Vincent Reynouard And The Franke-Gricksch Report Part 1, Part 2 , Part 3
Almost two months have passed since we've published the Franke-Gricksch report, an extraordinary contemporary German source on the mass extermination of Jews in Auschwitz-Birkenau. How did Holocaust Deniers react to this Nazi document shattering all their core beliefs?
The denial communities on the Internet did what they can do best these days: duck and cover (behind already debunked material). On their primary platform, deniers have recycled those "Revisionist" articles and arguments already debunked in the posting, i.e. shown a reflex conditioned on the headline without bothering to read the introduction, let aside the main posting and its extensive appendixes. Thus, no word about our publication of the carbon from Franke-Gricksch's office and the detailed analysis of the document covering several aspects. It's almost comical how those guys still maintain the report is "a text typed up by a certain Eric Lipmann" and "apparently there are spelling/grammatical errors that indicate an English-speaking forger". Folks, that's exactly what we've shown it isn't. As usual, the Internet Holocaust deniers are overtaxed with anything new to them.
With a brain-dead English-speaking community, it's left to the French video-clip négationniste Vincent Reynouard to provide a critique of the blog article and create at least some impression of resistance. His video Ce SS qui, en 1943, aurait décrit l'extermination des Juifs was incidentally also posted in the French section of that denial forum - but don't expect the average denier over there to follow other language sections.
As his fellows before, Reynouard attacks a few details in the report and fails to explain the Franke-Gricksch report. Of course, as négationniste without any historical method, he does not realize that this is his duty ("But...if it is a fake, then how to explain the presence of a carbon copy in the German archives? I do not know but for me it's irrelevant"). Right, that's precisely why you guys cannot be taken seriously.
"Revisionists" like Reynouard confuse their flawed interpretation with hard, irrevocable facts. Did nobody tell him yet that deniers get it systematically wrong? Case in point: the French video-maker argues that the train terminal in the Birkenau camp was only erected in 1944 and wonders "how to explain that his account describes an arrival in the camp of Birkenau" in May 1943. Also, "such an anachronism often proves to be a sign of a fake".
Let's take a look at the passage in question:
"The Auschwitz camp has a special task in the settlement of the Jewish question...The Jews arrive in special trains (goods wagons) towards evening and are taken on special tracks in specially designated districts of the camp."So with no syllable did Franke-Gricksch tie the place arrival of the transport to Birkenau. He did not mention the name or describe the Birkenau camp at the unloading terminal. Reynouard reads into the statement what is not there. It's only with his post-war knowledge and bias to negate the Holocaust that he reaches this interpretation. But Franke-Gricksch did not have either of these. Simple rule: What is written in a contemporary source has to be understood from the contemporary's point of view.
In May 1943, the Jewish transports were not unloaded within the Birkenau complex. But they were not unloaded at the Auschwitz train station either, as Reynouard falsely says. The Jewish transports were processed on a separate, special sidetrack of the railroad line passing through Auschwitz camp area. It is this place Franke-Gricksch likely referred to "specially designated districts of the camp".
And while we are at it, any person in 1944 or later, with an insider knowledge as displayed in the document, would have very likely known the term "Birkenau" and the large Jewish camp. However, the report does not refer to Birkenau - a blunder by the supposed forger. Not so for Franke-Gricksch. He did not mention Birkenau in his lengthy report on the Auschwitz complex either (reproduced in appendix A here). He did not name any sub-camp and not even Monowitz, which is described by him. He did not mind about how locals called the sub-camps. For him, everything was Auschwitz camp and area. And this ties in well with the description in the report about that "the Auschwitz camp has a special task in the settlement of the Jewish question".
Back to Reynouard, who says "how to explain that his testimony describes an arrival in the camp of Birkenau? Aware of the problem, Holocaust Controversies has two explanations.", but has misunderstood the blog article. The explanation that Franke-Gricksch observed or was told by Höß about the unloading of a Jewish transport at the old ramp in the Auschwitz concentration camp area is already the "solution" - and not a "problem". Apart from the plural in "districts", it fully explains the report.
What followed then were "other possible explanations for the statement (especially for the plural in districts)". One is that he saw the rails in the camp for the transport of the construction materials and supposed these had to be further unloading places for Jewish transports. Another is that he learnt about the project to extend the rails to the Jewish camp and already counted this as another unloading place. If neither of these is true, then it was likely a simple misunderstanding between him and Höß. Not a big deal.
Interestingly, it is Reynouard who does not bother about this mistake in the description.
Here is why: the ramp in Birkenau built in 1944 was only one "district". But then it is hard to see why a supposed forger having precisely the Birkenau train ramp in mind would put "districts" in the document. Hence, this wording challenges the claim of a fake.
As so often, deniers' forgery thesis just does not make any sense.