Did the Nazis use prisoners as Christmas decorations?

[Hebden]

During the cross examination of Rudolf Vrba at Ernst Zundel's 'False News' trial in 1985, the following exchange took place:

Q. You, in your book, describe a situation where the guards forced the prisoners to sing "Silent Night" at Christmas time, and if they didn't sing properly they were sent to bed without supper. Is that right?

p. 1456

A. That is right partially. Others were murdered.

Q.They were murdered for not singing "Silent Night" properly.

A. That's right. And if I may add another legal point of view, I have been approached by the German Embassy, German Consulate in Vancouver three months ago on the case of investigation of the well-known event in Auschwitz I and Birkenau, that during Christmas of 1942 they put up a great Christmas Tree and brought there a number of prisoners, killed them and hanged them over that Christmas Tree and proclaimed that this is a suitable ornamentation at this period in this place. This became an investigation. The perpetrators of the crime are known by name to the Consul General of the Federal Republic of Vancouver, and I am sure he will be more than willing to provide you with the documentation.

Can anyone provide more details on this investigation and its outcome?

[Hebden]

Let's, at least, see if we can determine some sources which document this apparently "well-known event" in the history of the camp. Vrba's book makes no mention of it. Nor does Muller's or Kielar's.

[HaEn]

Sorry fellows, but I refuse to believe that, until I see official documented evidence of that story. Sure there were some "sickos" in various places during those years, but even this has its limitations. It falls into the same category as the SS soldier walking around with a new born baby on his bayonet, which story by the way already had been floated during WW I (ONE) by the Brits. Only it was a "german soldier' at the time. I think this falls into the group "gruelpropaganda". But prove me wrong and I will admit to be so. Regards. HN.

[Annelie]

This may be a stupid question but where is the

Federal Republic of Vancouver,

[Ovidius]

Sorry fellows, but I refuse to believe that, until I see official documented evidence of that story. Sure there were some "sickos" in various places during those years, but even this has its limitations. It falls into the same category as the SS soldier walking around with a new born baby on his bayonet, which story by the way already had been floated during WW I (ONE) by the Brits. Only it was a "german soldier' at the time. I think this falls into the group "gruelpropaganda". But prove me wrong and I will admit to be so. Regards. HN.

Do you realize, of course, that such statements can attract penal sentences?

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... php?t=4170

~Regards,

Ovidius

[Dan]

The perpetrators of the crime are known by name to the Consul General of the Federal Republic of Vancouver, and I am sure he will be more than willing to provide you with the documentation

Who are worse, the lying pigs, or the idiots who believe them?

[Ovidius]

The perpetrators of the crime are known by name to the Consul General of the Federal Republic of Vancouver, and I am sure he will be more than willing to provide you with the documentation

Who are worse, the lying pigs, or the idiots who believe them?

There is an even worse category: those who put one in prison for denying what the lying pigs say, refusing to be believer idiots.

I guess I'll have to declare myself idiot to escape......

~Ovidius

[Geli]

"Sent to bed without their supper...?"

How can this "testimony" be anything but a joke?

Wait, does casting doubt on the "famous" Christmas Tree incident make me a Holocaust denier?

[Roberto]

There is an even worse category: those who put one in prison for denying what the lying pigs say, refusing to be believer idiots.

What "lying pigs" and "idiots", Ovi?

Criminal justice authorities (mainly West German) and historians, perhaps?

I'd say the lying pigs are the ones who contest their assessment of very conclusive evidence on the basis of distortion, misrepresentation and plain nonsense.

And who do it in support of a apologetic and/or racist/anti-Semitic political hate agenda, which is why some countries criminalize their activities.

Not that I favor that approach, you see. It's not only unworthy of a democracy, but also gives bloody idiots who should be simply laughed at a pretext for whining loudly about "persecution".

[M. Schroeder]

This has to be a joke of the cruelest kind. Not only does it disrespect the memory of those who actually died in the holocaust, but such stories also give those who find evil in anything related to 1933-45 Germany fuel for their fire, and make deniers out of any of those who cry "bull".

go to bed without supper? what supper?

[Caldric]

Do you realize, of course, that such statements can attract penal sentences?

Not in the United States, perhaps in Eurotopia.

[Caldric]

Well not much difference in this and the Japanese stating that U.S. Airborne troops ate humans and werel criminals released from prison, or perhaps they said the Marines were, or both.

[Roberto]

"Sent to bed without their supper...?"

How can this "testimony" be anything but a joke?

Wait, does casting doubt on the "famous" Christmas Tree incident make me a Holocaust denier?

No. To be a denier you have to pick a folkloristic myth such as accompany any set of historical events - the Holocaust is no exception to the rule - and then cry "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", the classic "Revisionist" argument that is described as follows in the manual:

11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

Source of quote:

Michael Philips, How To Be A Revisionist Scholar

http://www.webstar5.com/electriczen/revisionism.html

The "Christmas Tree" story is a factual but unrepresentative nutcase detail at best, a myth at worst. Whatever. I couldn't care less.

[Ovidius]

Do you realize, of course, that such statements can attract penal sentences?

Not in the United States, perhaps in Eurotopia.

Not yet in the USA.

~Ovidius

[Scott Smith]

Wait, does casting doubt on the "famous" Christmas Tree incident make me a Holocaust denier?

No. To be a denier you have to pick a folkloristic myth such as accompany any set of historical events - the Holocaust is no exception to the rule - and then cry "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", the classic "Revisionist" argument...

Well, you can't chose when you find a witness a liar and when he is credible because he happens to fit your agenda. If he is a liar then ALL his testimony is suspect. Simple as that. Bogus breeds bogum.

To establish these claims you have to build a foundation of evidence and not a house of cards. Pretty simple in principle. When Belief is PC, doubt is especially appropriate. Perhaps some understanding of historiography and revisionism (small r) as applied to other historical genres would be helpful for you, Roberto. Perhaps reading a textbook or two. What's sauce for the goose...