Introduction
In late 1942, several thousand Poles were deported from Zamosc to destinations according to their racial value attributed to them by Nazis since the area was declared "to the first German settlement area in the Generalgouvernement" (order of Himmler of 12 November 1942, Jaczynska, Sonderlaboratorium SS, p. 414). The racially most inferior defined people were sent to Auschwitz concentration camp. The transport left Zamosc with 644 Poles of this group on 10 December 1942. Several people escaped from the train, the rest was admitted to Auschwitz on 13 December 1942.
The SS officer Heinrich Kinna of the migration central office wrote a report about the transport on 16 December 1942, in which he also summarised his talk with the deputy commandant in Auschwitz, Hans Aumeier (who he spelled phonetically as "Haumeier"). Aumeier informed Kinna on the camp's lethal policy on unfit prisoners, an indiscretion only trumped by Kinna writing that down in plain words:
"Imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people have to be removed from the camp within a short time by liquidation to unburden the camp. But this measure has insofar complications as, according to the order from the RSHA, the Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied to the Jews."
(extract from the report of Heinrich Kinna of 16 December 1942, reproduced in full below)
It is noteworthy that while Kinna's employer, the migration central office in Lodz, sounds rather innocent and unrelated to the murder of Jews, its men were dispatched to Chelmno/Kulmhof extermination camp in 1942 (see documents 16 and 17 in Sonderkommando Kulmhof in German Documents - Origin and Foundation), so that Kinna might have been already inside the circle of people knowing details on the extermination of Jews. In fact, in his job description Kinna himself included the task "carrying out measures [Zweckmaßnahmen] against Jews and anti-social people" (letter of Kinna to the SS Personnel Main Office of 13 July 1943, cited in Aly, "Endlösung". Völkerverschiebung und der Mord an den europäischen Juden, p. 20).
The significance of this contemporary German document lies in its reference to the killing of Jews unfit for work in Auschwitz without resorting to the usual camouflage language (see for instance Mattogno's special treatment of evidence and "Separate accommodation" in Auschwitz: a code word for extrajudicial executions).
The Document
TRANSCRIPTION
Heinrich Kinna Zamosc, den 16.12.42
SS-Untersturmführer
Bericht
zu dem Transport von 644 Polen nach dem Arbeitslager Auschwitz am 10.12.42.
Der Transport wurde am 10.12. d.Js. 16.00 Uhr in Zamosc auf den Weg gegeben. Die Ankunft erfolgte am 12.12. in Auschwitz nach 23.00 Uhr.
Von den 644 Polen entfernten sich insgesamt 14 Personen.
3 Personen, und zwar:
Bialy Karoline geb. Batzdorf, geb. 14.1.00
" Sohn Czeslaw, geb. 17.2.26
Sedzimirska Michalina, geb. 19.2.22
ergriffen auf offener Strecke während einer Fahrtunterbrechung vor dem Verschiebebahnhof in Krakau mit Hilfe polnischer Bahnbeamten, die die verschlossene Wagentür öffneten, die Flucht.
Die Flucht selbst wurde durch die herrschende Dunkelheit begünstigt und erfolgte zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem der Kontrollposten sich am anderen Ende des Zuges befand. Die sofort eingeleitete Suchaktion blieb erfolglos. Die restlich fehlenden 11 Personen müssen, sofern die bei der Verladung in Zamosc erfolgte Zählung stimmt, aus dem fahrenden Zug und zwar aus den oberen Lucken der Güterwagen gesprungen sein. Es wird deswegen vorgeschlagen, künftig die nicht mit Türen versehene Oberlucken durch Stacheldraht zu sichern. Die Übernahme in Auschwitz erfolgte am 13.12.42, eine namentliche Verlesung fand nicht statt.
Die Überführung des Transportes verlief abgesehen von der eigenmächtigen Entfernung der 14 Personen und ohne Inbetrachtziehung der Verspätung, planmäßig.
Auftragsgemäß wurde mit dem Vertreter des Lagerkommandanten, SS-Hauptsturmführer Haumeier, über die Wünsche der Lagerführung und die Möglichkeit von den in den Transporten erscheinenden II-er Fällen gesprochen.
II-er Fälle betreffend wurde darauf hingewiesen, daß nach Anweisung vom Reichssicherheitshauptamt, die in Zamosc eingelieferten Polen familienweise einer Gesamtwertung unterworfen und dem entsprechend in die zuständigen Gruppen aufgeteilt werden. Durch die vorstehend angeführte Anweisung des RSHA ergibt sich möglicherweise die Tatsache, daß rassisch gut aussehende Menschen grundsätzlich aber nicht fahrlässigerweise nicht mit der Wertungsgruppe II bedacht werden. In solchen Fällen müßten die als II-er Fälle zu bewertenden Menschen nochmals überprüft und unter Inbetrachtziehung ihrer arbeitsmäßigen Leistung den zuständigen Dienststellen zur Kenntnis gebracht werden.
Arbeitseinsatzfähigkeit bezügl. erklärte SS-Hauptsturmführer Haumeier, daß nur arbeitsfähige Polen angeliefert werden sollen um somit möglichst jede unnütze Belastung des Lagers sowie des Zubringerverkehrs zu vermeiden. Beschränkte, Idioten, Krüppel und kranke Menschen müssen in kürzester Zeit durch Liquidation zur Entlastung des Lagers aus demselben entfernt werden. Diese Maßnahme findet aber insofern eine Erschwerung, da nach Anweisung des RSHA entgegen der bei den Juden angewendeten Maßnahme, Polen eines natürlichen Todes sterben müssen. Es wird dieserhalb von der Lagerführung gewünscht, von der Zuweisung Nichteinsatzfähiger Abstand zu nehmen.
Das Gepäck der nach Auschwitz überstellten Polen, soll auf ein Minimum beschränkt sein, d.h. den nach dortselbst verbrachten Polen ist nur das Nötigste, für die Reise benötigte Handgepäcks mitzugeben. Alle weiteren Gepäckstücke, wie Betten, Kleider, Wäsche, dürfen wegen Seuchengefahr nicht in das Lager eingeführt werden und können außerdem laut Lagerbestimmung daselbst auch keine Verwendung finden, da die Ausstattung der Baracken eine gleichmäßige ist. Es wird aus diesem Grund vorgeschlagen, alle weiteren Habseligkeiten mit der Begründung einer späteren Nachsendung in Zamosc zurückzuhalten und zur anderweitigen Verwendung zuständigen Dienststellen zur Verfügung zu stellen. Voranmeldung der Transporte betreffend, bittet die dortige Lagerverwaltung bei Durchgabe durch FS Männer und Frauen getrennt aufzuführen.
[Unterschrift]
SS-Untersturmführer
TRANSLATION
(Document from Jaczynska, Sonderlaboratorium SS, p. 423, citing IPN GK 69/169)Heinrich Kinna Zamosc, 16 December 1942
SS-Untersturmführer
Report
on the transport of 644 Poles to the labour camp Auschwitz on 12 December 1942.
The transport left Zamosc at 4 pm on 10 December of this year. The arrival in Auschwitz was after 11 pm on 12 December. 14 persons left the 644 Poles. 3 persons, namely
Bialy Karoline nee Batzdorf, born on 14 January 1900
" son Czeslaw, born on 17 February 1926
Sedzimirska Michalina, born on 19 February 1922
escaped on open line during a stopover before the marshaling yard in Cracow with the help of Polish railroad employees, who opened the closed wagon door.
The escape was favored by the prevailing darkness and took place at the time the guards were at the other end of the train. The immediately initiated search was unsuccessful. The remaining missing 11 persons must have jumped out of the moving train, through upper windows of the goods wagons, if it was counted correctly during the loading in Zamosc. It is therefore proposed that in future the upper windows, which are not covered with doors, shall be protected by barbed wire. The takeover took place in Auschwitz on 13 December 1942, the names were not read out.
Apart from the unauthorized departures of the 14 persons and without considering the delay, the transfer of the transport proceeded as planned.
As ordered, it was talked with the deputy of the camp commander, SS Hauptsturmführer Haumeier, about the wishes of the camp administration and the possibilities of the II cases appearing in the transports.
Regarding the II cases, it was pointed out that, according to instructions from the Reichsicherheitshauptamt, the Poles sent to Zamosc are subjected to evaluation as a whole family and distributed accordingly among the relevant groups. The above regulation of the RSHA may result in the fact that racially good-looking people are, in principle, but not negligently not assigned to the evaluation group II. In such cases, the persons to be assessed as II-cases should be re-examined and called to the attention of the relevant offices by taking into account their work performance.
Regarding labour force, SS Hauptsturmführer Haumeier stated that only workable Poles should be delivered to avoid any unnecessary burdens to the camp and the feeder traffic. Imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people have to be removed from the camp within a short time by liquidation to unburden the camp. But this measure has insofar complications as, according to the order from the RSHA, the Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied to the Jews. It is therefore requested by the camp administration to refrain from allocating those unfit for work.
The luggage of the Poles transferred to Auschwitz is to be kept to a minimum, i. e. the Poles sent there should get only the bare minimum required hand luggage needed for the journey. All other luggage, such as blankets, clothes may not be brought to the camp because of the danger of epidemics, nor can they be used according to the camp regulations, since the equipment of the barracks is uniform. For this reason, it is proposed to withhold further belongings in Zamosc with the justification that these are subsequently forwarded and to make them available to other offices. Regarding the announcement of the transports, the camp administration asks to list in the telex the women and the men separately.
[signature]
SS-Untersturmführer
Holocaust Denial
The Kinna report with its paragraph on the killing of Jews radically contradicts a prevailing view of Auschwitz Denial. The document has been merely addressed with brief, confusing and wholly inadequate comments by the leading deniers Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno.
In 2000, Rudolf wrote on the report that "a thorough analysis will have to wait". 17 years later...and still waiting for that! (it was not delivered by Mattogno either, see below) He only wondered why "nobody asked him [Kinna] about what the measures allegedly applied against the Jews, about his role in this, and he was not charged for complicity". Rudolf has clearly not read and understood the document. It's not about Kinna's role in the killing of Jews. Quite the opposite, Kinna had nothing to do with Jews in Auschwitz but was deporting the Poles from Zamosc. He was only informed by Aumeier that the unfit Jews are killed, a practise not authorised on Poles. The mere possession of such knowledge already ruling out any active involvement was considered insufficient to put somebody on charge in West-Germany at the time.
And by the way, we are not "left totally in the dark about what ...the measure applied to the Jews were" (sentence order reversed). There were more than enough actual eyewitnesses on the killing of Jews at the first Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, where Kinna was examined and "confirmed the accuracy of the report" (see further below), so everybody knew too well what "measures" Aumeier meant (see Homicidal gassings at the first Frankfurt Auschwitz trial – A statistical survey).
Mattogno has published a short treatment of the Kinna report in Healthcare in Auschwitz. He argues that the document "stands in diametric opposition to the normal practise in Birkenau of placing seriously ill Jews in the hospital" and "the remarks that Kinna attributes to Aumeier are contrary to documented facts and so appear to be unfounded" (p. 213).
If Mattogno were a noob on Auschwitz, one might excuse this as just some ill-informed, naive remark. But with his background and reading on Auschwitz, the argument looks more like that of a desperate fool. The killing of unfit Jews in Auschwitz is, of course, a well-documented fact further supported by the Kinna report.
The supposed contradiction between Aumeier's statement as reproduced by Kinna and the actual practice of keeping unfit registered Jews alive at least for a specific time is only created by the biased reading, and oversimplified understanding of this claimed "specialist in text analysis and critique". The statement attributed to Aumeier says that unfit prisoners have to be removed from the camp "within a short time", a relative term that may mean a day, a week or even a month depending on the context. This is especially relevant for sick prisoners, as it was adverse from the Nazis' point of view to kill immediately anybody, who came forward as ill: firstly, because it scared people of reporting their sickness and hence risking to infect others as well, secondly it made little sense to destroy ones workforce merely because of a readily curable disease.
Furthermore, it is possible, if not likely, that Aumeier was primarily talking to Kinna about people unfit for work on a long term ("Imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people"; with sick meaning an incurable disease) and therefore not referring to many Jews admitted to the camp's hospital blocks anyway, but mainly to those selected as unfit for work already at the incoming transport selection. These were usually killed in a very short time - on the same or next day of the arrival before even registered in the camp's books.
The supposed contradiction between Aumeier's statement as reproduced by Kinna and the actual practice of keeping unfit registered Jews alive at least for a specific time is only created by the biased reading, and oversimplified understanding of this claimed "specialist in text analysis and critique". The statement attributed to Aumeier says that unfit prisoners have to be removed from the camp "within a short time", a relative term that may mean a day, a week or even a month depending on the context. This is especially relevant for sick prisoners, as it was adverse from the Nazis' point of view to kill immediately anybody, who came forward as ill: firstly, because it scared people of reporting their sickness and hence risking to infect others as well, secondly it made little sense to destroy ones workforce merely because of a readily curable disease.
Furthermore, it is possible, if not likely, that Aumeier was primarily talking to Kinna about people unfit for work on a long term ("Imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people"; with sick meaning an incurable disease) and therefore not referring to many Jews admitted to the camp's hospital blocks anyway, but mainly to those selected as unfit for work already at the incoming transport selection. These were usually killed in a very short time - on the same or next day of the arrival before even registered in the camp's books.
On the treatment of the Poles, Mattogno asserts that Kinna "obviously attributes conflicting testimony to Aumeier", but fails to grasp that the conflict merely results from a different point of view of the camp administration on the one side and the SS leaders in Berlin on the other. While the camp administration would have liked to solve the problem of overcrowding and feeding unfit people by killing them, such practise was not approved on the Poles by the RSHA. Hence, Aumeier requested Kinna not to bring unfit Poles to the camp. On the contrary, unfit Jews were less of a problem for the camp administration as these could have been systematically murdered.
What is especially revealing for Mattogno is that he merely points out his made-up contradictions allegedly contained in the Kinna report, but fails to explain the document in any way. He ends with the claim that the remarks in the report "appear to be unfounded", but does not elaborate what consequences such finding is supposed to have, which would be the essence of any analysis. He missed doing what would be precisely the work of a real historian. Mattogno isn't, obviously.
Why would Aumeier tell Kinna they kill unfit Jews when they don't? Why would Kinna write that Aumeier told him they kill unfit Jews when he didn't? Or why would the Poles forge a document that says the RSHA did not allow to kill unfit Poles in Auschwitz? Why would Kinna confirm the accuracy of the report at a West-German trial when it is not? (see below section on authenticity) As long as Mattogno cannot convincingly explain this and support his case, the alleged unfounded remarks of Aumeier in the Kinna report are already evened by the baseless nature of his own hypothesis (he did not even spell out), and nothing is gained from his drivel even if it would have made sense.
In fact, this is a typical blunder throughout Mattogno works, perhaps the most bizarre example is discussed in "Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, E: Gas Detectors", where Mattogno describes an entirely authentic German war-time document, which content can be well understood within the framework of the mass extermination in Auschwitz, as having "no value, no more than a military document that mentioned a flying attack donkey" because of his inability to think outside his narrow-minded box of denial once a while.
In footnote 399 of Mattogno's book, the editor (Rudolf?) adds to the argument that the report contains "liguistic[sic!] peculiarities that make it suspect" (how ironic!). However, the examples mentioned do not support the assertion that something is "suspect". On the contrary, the German "Betten" is a proper term to describe blankets, see the corresponding entry in the Duden. If anything, the editor's footnote shows once again that linguistic arguments advanced by Holocaust deniers on incriminating German documents are without merit and can be safely discarded.
What is especially revealing for Mattogno is that he merely points out his made-up contradictions allegedly contained in the Kinna report, but fails to explain the document in any way. He ends with the claim that the remarks in the report "appear to be unfounded", but does not elaborate what consequences such finding is supposed to have, which would be the essence of any analysis. He missed doing what would be precisely the work of a real historian. Mattogno isn't, obviously.
Why would Aumeier tell Kinna they kill unfit Jews when they don't? Why would Kinna write that Aumeier told him they kill unfit Jews when he didn't? Or why would the Poles forge a document that says the RSHA did not allow to kill unfit Poles in Auschwitz? Why would Kinna confirm the accuracy of the report at a West-German trial when it is not? (see below section on authenticity) As long as Mattogno cannot convincingly explain this and support his case, the alleged unfounded remarks of Aumeier in the Kinna report are already evened by the baseless nature of his own hypothesis (he did not even spell out), and nothing is gained from his drivel even if it would have made sense.
In fact, this is a typical blunder throughout Mattogno works, perhaps the most bizarre example is discussed in "Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, E: Gas Detectors", where Mattogno describes an entirely authentic German war-time document, which content can be well understood within the framework of the mass extermination in Auschwitz, as having "no value, no more than a military document that mentioned a flying attack donkey" because of his inability to think outside his narrow-minded box of denial once a while.
In footnote 399 of Mattogno's book, the editor (Rudolf?) adds to the argument that the report contains "liguistic[sic!] peculiarities that make it suspect" (how ironic!). However, the examples mentioned do not support the assertion that something is "suspect". On the contrary, the German "Betten" is a proper term to describe blankets, see the corresponding entry in the Duden. If anything, the editor's footnote shows once again that linguistic arguments advanced by Holocaust deniers on incriminating German documents are without merit and can be safely discarded.
Authenticity
Neither Rudolf nor Mattogno have declared the Kinna report as a forgery, but this seems what they would like their readers to conclude from their vague statements and it is reasonable to discuss the authenticity of the document anyway, as such considerations will inevitably come up by some deniers.
The report was first published as Polish translation in 1947 (Biuletyn Glównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Niemieckich w Polsce, volume 2) and as a facsimile in 1960 (same title, volume 8, see also this page on phdn.org and Gilles Karmasyn's comment to this post). The document is presently preserved at the Instytut Pamięci Narodowej in Poland, signature GK 69/169. Its authenticity can be established on several grounds.
The report was first published as Polish translation in 1947 (Biuletyn Glównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Niemieckich w Polsce, volume 2) and as a facsimile in 1960 (same title, volume 8, see also this page on phdn.org and Gilles Karmasyn's comment to this post). The document is presently preserved at the Instytut Pamięci Narodowej in Poland, signature GK 69/169. Its authenticity can be established on several grounds.
First of all, the document fits into the historical context and reality: From March 1942 to April 1943, Heinrich Kinna was employed at the Umwandererzentralstelle (central migration office) Lodz, which outpost in Zamosc was in charge of the clearing of Poles (letter of the UWZ Lodz to the RSHA of 1 June 1944, BArch B 162/20952, p. 172).
On 31 October 1942, the Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller submitted to Himmler a proposal on the "evacuation of Poles in Lublin district (Zamosc)" which included that "the people fit for work of category four of 14 to 60 years will be deported to concentration camp Auschwitz" (BArch B 162/20952, p. 162). The policy was subsequently ordered by the Higher SS and Police Leader of the Generalgouvernement Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger (order of Krüger of 10 November 1942, BArch B 162/20952, p. 166) and instructed by the head of the central migration office in Lodz Hermann Krumey (order of Krumey of 21 November 1942, Jaczynska, Sonderlaboratorium SS, p. 417, cf. BArch B 162/20952, p. 170).
 |
| Figure 1 |
Krumey confirmed in his "final report on the work of the migration central office outpost Zamosc" for 1942 that "644 people [were] sent to the working camp Auschwitz" (report of Krumey of 31 December 1942, Jaczynska, Sonderlaboratorium SS, p. 430).
Secondly, the style of the document corresponds to that of another report authored by Kinna in 1941 as a member of the resettlement staff Kärnten-Veldes.
Thirdly, the killing of unfit Jews mentioned in the report is supported by abundant evidence, notably by the testimony of Hans Aumeier himself:
Thirdly, the killing of unfit Jews mentioned in the report is supported by abundant evidence, notably by the testimony of Hans Aumeier himself:
"Resettlement of the Jews.(deposition of Hans Aumeier of 8 October 1945)
Under this designation, the extermination of the Jews was carried out in Auschwitz and elsewhere....After the arrival, the prisoners were separated into fit for work and unfit for work. The people fit for work were sent into the camp and admitted by Political Department, they were registered there by number and name for the first time. The people unfit for work were sent to the gas chambers."
In the meantime, severely sick Jewish prisoners were selected in the camp hospital blocks by the doctors and sent to the gassing from time to time.(deposition of Hans Aumeier of 25 July 1945)
Last but not least, Kinna was examined on 2 July 1964 at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial and according to a protocol quoted at the Irving vs Lipstadt trial "the witness Kinna confirmed the accuracy of the report".
UPDATE of 19/08/2017:
Also, there is an interrogation protocol of Heinrich Kinna in the course of the investigations against his superior Hermann Krumey of the UWZ from 21 August 1962, where he was questioned on the report :
______________
changelog:
23/12/2018: minor linguistic corrections
07/02/2019: linguistic corrections
UPDATE of 19/08/2017:
Also, there is an interrogation protocol of Heinrich Kinna in the course of the investigations against his superior Hermann Krumey of the UWZ from 21 August 1962, where he was questioned on the report :
"The report is mine...The report is, of course, clear. The knowledge was provided to me by Krumey, by Haumeier."(BArch 162/1029, p. 332-334)
______________
changelog:
23/12/2018: minor linguistic corrections
07/02/2019: linguistic corrections
-Or why would the Poles forge a document that says the RSHA did not allow to kill unfit Poles in Auschwitz?-
ReplyDeleteSince the official Policy of Poland after WWII was that Poles were the primary victims and that Auschwitz was a monument to Polish Martyrdom first and foremost, they wouldn't.
Hooray! Wonderful post about that piece I always considered a smoking, no a firing gun.
ReplyDeleteI must add to the story of its publication that I have recently discovered that the Kinna report was first referred to in 1947 in (not a real surprise for anyone familiar with the sources) Biuletyn Glównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Niemieckich w Polsce (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo), II, 1947, page 55. And -- lo and behold! -- it is entirely translated in Polish pages 114-115 (scans availabe if need be).
1947, guys...
As you nicely noted, I had previoulsy uncovered (well, others had before me of course, but not mentionned this, or put the scans, online...) that it's first full fac-simile publication was in Biuletyn Glównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich w Polsce, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Prawnicze, 1960, vol XIII, Dokument 6, pages 18F-19F.
It's better than that: the very incriminating part of the document was fully translated in french, in a french work (translated from polish) as soon as 1961, along with the full facsimiles!
Janusz Gumkowski & Kazimierz Leszczynski, L’occupation hitlérienne en Pologne, Warsaw: Polonia, 1961, published the facsimiles in the pictures pages before page 193 and the part about jews beeing killed, in french, on page 182.
I must underscore the fact that this book was a must read for anyone wanting to deal, in french, with nazi crimes in Poland. Anyone focusing on jews or Auschwitz could not fail to spot the Kinna Report. This confirms that the two big french crackpot deniers, Rassinier (who died in 1967) and Faurisson (still alived) who never ceased to brag about their research abilities are just lazy crooks or liars (well, we know they are both) since none of them never, ever, mentionned the Kinna report.
Well, of course, that very same work was also published in english in 1961: Poland under Nazi occupation, Polonia Pub. House, 1961. And... it's there:
https://archive.org/details/PolandUnderNaziOccupation
Incriminating part translated in english page 156, facsimiles just before page 177 (but not legible on the above digital version). It's also a "classic".
So, the very same conclusion (not that it's new anyway) applies to all the english speaking deniers after 1961: they are a bunch of lazy lying crooks.
It's important to underline the fact that it's now clear that the Kinna report was NOT an obscure document hidden in hard to find polish primary sources publications, or in the zillions of documents submitted during trials (it was submitted at the Eichmann trial and at the Auschwitz Frankfurt trial), but was made available as facsimiles with an insistence on the very incriminating part, made available in french an english, no later than 1961, in works that could not escape the scrutiny of any serious good faith researcher.
Two questions for Hans:
1. Where did he get those gorgeous scans?
2. Can I use them on phdn (with full proper credit and source of course)?
Cheers,
Gilles Karmasyn
Hi Gilles,
ReplyDeletethanks for the additional, new info!
Feel free to repost the images, they are from the book by Agnieszka Jaczyńska, Sonderlaboratorium SS. Zamojszczyzna – „pierwszy obszar osiedleńczy w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie”, p. 423.
HI Hans,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the full reference. I will use it with proper attribution.
Again: great work.
You left his part out from Mattogno's work:
ReplyDelete"First off, I would like to point out that this document is entirely consistent with Krumey's instructions insofar as it says Poles incapable of working should not be sent to Birkenau."
Oops! What does this means? He acknowledges the document to some degree. Yes, he does dismiss this document for some strange reason, and one indeed has to wonder why. However, there are many colossal misjudgments and mis interpretations made by professional historians too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this document carefully, I have come to the conclusion that you can either way on this. Hans Aumeier, after the war ended, allegedly confessed to gassings. So, in this scenario, the "contrary to measures taken against Jews" statement can interpreted as Jews being killed by gassings. If on the other hand, his confession was extracted by torture, then that means the statement could of referred to something other than killing.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Mikhailov,
ReplyDeleteNevermind you have no evidence that Aumeier's statement was extracted by torture, his statement is supportive anyway, but not essential for understanding how the Jews were treated in Auschwitz according to the Kinna report.
The statement "Imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people have to be removed from the camp within a short time by liquidation to unburden the camp. But this measure has insofar complications as, according to the order from the RSHA, the Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied on the Jews" as such is very clear; it can only be reasonably understood as killing.
If you still disagree, please propose your alternative understanding.
You don't seem to read very well, Hans. I never said that I have evidence for his confession being extracted by torture. That claim was pure speculation. If you read my comment carefully, I did provide my alternative understanding of that statement, provided the scenario under which his confession was extracted under torture.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that there is no evidence that his claims were obtained by torture. I never said that there was in the first place.
Can you please provide a translation of all of his claims, not just snippets?
ReplyDeleteAnyone who knows the actual history of how the West German Justice system dealt with ex Nazis would understand that there's zero percent chance of any "torture" happening. Mikhailov is clearly not one of them
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/10/germanys-post-war-justice-ministry-was-infested-with-nazis-prote/
"Germany's post-war justice ministry was infested with Nazis protecting former comrades, study reveals"
"Fully 77 per cent of senior ministry officials in 1957 were former members of Adolf Hitler's Nazi party, a higher proportion even than during the 1933-45 Third Reich, the study found."
"The fascist old-boys network closed ranks, enabling its members to shield each other from justice, the study found - helping to explain why so few Nazi war criminals ever went to prison."
Indeed, the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial was an example of this illustration. Roberto Muehlenkamp showed that the Prosecution was utterly incompetent and indifferent, which was why the court overwhelmingly sided with the defendants, resulting in most of them getting either light sentences and in some cases even getting acquitted. Mikhailov's desperate "torture" excuse would not and most certainly did not happen.
Mikhailov's speculation was a complete waste of everyone's time.
Nathan, I am very sorry if that offended you. Speculation is perfectly fine when you are trying to get at the truth. I did not waste anybody's time. That accusation is typical of opponents in a debate about the Holocaust. I am not trying to say torture actually happened, as you saw. Clearly, anyone who questions an aspect of the Holocaust is accused of not knowing anything or just a hateful bigot. Oh and for your information, Aumeier was not tried in West Germany, but in Poland, so your mention of West German trials is irrelevant in your response.
ReplyDelete"Mikhailov's desperate "torture" excuse would not and most certainly did not happen."
This is one problem with Holocaustinians and revisionists. They twist the words of the opponents in order to make it appear that they said something that is inexcusable and then claim to refute it. My torture claim was not an excuse in any way, if of course, you read my comment carefully. I did not try to excuse anybody, so stop accusing me of being desperate. That is a tendency I have noticed among the bloggers. I explicitly agreed that there is no single shred of indication or evidence that torture occurred. Those smears are not going to work against me.
Kinna affirmed the authenticity of his statement in the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, so of course that trial is relevant to this discussion
ReplyDelete- Aumeier was not tries in west Germany,but in Poland-
As I mentioned in the very first comment, the Polish government at the time downplayed the Anti Jewish nature of Nazi killings, as did every other USSR occupied or aligned government. This would also rule out any likelihood of "torture" or "coercion", since any such would've run counter rot the government's agenda.
-my torture claim was not an excuse in anyway....I did not try to excuse anybody-
You tried the same old, same old denier horseshit of dismissing incriminating German testimony as being because of "muh torture!!!!". Your spin to escape this is pathetic.
- Clearly, anyone who questions an aspect of the Holocaust is accused of not knowing anything-
ReplyDeleteBecause it's clear you don't know anything. The postwar policies of west Germany and Poland completely rule out any fabrication or "coercion". This history is easily accessible and well known, and you wasted everyone's time by indulging in baseless speculation, that was also completely att odds with reality, making it a lie.
I never said you were "desperate", but given your pathetic and hysterical spinning, you probably are.
Oh, here is where the fun begins. I must of misunderstood when you said that my torture excuse was desperate. If I did, I apologize. You say that you talked about both Polish and West German trials and how they were actually lenient in their attitude towards the Nazi officials. Oh and what is what is this hysteria your talking about?
ReplyDeleteHere is where the problem is. In your comment, you only mentioned that West German trials were this lenient, but nothing about Polish trials being the same way. I think that you should of been more clear that it was Polish trials too.
"You tried the same old, same old denier horseshit of dismissing incriminating German testimony as being because of "muh torture!!!!". Your spin to escape this is pathetic."
If this is the way you debate with revisionists, then I don't see how a coherent attempt to get at the truth is going to work out. I just love how you accuse of being a denier. I barely even questioned any aspect of the Holocaust. I have already had this experience on YouTube with an ardent believer who realized that he couldn't with stand my arguments and tried to label me as a "Nazi apologist" and an "anti semite".
I am going to say this one more. I did not say that torture occurred in any way shape or form. If you can't grasp that, that is your problem not mine.
I am not like Hannover or some of the other revisionists who dismiss everything out of hand. Your ad homein attacks and straw mans are not going to work on me. If you want to continue to do so, then there is no chance of a productive debate occurring. You are dealing with the wrong person here. Don't even bother trying those tricks on me.
"Because it's clear you don't know anything. The postwar policies of west Germany and Poland completely rule out any fabrication or "coercion". This history is easily accessible and well known, and you wasted everyone's time by indulging in baseless speculation, that was also completely att odds with reality, making it a lie. "
ReplyDeleteI didn't say I know everything or even pretended to. That is exactly why I am looking at both sides of this intense debate. You are trying to accuse me of wasting everybody's time, again. Please cut it out. You also attempt to label me as a "liar". Nice try, but in my comment I said it was in the case of it being torture under which he made his confession, not that it actually occurred
Also, when you say West German trials, does that include the Nuremberg Trials? In that case, I was definitely wrong in my implication that Polish trials and West German Trials were separate from each other, in the sense that they occurred many years apart from each other. They both occurred at the same time, but held in two different places.
-You say that you talked about both Polish and West German trials and how they were actually lenient in their attitude towards the Nazi officials. -
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that the Polish trials were lenient in their attitude towards Nazi officials. I said
- the Polish government at the time downplayed the Anti Jewish nature of Nazi killings, as did every other USSR occupied or aligned government. This would also rule out any likelihood of "torture" or "coercion", since any such would've run counter to the government's agenda.-
You have a lot of reading comprehension problems there. You keep misrepresenting other people's statements, yet have the gall to whine about "misrepresentation".
-I didn't say I know everything or even pretended to. -
Then you should've informed yourself before wasting everyone's time with pointless speculation.
- That is exactly why I am looking at both sides of this intense debate.-
There is only one side: the truth. The fundamental assumption on which Denial rests on, the "massive hoax", never happened, as shown by the actual policies and actions of various governments. All of the evidence, especially the documents, are 100% genuine and beyond doubt, simply because "forging" them ran counter to the interests of the nations that hold them. For example, the Polish government would not forge the Kinna report, which showed that the priority was to kill Jews before killing Poles, because it ran counter to their narrative that the Poles suffered the most at German hands. They wouldn't torture Aumeier to say this either. All of this is easily accessible and well known, and you're wasting everyone's time by humoring denier conspiracies when they can easily be shown to be at odds with reality.
Here we go again.
ReplyDeleteI did not intend to misrepresent your claims at all.
Early on you mentioned how West German trial gave very light sentences to Nazi s and sometimes completely aquitted them. I told that you that was irrelevant to our discussion, because the Nazi in question was tried in Poland. This is one of the things that you wrote in response:
"The postwar policies of west Germany and Poland completely rule out any fabrication or "coercion""
So, my interpretation was that on top of downplaying the anti Jewish nature of the crimes, which you mentioned in your other response, Poland also had the same policies as West Germany in giving light sentences, implying leniency. If I misunderstand your claim here, my sincere apologies.
There was a certain context in which I made that claim, and in no way did I attempt to try twist your words, as you are trying to imply.
Yes, if I made that statement without the context in question, then that would be a deliberate misrepresentation of your claims on my part.
"Then you should've informed yourself before wasting everyone's time with pointless speculation"
ReplyDeleteJust because you make the same claim over and over again does not make it so.
Can you please elaborate how I "waisted everybody's time" by engaging in speculation? So what if I wasn't informed on the specifics of everything? It doesn't mean that I am not aware of the over all picture. But hey nice try in trying to discredit me.
-Poland also had the same policies as West Germany in giving light sentences, implying leniency. -
ReplyDeleteFor someone who calls himself thinker, you sure are painfully illiterate.
- So what if I wasn't informed on the specifics of everything? It doesn't mean that I am not aware of the over all picture. -
The postwar policies of several countries aren't "specifics", they are the overall picture and the context that shaped and drove all or most of the actions of these countries and or people. The "hoax" fantasies of Deniers are incompatible with this context, especially the USSR/Polish policy, which was the complete opposite of what they claim. Your inability to grasp this shows that you're some kind of idiot, rather than a self styled "thinker".
Yes they are the specifics. You completely refuse to explain how I wasted everybody's time.
ReplyDeleteI can grasp the policy part vert well. I don't need you to help me on that, thank you very much.
You completely missed the point in my last comment and completely distorted
claims. The context I was referring to was your responses to me. In my comment, which you obviously didn't read in it's entirety, I explained that my interpertation of your claim was that Poland and West Germany had similar policies of giving light sentences to the Nazis officers. That is it. I am not denying that this is true. I am not cosing up to the revisionist theory of torture. As you admitted,I was just speculating, which you saw as me wasting everybody's time, which you failed to prove.
If you and the bloggers chose to debate by twisting other people's words, then I am not surprised at all at why the RODOH threads are usually so abnormally long, and why CODOH censors you.
-Poland and West Germany had similar policies of giving light sentences to the Nazis officers. -
ReplyDeleteI never said this, you fucking idiot. That's just your own illiteracy. Again, here was what I said.
-- the Polish government at the time downplayed the Anti Jewish nature of Nazi killings, as did every other USSR occupied or aligned government. This would also rule out any likelihood of "torture" or "coercion", since any such would've run counter to the government's agenda.--
Your extrapolation of how Poland issued "light sentences" to ex Nazis from this well known fact is purely becauase of your own fucking illiteracy.
-Yes they are the specifics. You completely refuse to explain how I wasted everybody's time. -
The postwar policies of several countries aren't "specifics", they are the overall picture and the context that shaped and drove all or most of the actions of these countries and or people. The "hoax" fantasies of Deniers are incompatible with this context, especially the USSR/Polish policy, which was the complete opposite of what they claim. Your inability to grasp this shows that you're some kind of idiot, rather than a self styled "thinker".
And I did explain. Your speculation was based entirely on false premises and runs counter to reality, making it a waste of time.
-If you and the bloggers chose to debate by twisting other people's words, then I am not surprised at all at why the RODOH threads are usually so abnormally long, and why CODOH censors you.-
You're the only one here twisting other people's words, and your own after being called out on it. Fuck off.
-The context I was referring to was your responses to me. -
ReplyDeleteNo, this was what you meant by "context"
-So what if I wasn't informed on the specifics of everything? It doesn't mean that I am not aware of the over all picture. But hey nice try in trying to discredit me.-
Which was in response to my pointing out the fact that you wasted everyone's time by speculating based on false premises, instead of arguing based on actual facts. Thus, I was correct in identifying the postwar national policies of several countries as the context and the big picture that drove their actions vis a vis the Holocaust, and you're an illiterate fuckhead for calling these important national policies "specifics". And you're also dishonest for trying to back out when caught on it.
Fucking idiot.
It appears that you have some sort of reading disorder. I guess that you want to turn this discussion into a merry go round
ReplyDeleteIf you read my response attentively, this is what you would see:
"In my comment, which you obviously didn't read in it's entirety, I explained that my interpertation of your claim was that Poland and West Germany had similar policies of giving light sentences to the Nazis officers."
This was my reference to a previous comment, in which I mentioned the following :
"So, my interpretation was that on top of downplaying the anti Jewish nature of the crimes, which you mentioned in your other response, Poland also had the same policies as West Germany in giving light sentences, implying leniency. If I misunderstand your claim here, my sincere apologies."
So the only illiterate person here is you. As you can see, I mentioned your claim about Poland downplaying the anti Jewish nature of the crimes. My extrapolation was not based on this but the following:
"The postwar policies of west Germany and Poland completely rule out any fabrication or "coercion"
This right her is what my extrapolation was based on, so you need to stop calling me names when in fact it is you who continue to distort my words. Give it up already.
-The postwar policies of west Germany and Poland completely rule out any fabrication or "coercion"-
ReplyDeleteYeah, you're an illiterate fuck alright. Policies in this statement only refer to the policies that I explicitly mentioned in this discussion. The Polish/USSR coverup, and the West German leniency. In fact, here's how I said it prior to the sentence that you illiterately spun.
-As I mentioned in the very first comment, the Polish government at the time downplayed the Anti Jewish nature of Nazi killings, as did every other USSR occupied or aligned government. This would also rule out any likelihood of "torture" or "coercion", since any such would've run counter rot the government's agenda.-
Illiterate fuck is illiterate, and attributes statements to people that they never said, and dares complain about people taking him at his word.
Hmm, I have seen this phenomenem among Holocaustinians occur very often, in particular on YouTube and forums such as RODOH. They start insulting you and launching ad home in attacks against anyone who tries to contest their beliefs, and even when this is not the case. It has a religious overtone to you.
ReplyDelete"Yeah, you're an illiterate fuck alright. Policies in this statement only refer to the policies that I explicitly mentioned in this discussion. The Polish/USSR coverup, and the West German leniency. In fact, here's how I said it prior to the sentence that you illiterately spun."
Okay, thank you for clearing that up for me. Knock that "illiterate fuck" crap out. It makes you look ridiculous, really.
I am not going repeat myself over an over again. My mis interpertation of your claims was caused by a understanding on my part. I did not spin your statement about Poland downplaying the anti Jewish nature of the alleged crimes. You can scream all you want. You can pretend that I did spin it if that makes you feel good, but it's not going g to change the fact that I didn't. I think that any reader who is following this discussion would agree with me.
As I mentioned in the very first comment, the Polish government at the time downplayed the Anti Jewish nature of Nazi killings, as did every other USSR occupied or aligned government. This would also rule out any likelihood of "torture" or "coercion", since any such would've run counter rot the government's agenda.-
ReplyDeleteIn case you need to a reminder, this is what you said in you very first comment:
Anyone who knows the actual history of how the West German Justice system dealt with ex Nazis would understand that there's zero percent chance of any "torture" happening. Mikhailov is clearly not one of them
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/10/germanys-post-war-justice-ministry-was-infested-with-nazis-prote/
"Germany's post-war justice ministry was infested with Nazis protecting former comrades, study reveals"
"Fully 77 per cent of senior ministry officials in 1957 were former members of Adolf Hitler's Nazi party, a higher proportion even than during the 1933-45 Third Reich, the study found."
"The fascist old-boys network closed ranks, enabling its members to shield each other from justice, the study found - helping to explain why so few Nazi war criminals ever went to prison."
Indeed, the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial was an example of this illustration. Roberto Muehlenkamp showed that the Prosecution was utterly incompetent and indifferent, which was why the court overwhelmingly sided with the defendants, resulting in most of them getting either light sentences and in some cases even getting acquitted. Mikhailov's desperate "torture" excuse would not and most certainly did not happen.
Mikhailov's speculation was a complete waste of everyone's time"
There is no mention of Poland here. Stop saying you talked about Poland in you very first comment, when, it is clear that you didn't
I just realized that I made some silly grammar mistakes in my last comment. Well, I was typing this on my phone, so that is understandable. Is there anyway I can edit my comments?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you still haven't proven or shown me how I wasted everybody's time.
Why? Because you don't have anything to back that assertion up.
"My mis interpertation of your claims was caused by a understanding on my part. I did not spin your statement about Poland downplaying the anti Jewish nature of the alleged crimes."
ReplyDeleteI mean to say mis understanding, just to let you know.
Lol, illiterate fuck is illiterate. The VERY FIRST COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE IS BY ME, complementing Hans' questioning of the possibility that the Poles "fabricated" the Kinna report. As in
ReplyDelete-http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-kinna-report-german-document-on.html?showComment=1499392332482&m=1#c3155148261747620317-
--Or why would the Poles forge a document that says the RSHA did not allow to kill unfit Poles in Auschwitz?-
Since the official Policy of Poland after WWII was that Poles were the primary victims and that Auschwitz was a monument to Polish Martyrdom first and foremost, they wouldn't-
Illiterate, hysterical fuck is Illiterate.
-Anyway, you still haven't proven or shown me how I wasted everybody's time.-
ReplyDeleteYou did that just now. You wasted your time and energy writing crap about how I never mentioned Poland in my very first comment, when a simple glance would've revealed that THE VERY FIRST COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE WAS BY ME, ALLUDING TO THE POLICY IN RESPONSE TO HANS' RHETORICAL QUESTION.
Idiot doesn't know the basics about the victors' postwar policies, and can't even be arsed to read the discussion thread. He might want to waste everyone's time, but I don't. Not anymore, given HC's strict but reasonable commenting policy.
I must of certainly struck a raw nerve, didn't I?
ReplyDeleteIt us you who is hysterical, not me.
In your very first comment, you did not even mention Poland, so I fail to see your point. If you did, please show, and I will take my claim back. You calling me illiterate is not going to help your case.
You see,this is the problem with Holocaustinians. They get really emotional when someone shows that they are not being very truthful about their claims. When someone points those kind of things out to them, they go ballistic on the person they are debating, and all hell breaks lose. The debate descends into a bunch of ad homein attacks, straw man arguements, and name calling. I have seen this happen many times on RODOH, YouTube, Axis History Forum, JREf, and International Skeptics.
Stop wasting your breath and strength to get me out of this discussion and smear me. If you think that repeating the same stuff over again multiple times is going to do any good, then think again.
As I said, you ran into the wrong person to try to launch these attacks against. I am not going to silenced very easily,as you already probably already realized
You should take a close look at my comments, not rely on your bizarre interpertation of them.
Yes you are right about that. I did miss your comment where you mention Poland downplaying the anti Jewish nature of the Holocaust . Hmm, I really do apologize for all that inconvenience I have caused.
ReplyDeleteI wish that you will reconsider your opinions of me.
When you said the very first comment, I thought you meant the very first response to me, because for some mysterious reason, I somehow missed it.
. That was my fault. I fully acknowledge my mistake.
You can remove my previous comment, if you wish, as it is useless in my response. I hope that the havoc that has been wrecked here has been put down, and that we can live all peacefully.
My colossal error doesn't change the reality that you cannot and will not give evidence of how I wasted everybody's time with my speciation, when it was so minor, that even Hans did not give any attention to it. You created a whole issue out of it and then me not seeing your first comment on this article, clearly added fuel to the fire.
ReplyDeleteSpeciation in my most recent comment is supposed to be speculation. Error fixed.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Mikhailov
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to read very well, Hans. I never said that I have evidence for his confession being extracted by torture. That claim was pure speculation.
I fail to see how I did not read you well. I have emphasized that there is no evidence for torture, as this was not already clear from your own comment (your "if-then" construction could very well imply that there is some evidence, that is just not strong enough to establish something beyond reasonable doubt).
I have also pointed out that your Aumeier torture hypothesis is little relevant for the issue at hand, as Kinna's report can be clearly interpreted as the killing of unfit Jews in Auschwitz even if Aumeier had been tortured after the war and even if his testimony were to be considered useless. Aumeier's testimony is just supplementary.
Last but not least, you did not provide a plausible alternative interpretation of the statement on Jews in the Kinna report challenging the Revisionist case. You wrote that "the statement could of referred to something other than killing" but you are not explaining to what and more importantly, how such alternative reading is logically and linguistically anywhere plausible.
The deniers missed an important contradiction in the document, because according to official history cripples, idiots and inferior people were exterminated until the end of the war, especially in "death camps", according to the T4 action, and in the document we see that the RSHA prevents T4 in relation to Poles. According to this "document" Poles are supposed to die a natural death, which contradicts official history. The official history says that the idiot Germans were not allowed to die in peace, but were forced to die, but here the Poles were shown mercy. Such a statement alone is ready to put an end to the authenticity of this document
ReplyDelete