tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post704151400888035610..comments2024-03-17T20:28:40.281+00:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: "Separate accommodation" in Auschwitz: a code word for extrajudicial executionsNicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-5486448435919749242017-02-19T01:29:01.535+00:002017-02-19T01:29:01.535+00:00> The series of reports by Schwarz in February-...> The series of reports by Schwarz in February-March 1943 on the handling of transports from Theresienstadt and Berlin were still a special case because they were sent to the WVHA, not to the RSHA.<br /><br />I don't see how this establishes it being special.<br />RSHA wanted the number of the murdered Jews, with the percentage.<br />WVHA wanted the number of the Jews fit for labor, with the percentage.<br />In effect they were getting the same reports.<br />What's special?Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-57559063744201961482017-02-18T09:00:32.752+00:002017-02-18T09:00:32.752+00:00The series of reports by Schwarz in February-March...The series of reports by Schwarz in February-March 1943 on the handling of transports from Theresienstadt and Berlin were still a special case because they were sent to the WVHA, not to the RSHA.<br /><br />It is clear that the interest of the WVHA was in maximising the number of transportees deployed for labour, since Schwarz stated the reasons why so many of the transportees were killed on arrival, ie he had to justify to the WVHA why all or most of them had not been selected for labour.<br /><br />I think the reports reveal a conflict between the WVHA and the Auschwitz staff, with the former wanting to maximise the proportion selected for labour so as to fulfil Himmler's requirements, whereas the camp staff wanted to keep the proportion low so as to prevent the camp becoming overcrowded.<br /><br />It is noteworthy that Hoess in his postwar statements to Judge Sehn complained about Eichmann sending so many Jews to Auschwitz that the camp became overcrowded and conditions deteriorated. He also claims that during Himmler's visit to Auschwitz in July 1942 he asked Himmler to stop Eichmann sending Jews to Auschwitz, and that Himmler refused but ordered him to kill the non-working Jews so as to reduce the overcrowding and create a breathing space ("Luft schnappen"). The problem with that claim is that Hoess also says that Himmler ordered him to destroy the Gypsies, but there were not any Gypsies in Auschwitz in July 1942. It is possible that Hoess confused orders given by Himmler during his 1942 visit with orders given at a later time, possibly in relation to the deportation of the Hungarian Jews in 1944.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920991497026980039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-55931106842316165082017-02-17T20:12:33.014+00:002017-02-17T20:12:33.014+00:00Exactly. Hans Stark testified about it:
"Ich...Exactly. Hans Stark testified about it:<br /><br />"Ich blieb jeweils bis zum Schluß dabei, da ich die Erschießungen dieser Personengruppe bestätigen und an das Reichssicherheitshauptamt in Berlin berichten mußte. Die Berichte über die Erschießungen wurden jeweils nach Durchführung schriftlich dem RSHA gemeldet, und zwar unter der Deckbezeichnung, daß »soundso viel Personen gesondert untergebracht« worden seien. Diese ganze Aktion richtete sich hauptsächlich gegen Personen der jüdischen Rasse und wurde »Sonderbehandlung« genannt."<br /><br />"Ich hatte, wie gesagt, die Aufgabe, aus der Gesamtzahl der ankommenden Personen die als arbeitsfähig Selektierten zu erfassen und der Zahl nach nach Berlin zu melden.<br /><br />Ich glaube, es wird durch ein Beispiel, bei dem ich die Zahl willkürlich wähle, am deutlichsten:<br /><br />Wenn ein Transport angekommen war, die Selektion stattgefunden hatte, habe ich meistens am nächsten Tag ein Fernschreiben etwa folgenden Inhalts nach Berlin abgesetzt, nachdem es durch den Abteilungsleiter unterzeichnet war:<br /><br />Ich berichtige, der Abteilungsleiter hat das Fernschreiben abgesandt, ich habe es nur inhaltlich vorbereitet.<br /><br />Ein solches Fernschreiben sah beispielsweise so aus (Daten, Namen und Zahlen sind willkürlich gewählt):<br /><br />»Am 1. August 1942 kam in Auschwitz ein Transport mit 500 jüdischen Personen aus Lodz an. Hiervon wurden 200 Personen gesondert untergebracht.«<br /><br />Daraus ergab sich für die Hauptstelle in Berlin auch die Anzahl der noch im Lager als arbeitsfähig vorhandenen Personen dieses Transportes.<br /><br />Vorhalt des Gerichts:<br /><br />Ich hatte also festzustellen die Anzahl der arbeitsfähig Selektierten und die Anzahl der »gesondert Untergebrachten«, um dieses Fernschreiben vorbereiten zu können. Meistens erfuhr ich diese beiden Zahlen auf dem Selektionsplatz selbst und fuhr dann unmittelbar mit dem Motorrad ins Büro zurück. Manchmal mußte ich aber diese Zahl erst bei den Gaskammern feststellen, und zwar habe ich das nicht selbst getan, sondern die Zahl wurde mir von einen Angehörigen des Begleitkommandos gesagt. Auch in diesen Fällen habe ich mich dann mit dem Motorrad ins Büro zurückbegeben."Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-28128127842440331472017-02-17T19:57:01.987+00:002017-02-17T19:57:01.987+00:00Michael,
the number of killed people was recorde...Michael, <br /><br />the number of killed people was recorded at the ramp by the Political Department and forwarded to Berlin (apparently the RSHA). According to Josef Erber:<br /><br />"Ich hat auch gar keine Zeit dazu, denn wenn sie die Leute erschtens mal im<br />Transport dann getrennt zählen müssen, denn die wurden ja getrennt nach<br />Männer und Frauen und getrennt wie sie ins Lager gingen und dann öh wie sie in<br />den Gas äh und das öh, zum öh in das Krematorium gehen mußten, ne, da kam<br />ich ja gar nit dazu, ne."<br /><br />(interview of 12 July 1977 by John Steiner and Günther Bierbrauer)<br /><br />See also http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2015/06/auschwitz-ss-men-confessing-on-tape_30.html#count<br /><br />Höß stated that they had to destroy all records, but not that they were not made in the first place. He anticipated that some records might have survived:<br /><br />"Nach jeder größeren Aktion mußten in Auschwitz alle Unterlagen, die Aufschluß über die Zahl der Vernichteten geben konnten, laut RFSS-Befehl verbrannt werden. Als Amtschef D I vernichtete ich persönlich alle Unterlagen, die überhaupt in meinem Amt vorhanden waren. Die anderen Ämter taten dasselbe. Nach Eichmanns Aussage waren auch beim RFSS und RSHA alle Unterlagen vernichtet worden. Lediglich seine Handakte konnte noch javascript:void(0)aufschluss geben. Es möge durch Nachlässigkeit bei der einen oder anderen Dienststelle noch einzelne Schriftstücke, FS [Fernschreiben] und Funksprüche liegengeblieben sein, über die Gesamtzahl können sie keinen Aufschluss geben."<br /><br />(manuscript "Die 'Endlösung der Judenfrage' im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz")Hans Metznerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07746792258730274681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-58927417114560990832017-02-16T15:46:38.940+00:002017-02-16T15:46:38.940+00:00> Sergei, you misunderstand me
If I did, it wa...> Sergei, you misunderstand me<br /><br />If I did, it was only due to how you put it, namely, you limited the documents to those that contain the phrase "separate accommodation", which only 2 of them do.<br /><br />> The fact that those extant reports all belong to a single series dating from February-March 1943 suggests that they had a special purpose<br /><br />It makes sense that documents survive in batches, so this particular batch for this particular period survived. That doesn't tell us about whether or not there were other such batches before or after. So we cannot ascribe any special purpose to these documents on the basis of them surviving. Same is true of many other sets of documents - we don't have labor deployment reports for 1941-1943 (IIRC), what little that survives is from a period in 1944. It doesn't mean that there were no other such reports or that these 1944 reports served some special purpose.<br /><br />To be honest, I don't recall the forbidden stats thing. It would indeed be contrary to how things were done elsewhere (AR) and Eichmann had to collect his stats anyway.<br />This document contradicts this thesis too:<br /><br />http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/5878-instructions-to-concentration-camp?q=NO-1548<br /><br />It prescribes sending the Anzahl der SB for AuI-III in Schutzhaftlagerberichten in 1944.<br /><br />And as you well know, the record of SBs was kept, among other documents, in the Stärkemeldungen of 1944. So one way or another the record was kept.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-20881834121665626882017-02-16T03:50:21.119+00:002017-02-16T03:50:21.119+00:00Sergei, you misunderstand me. I meant that the se...Sergei, you misunderstand me. I meant that the series of reports from Schwarz to the WVHA in early 1943 were the only extant reports from Auschwitz detailing the numbers of Jews from a given transport selected for labour and the numbers killed on arrival, and giving the reasons for the killing. The two you mentioned, of 2 and 8 March, belong to that series.<br /><br />The fact that those extant reports all belong to a single series dating from February-March 1943 suggests that they had a special purpose, and that purpose was to justify why such a small percentage of the deportees from each transport had been selected for labour. It is reasonable to assume that the reason why the WVHA required those reports was to demonstrate that it was trying to fulfil Himmler's order of late 1942 to put as many Jews as possible to work in the concentration camps, which included Auschwitz.<br /><br />Under different circumstances, ie where there was no imperative to preserve arriving Jews for labour, there would have been no need to justify why those Jews were killed, and hence probably no need to provide reports back to the WVHA. I any case, I recall that Hoess claimed that it was forbidden to keep statistics of the number of Jews killed, and that only Jews chosen for labour and registered were recorded. Accordingly, it is entirely possible that no reports other than those by Schwarz were ever sent from Auschwitz giving the numbers of Jews killed from each transport.<br /><br />If there is truth to Hoess's claim that it was forbidden to record the number of Jews killed, then Schwarz was contravening that prohibition, which supports the interpretation that his reports were a special case, stemming from a new imperative to preserve Jewish deportees for labour, which had recently been introduced by Himmler. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920991497026980039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-67374851837732904592017-02-15T18:48:38.612+00:002017-02-15T18:48:38.612+00:00> It is noteworthy that Schwarz even gives a ju...> It is noteworthy that Schwarz even gives a justification for the "separate accommodation", which would not have been necessary if the primary purpose of the transports from Theresienstadt and Berlin that were the subject of the reports had been the killing of the transportees.<br /><br />As you have previously correctly pointed out, the function of the reports was to inform the WVHA of the labor force stats.<br />Clearly, therefore, the language had to correspond to the function of the reports and does not reflect the primary purpose of the transports.<br /><br />> Another salient fact is that the Schwarz reports of early 1943 detailing the numbers of deportees subjected to "separate accommodation" are the only extant reports from Auschwitz to the WVHA giving such statistics, <br /><br />Not true. There are other reports by Schwarz that use the other term - special treatment. E.g. the 2.3.43 and 8.3.43 reports on the Berlin Jews,<br />Also, the number of the surviving reports does not tell us anything because the other reports not surviving does not mean that they did not exist.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-23481119107062437032017-02-15T03:26:57.488+00:002017-02-15T03:26:57.488+00:00Information about Heinrich Schwarz:
https://en.wi...Information about Heinrich Schwarz:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schwarz<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920991497026980039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-82821367144581990852017-02-15T03:20:30.751+00:002017-02-15T03:20:30.751+00:00The reports by Schwarz to the WVHA of February and...The reports by Schwarz to the WVHA of February and March 1943 are very interesting, since they raise the question of why they were sent at all. The answer lies in the function that Schwarz had at Auschwitz, which was not that of organising the "Sonderbehandlung" of prisoners, but rather that of organising their labour deployment. In other words, the function of the reports was to demonstrate to the WVHA how the Jews sent to Auschwitz from Theresienstadt and Berlin were being used for labour. The enumeration of the number of deportees "separately accommodated" was essentially a side issue, an explanation for why not all the deportees had been deployed for labour. It is noteworthy that Schwarz even gives a justification for the "separate accommodation", which would not have been necessary if the primary purpose of the transports from Theresienstadt and Berlin that were the subject of the reports had been the killing of the transportees.<br /><br />Another salient fact is that the Schwarz reports of early 1943 detailing the numbers of deportees subjected to "separate accommodation" are the only extant reports from Auschwitz to the WVHA giving such statistics, which suggests that it was not normal practice for the Auschwitz administration to record the numbers of deportees killed on arrival, only the numbers of deportees registered. That in turn suggest that the Schwarz reports had a special purpose.<br /><br />The reports are to be seen in the context of the order issued by Himmler in late 1942 to send large numbers of prisoners fit for labour to the concentration camps. In response to that order, the head of the Gestapo, Mueller, reported that a large proportion of the Jews being subjected to the "Final Solution" were fit for labour, and could be sent to the concentration camps for forced labour as the RSHA's contribution to the fulfilment of Himmler's order. It may assumed that Himmler then issued orders to the RSHA to select Jews fit for labour in both Theresienstadt and Berlin and send them in transports to Auschwitz. The reports by Schwarz are therefore to be seen as advice for transmission to Himmler on how his order is being implemented.<br /><br />Shortly after the reports from Schwarz to the WVHA, Himmler sent a stinging rebuke to Kaltenbrunner, who was now head of the RSHA, ordering that from now on only Jews fit for labour were to be sent from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz, since he had promised that the older Jews being held there would be allowed to die a natural death.<br /><br />The most probable course of events is that after the RSHA had received the order to send transports of Jews fit for labour to Auschwitz from Theresienstadt and Berlin, some RSHA operatives on the ground took the opportunity to fill the transports with old and unfit Jews in order to lessen the logistical burden they represented. That is most probably the reason why Himmler was so angry with Kaltenbrunner; the RSHA had acted in direct contravention of his order, in a way that hindered his aim of filling the concentration camps with prisoners who could be used for labour.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920991497026980039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-20503472370785422752017-02-13T21:21:40.041+00:002017-02-13T21:21:40.041+00:00IKR. This is even worse than he usually does.IKR. This is even worse than he usually does.Sergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-62771010991214385922017-02-13T20:57:51.944+00:002017-02-13T20:57:51.944+00:00Thumbs up, Sergey!
Another helplessly confused p...Thumbs up, Sergey! <br /><br />Another helplessly confused performance from Mattogno.Hans Metznerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07746792258730274681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-82249535063945239812017-02-13T19:32:06.473+00:002017-02-13T19:32:06.473+00:00Graf (a well-known liar) of course totally ignores...Graf (a well-known liar) of course totally ignores the historical context. Hitler's public prophecy as such, standalone, is not that important because it was, first of all, a rhetorical threat at that moment where there was no extermination plan yet. I'm not sure who provides this quote (without context) as evidence for the Holocaust.<br /><br />What does count is what Hitler said on Dec. 12, 1941, privately, referring to his old prophecy (as written down by Goebbels):<br /><br />"Regarding the Jewish question, the Führer is determined to clear the table. He warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction.<br />Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence. We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews. We should have sympathy rather with our own German people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives."<br /><br />This means that by Dec. 12 Hitler has made an actual, rather than a theoretical, decision to exterminate the Jews of Europe (and not only the Soviet Jews). It was not known yet how exactly. Hans Frank was present at this meeting with Hitler and here's what can be found in his private speech to the GG officials on Dec. 16:<br /><br />"As for the Jews, well, I can tell you quite frankly that one way or another we have to<br />put an end to them. The Führer once put it this way: if the combined forces of Judaism<br />should again succeed in unleashing a world war, that would mean the end of the Jews<br />in Europe....I urge you: Stand together with me . . . on this idea at least: Save your<br />sympathy for the German people alone. Don’t waste it on anyone else in the world,...<br />As a veteran National Socialist I also have to say this: if the Jews in Europe should<br />survive this war,... then the war would be only a partial success. As far as the Jews<br />are concerned, I would therefore be guided by the basic expectation that they are going<br />to disappear. They have to be gotten rid of. At present I am involved in discussions<br />aimed at having them moved away to the east. In January there is going to be an important<br />meeting in Berlin to discuss this question. I am going to send State Secretary Dr.<br />Bühler to this meeting. It is scheduled to take place in the offices of the RSHA in<br />the presence of Obergruppenführer Heydrich. Whatever its outcome, a great Jewish emigration will commence.<br />But what is going to happen to these Jews? Do you imagine there will be settlement villages for them in the Ostland? In Berlin we were told: Why are you making all this trouble for us? There is nothing we can do with them here in the Ostland or in the Reich Commissariat. Liquidate them yourselves! . . . For us too the Jews are incredibly destructive eaters.... Here are 3.5 million Jews that we can’t shoot, we can’t poison.<br />But there are some things we can do, and one way or another these measures will successfully lead to a liquidation. They are related to the measures under discussion with<br />the Reich.... Where and how this will all take place will be a matter for offices that we will have to establish and operate here. I will report to you on their operation at the appropriate time."<br /><br />So the basic decision has been taken and it was liquidation. The details had to be yet decided upon, this was done at the subsequent Wannsee Conference.<br /><br />See Gerlach's article with the full context at http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jewishnb/hrc/mti/wannsee.pdfSergey Romanovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04063444062099331337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-60895754472534136662017-02-13T19:02:42.332+00:002017-02-13T19:02:42.332+00:00”The code words were needed simply because the ext...”The code words were needed simply because the extrajudicial nature of the killings was controversial despite their alleged formal legality. Another example of this was the mass murder of Jews which was both seen as formally legal and was kept a top state secret.”<br /><br /><br />Regarding this quote I did a quick Google translation from Swedish to English of Jurgen Graf's book. The translation may not be 100% accurate, but enough to understand the point.<br /><br />I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but as I read this, I will take it up. How would you respond to what he writes below? Perhaps you guys could do post and respond to these claims on the blog? For this argument, I often see from these revisionists / deniers.<br /><br />German original title of the book is: <br />”Der Holocaust auf dem Prüfstand – Augenzeugenberichte versus Naturgesetze<br />; Guideon Burg Verlag, Basel, 1993”<br /><br /><br />”29. Hitler quote as "proof" of the Holocaust<br /><br />In the absence of other evidence of the one million-fold murder Jews beyond the extinction believers quote from Hitler and other Nazi bigwigs, like the Jews <br />threatened with annihilation. In the last chapter, second volume<br />of Mein Kampf is it called:<br /><br />”If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.”<br /><br /><br />Certainly a fatal threat! However, show the context in which it stands, as well as toincapacitate twelve to fifteen thousand, that Hitler has not presented it as desirable to eradicate Jews as a whole, but only to liquidate the Marxist leaders (in fact, often Jews), which in his view, was to blame for Germany's defeat in World War I.<br />(Stab-in-the-back legend).<br /><br />In hardly any history book is no good reference the Hitler speech of 30 January 1939, which dictator declared:<br /><br />”Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe! ”<br /><br />This is undoubtedly a clear threat of annihilation. However, one must consider that a warlike language was typical of the Nazi movement, which from the beginning to assert itself against the extreme the left. Words such as "destroy" and "destroy" please come over the National Socialists lips.<br /><br />Corresponding quotes, there are also lots of from the Allied side. As Churchill said the same day that the British declared war, that the aim of the war was "Germany's Holocaust." No one thought that Churchill had intended to physically exterminate the German people. In war, such bloodthirsty statements rather common.<br /><br />When the extinction believers perceive such quotes as evidence of the Holocaust, they end up in an absolute insoluble contradiction. If you ask them why there are no documents about the genocide and no mass graves of Holocaust victims, so they answer that the Germans had wanted to conceal the crime of world and therefore both refrained from making any documents, and got rid of all the corpses for the victims. But according to the same extinction believers Nazi leaders unabashedly have trumpeted<br />their genocidal plans for the world!”<br /><br /><br />Source: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres6/GRAFHolsv.pdf <br /><br />Page: 42.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com