, but you were very open for figures around 200,000 or even 300,000. This is of course utterly rejected by Gerlach and Aly. As far as I remember, you also tried to allege that those 100,000 would have been sent to the working site IN ADDITION to those sent to the concentration camps, so that the total is much higher. However, the fact is that Jägerstab Jews were transfered via the concentration camps. I suspect that some of your points are supported by the book, while many others are not. Of course, you don't remember the latter, do you?

And then, let's not forget that the most accurate estimation of Hungarian Jews taken out from the transports for labour did not come from you, as you did not limit the figure, but from me:

Hans wrote in the old Forum:

This means there is evidence to little more than 100 000 Hungarian Jews having been selected as "fit to work". The average rate of selection for work was probably 30 %, given that this percentage shows up again and again in connection with the deportations from Hungary and has been mentioned by expert witnesses. (see the following post for evidence)


It thus seems plausible that about 300 000 Hungarian Jews were gassed at Auschwitz immediately after arrival. The remaining Hungarian Jews were either registered at Auschwitz (30 000 Jews), transported to other places or kept in the quarantine camp and the Hungarian camp of Auschwitz.

[Hans]

I am currently reading the book "Das letzte Kapitel" on the deportation of the Hungarian Jews in 1944. The authors, Goetz Aly and Christian Gerlach, are both leftist German historians

What is a "leftist German historian" and why are Götz Aly and Christian Gerlach "leftist German historians"?

What a pity that you are still captivated by the old left-right scheme!

It appears that your "leftist German historian" is an entirely positive attribute, by the way. I hope that I'm also a "leftist German".

[michael mills]

Hans wrote:

What is a "leftist German historian" and why are Götz Aly and Christian Gerlach "leftist German historians"?

What a pity that you are still captivated by the old left-right scheme!

It appears that your "leftist German historian" is an entirely positive attribute, by the way. I hope that I'm also a "leftist German".

Hans,

I am sure that Aly and Gerlach would not reject the label "leftist", just as you do not.

I use the term "leftist" descriptively rather than normatively, that is, it denotes their political position without either approving or condemning thir work in advance.

I consider that the "leftist" orientation of Aly and Gerlach does in some cases lead to their imposing an ideological framework on their material that can distort their conclusions. However, I do find most of their interpretations well-founded and balanced, and their work extremely informative, given that they have unearthed a lot of important data that had previously been left out of consideration.

In particular, I like their emphasis on objective factors as the main motivating force behind the destructive energy of National Socialist Germany, which is a welcome change from the traditional concentration on, for example, the personality of Adolf Hitler.

[Hans]

I use the term "leftist" descriptively rather than normatively, that is, it denotes their political position without either approving or condemning thir work in advance.

Michael,

and what do you know about their political position? What is it that makes them "leftist German historians"?

Thanks.

[michael mills]

Hans wrote:

And then, let's not forget that the most accurate estimation of Hungarian Jews taken out from the transports for labour did not come from you, as you did not limit the figure, but from me:

Hans,

Let's not get too hung up on the total number of deported Hungarian Jews used for labour.

In my previous posts, I defended the view that the number of Hungarian Jews transferred from Auschwitz for labour had to be a MINIMUM of 100,000 since that was the number handed over to the Jaegerstab for the construction of underground aircraft factories.

At the time, you and some others (Charles Bunch as I recall) disputed my view, claiming that those 100,000 never arrived, and that the number of Hungarian Jews assigned to the above task was much lower.

The point I am making now is that Aly and Gerlach appear to support my view that 100,000 Hungarian Jews were transferred to the Jaegerstab for the construction of the underground factories.

I also contended that an additional number of female Hungarian Jews (I forget the exact figure; perhaps it was around 12,000) was transferred to the Jaegerstab for working IN the underground factories, that is for producing the jet fighters, and that these were separate from the 100,000 used for the construction of the factories themselves. In my view, that was the most logical reading of the testimony of Schmelter and Milch, but since Aly and Gerlach do not address that issue, I will not go further into it here.

I also mentioned a figure of 200,000 Jews who could have been assigned to labour in the summer of 1944. I did not pluck that figure out of the air; it was a figure actually ordered by Himmler at that time. I took the view that they were most likely Hungarian Jews, since the deportation from Hungary was occurring at that time, and they were the most likely source of the labour that Himmler was calling for; however, I acept that Jews from other sources might have been included in that number.

Rather than the total number of Hungarian Jews used for labour, I think that a far more interesting topic is the driving force behind the Hungarian deportation as a whole. Aly and Gerlach do give the impression that it was the insatiable German demand for more and more forced labour, which runs contrary to the traditional interpretation that an ideologically based exterminatory impulse was the deciding factor.

[Roberto]

Aly and Gerlach's material also supports me on another point. I had previously argued that some 100,000 Jews deported from Hungary to Auschwitz had been made available to the Jaegerstab for the construction of subterranean aircraft factories. Certain members of the forum, proceeding from a dogmatic and ideologically-determined viewpoint,

Can we do without the bullshit, Mills? Thanks.

contested my argument, and claimed that the number could only have been a few thousand.

Here is what Aly and Gerlach write on page 296 of their book:

Noch schwerer wiegt die Nachkriegsaussage des ehemaligen Leiters des Arbeitsinsatzes im >>Jaegerstab<<, Fritz Schmelter, also eines wichtigen zustaendigen Funktionaers, etwa 100.000 ungarische Juden habe man als Zwangsarbeiter eingesetzt.

My translation:

Even more weight must be given to the post-war statement of the director of labour-allocation in the "Jaegerstab", Fritz Schmelter, an important responsible functionary, that about 100,000 Hungarian Jews had been employed as forced labourers.

100,000 Hungarian Jews, used as forced labour by the Jaegerstab. Exactly the figure I have previously used.

What I read into the above statement is that Gerlach and Aly attribute a certain weight to Schmelter's testimony, which doesn't necessarily mean they consider it an established fact that 100,000 Hungarian Jews were used as forced laborers at the "Jaegerstab" camps.

If I remember correctly, Mills used to contend that 100,000 out of ca. 400,000 Jews Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau ended up in the "Jaegerstab" camps, and that an undetermined additional number were either registered at Auschwitz-Birkenau itself or transported to other labor/concentration camps. As I understood from the discussion on another forum under

http://pub86.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm ... =1&stop=20

Gerlach and Aly conclude that about 100,000 of the deportees to Auschwitz-Birkenau were used as forced laborers either at Auschwitz-Birkenau or other camps they were transported to from there, while about 300,000 were killed upon arrival at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

[Hans]

Roberto,

according to Götz Aly and Christian Gerlach in the book "Das letzte Kapital" about 25% of the around 430,000 from Hungary to Auschwitz deported Jews were selected for forced labour, or about 110,000, the rest was killed in Auschwitz.

[Roberto]

Roberto,

according to Götz Aly and Christian Gerlach in the book "Das letzte Kapital" about 25% of the around 430,000 from Hungary to Auschwitz deported Jews were selected for forced labour, or about 110,000, the rest was killed in Auschwitz.

430,000 minus 110,000 = 320,000 killed.

Thank you, Hans.

[michael mills]

Hans wrote:

Michael,

and what do you know about their political position? What is it that makes them "leftist German historians"?

Thanks.

I deduce that Goetz Aly and Christian Gerlach belong to the Leftist stream of German historiography from certain elements in their writing that are typical of that stream.

Among those elements are the attitude to the German-Soviet War (eg the attitude that the German invasion brought death, destruction and slavery to a happy and peaceful land, as if those elements were not already part of the expereince of the Soviet people), the attitude to the Wehrmacht vis-a-vis the SS, and the iconoclastic atitude toward the military conspirators against Hitler.

I do not propose to get caught up in a wrangle over whether Aly and Gerlach are indeed Leftist, or whether any or all of the positions taken by the German leftist school of historiography are right or wrong.

What is important to me is that Aly and Gerlach are definitely NOT rightists. Therefore, they are free of any bias in favour of national Socialism. Therefore, if they propose any interpretation of National Socialist policies or actions that is moderate, to the extent of not explaining them as simple manifestations of some cosmic evil force but rather as rational actions in their context, that interpretation cannot be a tendentious one in favour of National Socialism, but is almost certainly true, and in fact a minimalist position.

As an example, when Aly and Gerlach conclude that 110,000 of the Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz were transferred for labour, we can be sure that they have not exaggerated that figure, since they would not be driven by any motive to minimise the number killed. Accordingly, we can be confident that that figure represents an absolute minimum of th number kept for labour.

Likewise, when Aly and Gerlach conclude that the initial German aim in deporting Jws from Hungary was to obtain fit labourers, we can be confident that they have not misinterpreted their data in order to downplay Germany's exterminatory policies, and that therefore their conclusion is likely to be correct, even though the traditional interpretation, propagated by Braham in particular, is that the prime motivation for the dportation was extermination from the very outset.

Those are the reasons why I stress the Leftist position of Aly and Gerlach. It is not for the purpose of dismissing their work out of hand.

[Roberto]

Hans wrote:

Michael,

and what do you know about their political position? What is it that makes them "leftist German historians"?

Thanks.

I deduce that Goetz Aly and Christian Gerlach belong to the Leftist stream of German historiography from certain elements in their writing that are typical of that stream.

Such as, Mills? A few representative quotes would be appreciated.

Among those elements are the attitude to the German-Soviet War (eg the attitude that the German invasion brought death, destruction and slavery to a happy and peaceful land, as if those elements were not already part of the expereince of the Soviet people),

Mills seems to labor under the conviction that Nazi aggression against and mass murder in the Soviet Union is in any way mitigated by the fact that Stalin was mistreating and murdering his own people. An attitude that tells us a lot about Mills but little else. I wonder if he can show us any statements of Gerlach or Aly from which it becomes apparent that they consider the pre-invasion Soviet Union to have been "a happy and peaceful land".

the attitude to the Wehrmacht vis-a-vis the SS,

What attitude exactly, and what would be so "leftist" about it?

and the iconoclastic atitude toward the military conspirators against Hitler.

And why would that be "leftist", Mills?

I do not propose to get caught up in a wrangle over whether Aly and Gerlach are indeed Leftist, or whether any or all of the positions taken by the German leftist school of historiography are right or wrong.

It doesn't seem to me that Mills can even define these terms he likes to throw around, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

What is important to me is that Aly and Gerlach are definitely NOT rightists. Therefore, they are free of any bias in favour of national Socialism. Therefore, if they propose any interpretation of National Socialist policies or actions that is moderate, to the extent of not explaining them as simple manifestations of some cosmic evil force but rather as rational actions in their context, that interpretation cannot be a tendentious one in favour of National Socialism, but is almost certainly true, and in fact a minimalist position.

An interesting statement that I will save for a future occasion.

As an example, when Aly and Gerlach conclude that 110,000 of the Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz were transferred for labour, we can be sure that they have not exaggerated that figure, since they would not be driven by any motive to minimise the number killed. Accordingly, we can be confident that that figure represents an absolute minimum of th number kept for labour.

Why an "absolute minimum", Mills?

Do Gerlach and Aly say so?

Are there indications that the number may be on the low side?

Or is Mills hinting that the authors stuck to the lowest figure they considered sustainable in order to serve their "leftist" bias?

If so, what indications that they have ignored evidence pointing to a higher figure can he show us?

Likewise, when Aly and Gerlach conclude that the initial German aim in deporting Jws from Hungary was to obtain fit labourers,

Do they? What do they write in this respect?

we can be confident that they have not misinterpreted their data in order to downplay Germany's exterminatory policies, and that therefore their conclusion is likely to be correct, even though the traditional interpretation, propagated by Braham in particular, is that the prime motivation for the dportation was extermination from the very outset.

Mills' approach to historiography is an interesting one indeed. Not professionalism but the presence or absence of political bias guides a historian's approach to evidence, in his opinion.

Those are the reasons why I stress the Leftist position of Aly and Gerlach. It is not for the purpose of dismissing their work out of hand.

Mills would still be more convincing if he left that "leftist" stuff out of his arguments. Just a piece of well-meaning advice.

[Hans]

I deduce that Goetz Aly and Christian Gerlach belong to the Leftist stream of German historiography from certain elements in their writing that are typical of that stream.

I suggest that you drop the "leftist". I suspect that to quite a proportion of our readers the designation "leftist" is de facto already discrediting their work -- not everybody is as open and free of ideology as you CLAIM to be.

Therefore, they are free of any bias in favour of national Socialism. Therefore, if they propose any interpretation of National Socialist policies or actions that is moderate, to the extent of not explaining them as simple manifestations of some cosmic evil force but rather as rational actions in their context, that interpretation cannot be a tendentious one in favour of National Socialism, but is almost certainly true, and in fact a minimalist position.

This is ridiculous.

Fritjof Meyer is described as "left-liberal journalist" by the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung. According to your reasoning, his low Auschwitz death toll should be considered the maximum, after all he is free of any bias in favour of National Socialism and his interpretation is in fact a minimalist position.

But in reality, it's just utterly false and far too low.

[michael mills]

Now that Roberto and Hans have exhausted the side-issue of whether or not Aly and Gerlach really belong to the Leftist stream in Grman historiography, perhaps we can get down to a more fruitful discussion of what they say about the background to the Hungarian deportation.

As I wrote in my first message, the most interesting issue is the German motivation for initiating the deportation. I find it a bit of a shame that, although Hans has himself read the book, the only use he has made of it is to draw on Aly's and Gerlach's estimate of the number of deportees selected for labour and of the numbers killed as unusable for labour, while failing to consider the relationship between the selection process and the original German objective to acquire labour from Hungary, and the degree of success in achieving that objective.

[Roberto]

Now that Roberto and Hans have exhausted the side-issue of whether or not Aly and Gerlach really belong to the Leftist stream in Grman historiography,

Brought about by Mills' lavish use of the "leftist" label ...

perhaps we can get down to a more fruitful discussion of what they say about the background to the Hungarian deportation.

Good idea. What do they say? The book is not yet available in English, for all I know, and I'm sure our readers would appreciate Mills' translation of the pertinent passages.

[Hans]

I find it a bit of a shame that, although Hans has himself read the book, the only use he has made of it is to draw on Aly's and Gerlach's estimate of the number of deportees selected for labour and of the numbers killed as unusable for labour, while failing to consider the relationship between the selection process and the original German objective to acquire labour from Hungary, and the degree of success in achieving that objective.

As you should know by now my primary interest is Holocaust denial and its refutation. Therefore what interested me most in the book is the death toll and evidence for mass extermination directly challenging Holocaust denial, such as the dubious letter from the escaped Jewish woman. On the other hand, it appears that you are primarely interested in what lead to the Holocaust. That's fine but please don't assume that everybody focuses on the same things as you.