Thursday, July 06, 2006

Ugly Voice is completely ignorant about documentary evidence

Let's continue with our debunking of the Ugly Voice Productions' videoclips at http://zamphir.litek.ws. The third "episode" is called "Haircut" [YouTube version]. There aren't many claims in this "episode" - only that it was absurd to cut women's hair before gassing.

The Ugly Voice never explained why it was absurd. He scoffed at Samuel Rajzman's explanation that the hair was used by the Germans to stuff the mattresses. But in the true denier fashion, the Ugly Voice didn't mention the voluminous evidence that human hair was used by the Nazis.

Read more...

1)
SS-Wirtschaftsverwaltungshauptamt

Oranienburg,
August 6. 1942

Amtsgruppe D - Concentration Camps
D II 288 Ma./Ha. Tgb. 112 geh.

SECRET!
Copy 13

Re: Use of hair cuttings

To the Commandants of the Concentration Camps Arb., Au., Bu., Da., Flo., Gr.Ro., Lu., Maut/Gu., Na., Nie., Neu., Rav., Sahs., Stutth., Mor., SS SL Hinzert.

SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, Chief of the SS Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt has ordered that the hair of concentration camp prisoners is to be put to use. Hair is to be made into industrial felt or spun into yarn. Woman's hair is to be used in the manufacture of hair-yarn socks for 'U'-boat crews and hair-felt foot-wear for the Reichs-railway.

It is therefore ordered that the hair of female prisoners be disinfected and stored. Men's hair can only be put to use if it is longer than 20 mm. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl therefore agrees for an intial trial period to the growing of the prisoners hair to a length of 20 mm before it is cut. Long hair could facilitate escape and to avoid this the camp commandants may have a middle parting shaved in the prisoners' hair as a distinguishing mark, if they think it is necessary.

It is planned to set up a hair processing workshop in one of the concentration camps. Further details as to the delivery of the accumulated hair will follow.

The total monthly amount of male and female hair is to be reported to this office on the 5th of every month beginning from September 5, 1942.

signed: Gluecks
SS-Brigadefuehrer und
Generalmajor der Waffen-SS

(Translation of a report from IMT, Band XX, Nurnberg 1947, taken from Concentration Camp Dachau 1933-1945, ISBN 3-87490-528-4, p. 137; Plate 282 with translation.)

(Graphics of the document here and here.)

2) A later (04.01.1943) directive by Gerhard Maurer is in PS-3680. It concerns the "use of hair cut from male prisoners". The hair was sold to the Alex Zink factory. This may be the same directive as quoted here:
The prisoner's hair is to be sent to Alex Zink, Fur Manufactures, Ltd., Nuremberg. The company will pay 0.50 marks for every kilogram of hair.
It depends on whether the date is correct.

3) The document on p. 247 of Czech's Auschwitz Chronicle:
[...]
Angekommen: 30.9.42
[...]
Ich genehmige hiermit die Fahrt mit einem PKW. des SS-Oberstuf. S c h w a r z von Auschwitz nach Friedland zur Besichtigung des Haarverwerungsbetr. Held in Friedland, Bez. Breslau.

gez. G l ue c k s
SS-Brigadefuehrer und Generalmajor
der Waffen-SS in der Dienstellung
eine Generalleutenants.
[...]
Gluecks permits the journey of SS-Obersturmfuehrer Schwarz of Auschwitz to Friedland, to inspect hair processing at Held company.

4) NO-1257: report of 6 February, 1943 "on the realization of textile-salvage from the Jewish resettlement up to the present date":
[...]
women's hair 1 car 3,000 kg
[...]


5) Invoice for 250 kg of hair sent from Majdanek to Paul Reimann company in Friedland can be found here.

6) Invoice for 400 kg of hair sent from Treblinka to Paul Reimann company in Friedland can be found here.

7) Invoice for 200 kg of hair sent from Majdanek to Paul Reimann company in Friedland can be found here.

8) Part of invoice for unknown quantity of hair sent to Alex Zink firm can be found at the page "Die Haare der KZ-Opfer". This is a page of a project to investigate the use of hair in Roth, near Nuremberg. (If you have the article in electronic form, I will be grateful to receive it).

9) Stutthof camp records contain the following documents, according to USHMM's online finding aids:
[...]
Correspondence concerning sending hair cut of prisoners.
[...]
Correspondence regarding sales of hair and other related belongings of prisoners to local businesses.
[...]


10) Further Majdanek records, as described here:
A separate group consists of files concerning the dispatch of hair from the camp in 1942–1944. From this correspondence, we learn that, from September 1942 to the first quarter of 1944, 730 kilograms of human hair were sent from Majdanek

11) Finally, the Soviets found lots of hair right after the liberation of Auschwitz. The photos are here, here and here

Given such a large amount of evidence, it is clear that the Ugly Voice is either a gross ignoramus, who has undertaken such am ambitious project without learning the basics. Or he is just a liar.


Click here to read refutations of other Ugly Voice Productions videoclips.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I've scrolled through some of your articles trying to figure out, in good faith, although you may choose not to believe that, what kind of blog this was. Serious, polemical, provocative, there are all kinds of blogs out there.

Anyway I've noted a high level of vitriol, which is kinda depressing, and I'm at a turning point in my opinion of this blog, though I'm suspect this may trouble you not at all, with this particular article criticising doubts expressed about the practice of head-shaving as proof of the Holocaust.

It doesn't seem a very strong position to defend, yours I mean. I'm not aware that there is dispute that hygiene and disease were a problem in the camps, and that head-shaving was one means of addressing that. It would also mean that making use of that hair (bedding, blankets, what have you) would be rather unwise.

The obvious argument for not shaving heads of people you propose to murder and cremate in large numbers is that hair is highly combustible is it not?

When I see pictures of piles of human hair at for example Auschwitz I don't see proof of the Holocaust. I see proof that large numbers of people were unlawfully deprived of their liberty, were exposed to disease, and had the indignity of their heads being shaved... and losing clothing and other personal possessions in the same fell swoop.

Two points if I may to finish. Firstly my grandmother was in an internment camp at the start of the war (Lithuania). She lost her home to the Russians, but escaping them (modern Belarus) ended up interned by the Germans. My mother was about 2 years old at that time. At the end of the War my grandfather was interned also by the Germans, but at Auschwitz (Camp 1). He had his head shaved.

Secondly this is an anonymous comment. You are highly critical of anonymous comments. As you know, it is fatal to anyone professionally, perhaps personally, to express any disagreement against those whose business it is to single out Holocaust sceptics or deniers. It is your trump card. If anyone bothers you too much, it's, so to speak, off to the gulag with him :)

Well before you play your trump card, I'm wondering what you have to say regarding the evidence of human hair at the camps.

Anonymous said...

Hi, anonymous again.

I should add (after a day or two) that I indeed note your reference to documents. I've no doubt there was some entrepreneurish opportunism around the camps. A particular question I have though is: after a bit of googling it appears that there have been no objects found to have been made of human hair from the camps (pillows, U-boat socks, etc). Of course one shouldn't conclude that this is true without checking, it's hard to find any kind of reliable authority online after all. So I'm wondering if you know any different. Is it true or not?

Nick Terry said...

Anonymous: it is a simple matter to give yourself a pseudonym, a username or internet handle. Use an anonymiser like Anonymouse if you have further privacy concerns.

As to the substance of your comments, no one is ever saying that piles of hair (Sergey linked to photographs found at Auschwitz), piles of shoes or clothes constitute prima facie evidence of mass murder through whatever means.

However, if Revisionists choose to ridicule testimonies of the cutting of women's hair in Treblinka, it is because they wish to discredit the witnesses, and thereby discredit testimonies to the gas chambers by association.

If deniers are incompetent enough to ignore documentary evidence, then they deserve no mercy - intellectually.

The surviving evidence supports the witnesses; it does _not_ support revisionist attempts to ridicule survivors. Therefore, their 'indirect' attack fails.

Anonymous, I would be interested if you have further details of your mother's internments in Lithuania and in Belarus, as I specialise in the history of Belorussia under both Soviet and Nazi occupation.

Sergey Romanov said...

Dear Anonymous, thank you for your feedback. Sorry for a late response.

Unfortunately you begin your comment with a misrepresentation. You write:

"... this particular article criticising doubts expressed about the practice of head-shaving as proof of the Holocaust."

There's not a word in my article about hair-shaving as "proof" of the Holocaust. Neither, to my knowledge, the deniers in these videos object to such a claim. Their argument is not that shaving of hair is not a "proof" of the Holocaust. Their argument is that it doesn't make sense to shave hair to use it for whatever purpose, and that the only reason to shave hair is hygienic. (Incidentally, they never provide testimonial accounts of the local Soviet population telling about hundreds of thousands of bald Jewish women walking around. How strange. There must be thousands of such accounts, if the Jews were really "deported to the East".)

"It would also mean that making use of that hair (bedding, blankets, what have you) would be rather unwise."

It wouldn't, after proper disinfection. Besides, we know that hair was shaved and shipped. That's what is called "brute fact". You don't address this point. Neither does the Ugly Voice.

"The obvious argument for not shaving heads of people you propose to murder and cremate in large numbers is that hair is highly combustible is it not?"

In my estimation, it is a silly argument, never before made by the deniers. I don't see how hair would help combustion in any significant way.

"When I see pictures of piles of human hair at for example Auschwitz I don't see proof of the Holocaust."

Once again you're trying to raise a straw-man. We're not arguing about the "proof of the Holocaust" here. We're pointing out deniers' ignorance.

"A particular question I have though is: after a bit of googling it appears that there have been no objects found to have been made of human hair from the camps (pillows, U-boat socks, etc). Of course one shouldn't conclude that this is true without checking, it's hard to find any kind of reliable authority online after all."

Indeed, one shouldn't. Was such search ever conducted in the first place? Why would it be conducted? (Prima facie, the use of human hair, however unethical in certain cases, is not a crime). And how does one visually distinguish things made out of processed hair from normal textiles? I.e., the question is irrelevant. From the lack of well-known findings of human-hair artifacts nothing follows. We still know that people were shaved and hair was shipped to certain firms.

Anonymous said...

Wow, great deal here. Sorry for my own late response btw. I think there's a certain amount of shadow boxing going on between this blog and Ugly Voice? I've only just got that that's your nickname for him btw :) Indeed it is a strange voice. I kinda thought that was his proud nom de plume, heh.

Anyway, this blog is entitled holocaustcontroversies. If not in some reference to the Holocaust why mention the subject of head-shaving at all? Presumably it has a bearing?

Looking at the clip, it seems to argue that head-shaving was a bit of a waste of time (if the victims were put to death shortly afterward).

Re your: "we know that hair was shaved and shipped. That's what is called "brute fact". I don't know the phrase 'brute fact' as such. It seems to be a paper fact. As it relates to a physical matter, hair, one would expect physical evidence. It remains surprising to me that (so far as is known) there isn't any. Any product made from hair would do as a start, although maybe you would never know it's origin with certainty I guess it's fair to say.

Seems to me, as the shaving of heads was common practice, presumably it had a common aim. You suggest that it was for commercial purposes, to supply hair as a product for use in manufacturing various things. It's plausible, but it's clear the evidence is not widespread. That's puzzling.

You mention disinfecting or treating hair. You offer no evidence for this. Would it have been cost-effective? Who knows?

So far it is certain that hair was shaved. It also seems there were instances of entrepreneurship, the selling of hair for some local commercial purpose. That doesn't seem very controversial. Nor does it seem a good return on the time taken. The best general reason for the general practice would seem to be hygiene. The evidence (lice infestation) is as widespread as the practice. I don't see the controversy there until you suggest that it illustrates flawed reasoning up and down the whole subject of the holocaust. And I don't see that that follows.

I can think btw of a reason why head-shaving might well be compatible with both hygiene and the mass murder of people. That gassing, transporting, and then cremating people might not deal with lice infestation (could possibly spread it). This is something that zamphir.litek.ws (or as you prefer Ugly Voice) overlooks as a possibility.

Finally, you may believe that the practice of head-shaving does not (or should not) stand as evidence of the holocaust. Nonetheless it is my impression that in the world of popular opinion it undoubtedly does. I come across it all the time. Popularly it is considered a kind of insult or dehumanising process prior to murder. It's as if to say, 'look what bastards these are, as if killing them was not enough'. Similarly with the indignity of tattoing prisoners for example. Anyway, that's my honest impression.

Re: hundreds of thousands of bald Jewish women in Soviet Russia, I don't get it atm, so I'm going to skip it.
& re: combustible hair, my bad ahem, indeed people are not readily combustible, though hair is the only part of the body which is. I admit it is a narrow and possibly silly point, but faced with incinerating thousands of people it might not seem so. Depends how easily you can go about it I guess.

Thanks for replying btw.

Anonymous said...

@ Nick Terry:

I note you say that: "no one is ever saying that piles of hair, piles of shoes or clothes constitute prima facie evidence of mass murder through whatever means."

In particular I note you say prima facie, which I find interesting, as I've just been mostly conceding to Sergey that it is not generally argued that it does constitute evidence, while maintaining that it is a popular perception that it is a kind of circumstantial evidence for mass murder.

Circumstantial evidence is a very malleable thing. You can use it if it suits, or discard it if that suits, it seems.

You also say: "if Revisionists choose to ridicule testimonies of the cutting of women's hair in Treblinka, it is because they wish to discredit the witnesses, and thereby discredit testimonies to the gas chambers by association." I'm not sure it's the witnesses that are being discredited on the point of haircutting, but their assertion that those people were killed shortly afterward, and the logic that would underlie that. Is that really the same thing?

You also add: "I would be interested if you have further details of your mother's internments in Lithuania and in Belarus, as I specialise in the history of Belorussia under both Soviet and Nazi occupation."

I'm taking that to be scepticism, as if it's a field of study for you, you could maybe have told me which camp my grandmother was in (& mother, as an infant).

Here's my bio so far as I'm aware of it. What follows is what my mother wrote for her church newsletter (& asked me to type and add some grammatical structure). I've skipped the boring and extremely sentimental. Hopefully it's also informative.

Btw, this was after some of the family went to Belarus recently to look at the old family 'estate':
---
"At about seven o’clock on that morning my mother was dressed in her jodhpurs and riding boots....etc.
My father had already been called up as a Reservist in the Polish army but was on home leave ... etc.
The telephone lines had already been disconnected so as yet there was no news about the Russian invasion. Our lands were only about 30 km from the Russian border. Suddenly local frontier guards came cycling along the main road shouting to my parents that if they did not want to find themselves amongst polar bears (be sent to Siberia) to hurry up and leave as the Russian army was now only 1 km away.. etc.
My mother gave herself only five minutes to grab a few essentials and myself and we then left in a great hurry. She did not even have time to get changed out of her riding gear. After 6 months of homeless wandering in Lithuania (I don't know what this means, I guess staying with friends) and then three months in a German displacement camp on the border of newly occupied Poland my mother and I eventually reached Warsaw ...etc.
Jachimowszczyzna, our old estate, in what is today the Republic of Belarus had been in the family since 1702 ...etc. (not on any English lang. map)
...a visit to a museum nearby dedicated to the Belorussian poet Janko Kupala who at one time had also lived in this house. Prior to that it had been my father's bachelor house etc.....
After this we went to Malinowszczyzna, an estate that had belonged to my father's brother... etc. (not on any map afaik)
For our lunch we went to a local restaurant in Molodeczno (a county town)...etc.
----
So hopefully that gives you the neck of the woods...
----
About the internment camp, I think it was in modern Lithuania and received in due course French (?) and other POWs and this prompted the moving into Poland of the civilians.
----
Anyway, quite sincerely, if you know more, let me know.

Sergey Romanov said...

Hello, Anonymous. And it would still be much better if you registered at blogspot under any name you choose.

"I think there's a certain amount of shadow boxing going on between this blog and Ugly Voice?"

No. We don't even know who this is. We will continue addressing their clips as time permits.

"If not in some reference to the Holocaust why mention the subject of head-shaving at all? Presumably it has a bearing?"

Sure, it has a direct relation: many Holocaust victims' hair was shorn (connection #1); these particular deniers make claims about the use of hair and make conclusions about the veracity of Holocaust accounts (connection #2). Don't _you_ see why we would respond?

"I don't know the phrase 'brute fact' as such. It seems to be a paper fact."

This means that it is a fact regardless of denier musings. One starts with the brute fact that the hair was shorn and shipped, as described by the documents. There maybe questions about why, where, etc., but regardless of these questions we know that the hair was shorn and shipped.

Regarding the "physical evidence" I have already given an explanation and asked questions.

"You mention disinfecting or treating hair. You offer no evidence for this."

It follows from the fact that nits would be found in the hair, if it is not properly disinfested. Pure common sense. Besides, disinfection (the word usually interchangeable with "disinfestation" in this context, as far as I'm concerned) is mentioned in the very first document I cited: "It is therefore ordered that the hair of female prisoners be disinfected and stored."

"The best general reason for the general practice would seem to be hygiene."

For hair-shaving - yes. For hair-shipping - no.

"Nonetheless it is my impression that in the world of popular opinion it undoubtedly does."

Whatever. Too often deniers are fighting with windmills.

The bottom point is that it was not contrary to common sense to shave hair before gassing people _and_ the UV doesn't know abut documentary evidence supporting the use of human hair OR knows it but doesn't mention it (even if to cast doubt on it). Which exposes him as either liar, or ignoramus.

"Re: hundreds of thousands of bald Jewish women in Soviet Russia, I don't get it atm, so I'm going to skip it."

Deniers are at loss as how to explain the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of Jews transported to the Nazi camps. They claim that Aktion Reinhardt camps were transit camps, but never explain where exactly the Jews were transported and what happened to them. They only hint that the Jews were transported to USSR and that the Soviets did something sinister to them.

Well, if these particular Jews were indeed transported to USSR, we should have numerous trails testifying to this fact - German paper trail, Soviet intelligence trail, testimonial trail, rumor trail. If the women's hair was shorn for hygienic purposes, and they really were transported further to USSR, we should see even more testimonies, because hundreds of thousands shaved women are not a usual occurrence, and the one that surely would have left a trace in people's memory.

Anonymous said...

Hi guys: This is sobe. I think that samuel rajzman was referring to the SS-helferin corps, which literally translates into "helper corps" It was a small system, compromised of female guards which mainly served as concentration camp guards. Since the SS membership was closed to women. Once again, a show of UV's ignorance/manipulations.

Anonymous said...

It always puzzled me why almost all of the eyewitnesses talk about hundreds or even a thousand (Wiernik) victims squeezed into small gas chambers. Common sense says that’s kind of crazy so why not say 60-100 at a time (and that maybe pushing it too), it would even work better with the haircut or shower deception story. Maybe it’s what Hilberg calls the Eastern European Jewish poetic exaggeration. But Gerstein does the same thing, and so does Hoess for Aushwitz - 2000 people in 210 sq meters it’s also quite tight to say the least. I’ve also just learned from your site that someone proved with an experiment that it is actually technically possible to squeeze close to 25 people in one square meter (it’s not a typo), so “poetic exaggeration” seems to have been abandoned, at least for now, as a line of defense for the capacity absurdity of testimonies.

So why do witnesses throw crazy numbers and why are we trying to justify them?

The answer may lie in the official story’s perennial struggle to explain why so many people walked to their deaths so peacefully and unsuspecting. Answers are much easier if they were all killed in one batch. On the other hand, if only a few dozen people at a time got into each chamber, several batches would be required to kill a transport of 2-3 thousand people and the people waiting in line for a ‘haircut’ or a ‘shower’ may suspect that something is seriously wrong when the previous groups have just simply vanished. Let alone that if the maps or models of Treblinka that I see are even roughly accurate, someone walking into the gas chamber building will get a glimpse of bodies being pulled out from the sides of the chambers or thrown into the pits.

Sergey Romanov said...

Since the stated capacities are far from absurd, what's the point?

Lia said...

Hi, I'd like to add my two cents although I have not read the whole chain of comments, I'd just like to add that I just came back from a trip to the camps and what I was told was the tests found that the victims were shaved after they were gassed as traces of the gas were found on their hair.

Sergey Romanov said...

"Hi, I'd like to add my two cents although I have not read the whole chain of comments, I'd just like to add that I just came back from a trip to the camps and what I was told was the tests found that the victims were shaved after they were gassed as traces of the gas were found on their hair."

This is true for Auschwitz. In Aktion Reinhard(t) camps the hair was cut before the gassing.

I should also note that the mere presence of HCN in that hair does not prove that it was cut from the gassed victims. That hair would have to be deloused in any case, regardless of where the hair came from. Thus, HCN traces would be present in the cut hair of living people too.

But I remember some Sonderkommandos mentioning cutting hair after gassings.

Andrei said...

Hair is not a major issue. These people are just refuting the 1/3 holocaust clips one at a time. Cutting the hair is not something uncommon in prisons and perhaps the Germans were using the hair for the war effort as shown in the documents. It must be accepted however that hair could have been procured from any beauty saloon in Germany...
Also, some soviet presentations need to be taken with care.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

I can debunk this entire post in two words:

"Rabbit hair"

You joker.

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/feature/angora/

Sergey Romanov said...

"I can debunk this entire post in two words:

"Rabbit hair""

LOL, that's the level of deniers' argumentation.