Correction Corner #8: the alleged Himmler speech about extermination of Poles is most probably a forgery.

1. Introduction.

In the Eastern Bloc literature as well as in the modern Polish studies on the Nazi policies an alleged speech made by Himmler on March 15, 1940 before the camp commandants in the occupied Poland is quoted quite often. Himmler is reported to have said:

All skilled workers of Polish origin are to be utilized in our war industry; then all Poles will disappear from this world.
In fulfilling this very responsible task, you must destroy Polishness* quickly in prescribed stages. I give all the camp commanders my full authorization...
[...]
The hour is drawing closer when every German will have to stand the test. It is therefore necessary that the great German nation sees its main task in exterminating all Poles...

This claim is peculiar, for at that time the official Nazi policy did not even include wholesale slaughter of Jews (the exterminatory "Final Solution" policies appeared in 1941 and escalated throughout 1941 and 1942), and Jews were on a lower rung of the Nazi "racial hierarchy" than Poles.

Rubin and Schwanitz can't tell Ukraine from East Prussia.

While researching the topic of the Mufti's collaboration with the Nazis I stumbled upon a really embarrassing series of mistakes in Barry Rubin's and Wolfgang G. Schwanitz's Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Yale University Press, 2014).

The authors zealously struggle to pin as many crimes on the Mufti (surely an execrable Nazi collaborator) as they can get away with, specifically they try to show the plausibility of him having visited some extermination camps including Auschwitz (even though there is no credible evidence of such a visit). And so they write on p. 164:

Correction Corner #7: false Stuckart quote about the "extermination of Jews".

Sometimes the following alleged quote is ascribed to Wilhelm Stuckart (a Wannsee conference participant):

Die Judenvernichtung findet ihre Rechtfertigung daher nicht nur in der Andersartigkeit, sondern auch in der Anderswertigkeit des Judentums. 

The extermination of the Jews is therefore justified not only by the otherness, but also by the different value of the Jewry.

This allegedly comes from Stuckart's and Schiedermair's book Rassen- und Erbpflege in der Gesetzgebung des Reiches, 3rd edition, 1942.

The citation or a mention of it appears e.g. in Christian Gerlach's The Extermination of the European Jews, 2016, p. 146 (with a reference to U. Herbert, Best: Biographische Studien über Radikalismus, Weltanschauung und Vernunft 1903-1989, 1996, p. 286); in Hans-Christian Jasch's Staatssekretär Wilhelm Stuckart und die Judenpolitik, 2012, p. 364 and in the article "Civil service lawyers and the Holocaust" in A. Steinweis, R. Rachlin (eds.), The Law in Nazi Germany: Ideology, Opportunism, and the Perversion of Justice, 2013, p. 52 (both times with a reference to D. Majer, Grundlagen des nationalsozialistischen Rechtssystems, 1987, pp. 142ff.; in the first source Jasch points out that this sentence is not found in the 2nd and the 4th editions); in Mark Roseman, "Beyond Conviction? ...", in F. Biess, M. Roseman, H. Schissler (eds.), Conflict, Catastrophe and Continuity: Essays on Modern German History, 2007, p. 95 (with a reference to Herbert, 1996);  et cetera.

However Horst Dreier points out (among other places, in Die deutsche Staatsrechtslehre in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, 2001, p. 40n150 and in Staatsrecht in Demokratie und Diktatur, 2016, p. 217n150) that the word "Judenvernichtung" (extermination of Jews) does not appear in the 3rd edition (or in the whole 3rd Reich literature on the constitutional law that he had read). Rather, the following does appear there:

Die Judenvorschriften finden ihre Rechtfertigung daher nicht nur in der Andersartigkeit, sondern auch in der Anderswertigkeit des Judentums. 

The Jewish regulations are therefore justified not only by the otherness, but also by the different value of the Jewry.

The third edition of Stuckart's and Schiedermair's book is available online, so we can see that Dreier is correct:

It would seem that the incorrect quote was first used by Diemut Majer. Thus, we see it in "Fremdvölkische" im Dritten Reich: ein Beitrag zur nationalsozialistichen Rechtssetzung und Rechtspraxis in Verwaltung und Justiz unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der eingegliederten Ostgebiete und des Generalgouvernements, 1981, p. 121 and Majer's subsequent 1987 book and Herbert's 1996 book (that must have relied on Majer) are the main sources for the spread of the false version.

The latest publication of the English translation of Majer's book - “Non-Germans” Under The Third Reich: The Nazi Judicial and Administrative System in Germany and Occupied Eastern Europe, with Special Regard to Occupied Poland, 1939–1945, 2013, still contains the quote.

Herbert corrected the quote in the 2016 edition of his book (p. 306).

Fake Footage of Auschwitz-Birkenau Football Match in Hungarian Documentary

As I learned from this youtube clip, there is a documentary KL Auschwitz by Bárány László from 2008 aired on Hungarian television including footage of a football match apparently taking place in Auschwitz-Birkenau (here and here). On a closer look, it turns out that the scenes are not authentic footage from the concentration camp.

Correction Corner #6: Michael Shermer and Hans Frank's speech

In Michael Shermer's and Alex Grobman’s book Denying History (2009, expanded edn.) we see the following claim (p.186):

On October 7, 1940, in a speech to a Nazi assembly, Hans Frank, head of the Generalgouvernement (the governmental administration over Poland’s four districts of Krakow, Warsaw, Radom, and Lublin), summed up his first year:

“My dear Comrades! … I could not eliminate [ausrotten] all lice and Jews in only one year. But in the course of time, and if you help me, this end will be attained.”28

To those deniers who claim that by ausrotten Frank merely meant deportation, we counter: Did Frank, then, mean to “deport” all the lice? Only one translation makes sense here.

The endnote is:

28. N.D. 3363-PS, 891.

However, PS-3363 has nothing to do with Frank. The speech is from PS-2233, Frank’s official diary. The speech took place not on Oct. 7, but rather on Dec.19 (see IMT vol. 29, p. 415).

And contrary to Shermer and Grobman, Frank used beseitigen instead of ausrotten:

Freilich, in einem Jahre konnte ich weder sämtliche Läuse noch sämtliche Juden beseitigen (Heiterkeit). Aber im Laufe der Zeit und vor allem dann, wenn Ihr mir helft, wird sich das schon erreichen lassen. Es ist ja auch nicht notwendig, dass wir alles in einem Jahre und alles gleich tun, denn was hätten sonst diejenigen, die nach uns kommen, noch zu schaffen?

This claim was also made in Shermer’s book Why People Believe Weird Things and in the first edition of Denying History, and it seemingly first appeared in his article "Proving the Holocaust: The Refutation of Revisionism & the Restoration of History" in Skeptic, 1994, Vol. 2, No. 4.

That Hans Frank made this speech on Oct.7, 1940 was claimed by William Shirer in his classic tome Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich. He specified his source as “NCA, IV, p. 891 (N.D. 2233-C-PS)”. And indeed, when we go to the relevant volume of NCA, we do find the speech in the following form (pp. 890-1):

[Page 943, 4th-6th lines]
10/7/40
The Governor-General then addresses the assembly with the
following words :
My dear Comrades ! * * * * * * *
[Page 946, lines 1-3, 21-30]
10/7/40
* * * There are so few of us here that no one can actually
really conceal himself. Everybody has to fear that the spotlight
will now and then rest on him * * *
* * * It is clear that education will perhaps still be necessary
here and there; furthermore, it is clear that this openminded
comradeship, this common spirit of close contact finds its
counter-part in the unstinted observation of authority in inner
office relations. We cannot permit the offices to become 5 o’clock
tea rooms. But, of course, our position as Germans here must be
such that the lowest of us is still far above the highest Pole in
this room * * *
[Page 1158, 2nd par. to p. 1159 4th line]
* * * And another thing was told me by the Fuehrer in all
seriousness, a few days ago: that the old Japanese proverb:-
after the war tighten your helmet strap-should retain its validity.
Comrades, never again shall we be a weak Reich. The
Armed Forces will represent the crown of community education.
Just as the NSDAP is the crown of social, political and ideological
leadership, so the Armed Forces will be the essence of military
training, of the proud and immaculate bearing of our people.
And you can say: you took part in it as soldiers. I am very
happy about this hour of the Armed Forces, for it joins us all
together. Some of you left your mothers, your parents at home,
others their wives, their brides, their brothers, their children.
In all these weeks, they will be thinking of you, saying to themselves:
my God, there he sits in Poland where there are so many
lice and Jews, perhaps he is hungry and cold, perhaps he is
afraid to write. It would not be a bad idea then to send our dear
ones back home a picture, and tell them: well now, there are not
so many lice and Jews any more, and conditions here in the Government
General have changed and improved somewhat already.
Of course, I could not eliminate all lice and Jews in only one
year’s time.’ (public amused) But in the course of time, and
above all, if you help me, this end will be attained. After all, it is
not necessary for us to accomplish everything within a year and
right away for what would otherwise be left for those who follow
us to do?

Shirer erroneously assumed that the date “10/7/40” applies to all the paragraphs below. This cannot be, of course, since there are more than 200 pages separating the two excerpts! And if you look at the same speech in IMT, it is clearly dated Dec. 19.

So it was the NCA editors’ oversight in not assigning the date, Shirer’s sloppiness in not noticing the page count and not cross-checking with the IMT version. But at least Shirer gives the correct source.

Shermer clearly relied on Shirer. Here is Shirer:

Frank did not neglect the Jews, even if the Gestapo had filched the direct task of extermination away from him. His journal is full of his thoughts and accomplishments on the subject. On October 7, 1940, it records a speech he made that day to a Nazi assembly in Poland summing up his first year of effort.

My dear Comrades! … I could not eliminate all lice and Jews in only one year. [”Public amused,” he notes down at this point.] But in the course of time, and if you help me, this end will be attained.

Here’s Shermer:

On October 7, 1940, in a speech to a Nazi assembly, Hans Frank, head of the Generalgouvernement (the governmental administration over Poland’s four districts of Krakow, Warsaw, Radom, and Lublin), summed up his first year:

“My dear Comrades! … I could not eliminate [ausrotten] all lice and Jews in only one year. But in the course of time, and if you help me, this end will be attained.”

The phrasing is the same, and they quote basically the same parts (with “my dear comrades” actually belonging to another speech, which is skipped by both authors). Also note that the official English translation has "in only one year’s time" and "and above all, if you help me", whereas both Shirer and Shermer have "in only one year" and "and if you help me".

Let’s compare their endnotes again:

• Shirer: NCA, IV, p. 891 (N.D. 2233-C-PS)
• Shermer: N.D. 3363-PS, 891.

Page 891 is a page in the 4th NCA volume, not a page of the original document! It’s meaningless otherwise. Shermer’s endnote should have included the NCA reference. Moreover, as pointed out, Shermer gets the document number completely wrong. But interestingly enough, the same document (PS-3363) is referenced by Shirer in the same chapter (see e.g. note 37 here - and keep in mind that the Frank endnote is 41 - quite close).

This explains why Shermer misdated the Frank speech and possibly explains why he referenced a wrong document (if he was relying on Shirer - without checking the original sources - and somehow mixed up Shirer’s endnotes).

This still doesn’t explain the main error, namely, why Shermer claims that Frank used the word “ausrotten” though he used the word “beseitigen”. The meaning of “ausrotten” plays a big role in Shermer’s book so it’s not just a secondary detail.

PS: this error was also noted by Carlo Mattogno in his critique of Shermer and Grobman. However he wrongly assumed that they were quoting a speech from Dec. 20, which contains a similar passage (IMT vol. 29, p. 416):

Man kann natürlich in einem Jahre nicht sämtliche Läuse und Juden hinaustreiben; das wird im Laufe der Zeit geschehen müssen.

It is obvious though that Shermer quotes the Dec. 19 speech. 

Correction Corner #5: Bartosik et al., The Beginnings of the Extermination of Jews in KL Auschwitz...

The document collection from Bartisek et al. (The beginnings of the extermination of Jews in KL Auschwitz in the light of the source materials) contains a number of previously unknown and for Revisionists  inconvinient German contemporary sources (some - but not all - have been highlighted in a previous posting). Other documents in the collection have been known already, in particular from Revisionist Carlo Mattogno's works. And some of the docs have been clearly misinterpreted by Bartisek et al.

Correction Corner #4: Auschwitz Museum and the number of Gypsy victims

Today, 63 years ago, the liquidation of the Gypsy Family camp in Birkenau commenced.

On the website of the Auschwitz Museum we can find the following information:

The “Gypsy” camp was liquidated on the night of August 2/3, 1944 on orders from Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler. All the people still alive, 2,897 of them, were murdered that night.

The figure of 2897 murdered Gypsies, is, however, absolutely wrong and unfounded.

This is one of the cases when an examination of Holocaust deniers' claims leads not only to refutation of those claims (this is usual), but also a refutation of mainstream claims, as new facts are uncovered (this also happens sometimes).

What's ironic this time is that the mainstream claim (in this case - about the liquidation of the Gypsy camp) probably diminished the scope of tragedy, and, what's worse, this mistake has been mindlessy perpetuated in books and media.

Informational items about the liquidation of Auschwitz Gypsy camp on August 2, 1944 are usually based on D. Czech's reconstruction. Here's a another example from the Auschwitz Museum's site:

The extermination of the Roma in Birkenau took place on the night of August 2/3, 1944. A ban on going outside the barracks was imposed on the Gypsy camp on the evening of September 2 and, despite resistance, 2,897 men, women, and children were loaded on trucks, taken to gas chamber no. V, and exterminated. Their bodies were burned in the adjacent pits.

In his article "The "Gassing" of Gypsies in Auschwitz on August 2, 1944" Carlo Mattogno claims that no Gypsies were gassed on August 2, 1944. He makes some ignorant claims to arrive at this conclusion, although he does make one good point in the process. Let's examine his claims and compare them to the claims by Danuta Czech and the Auschwitz Museum.

• 1. There were 1518 inmates listed in male labor deployment report for July 30, 1944 in the Gypsy camp.
• 2. This number increased to 2815 on August 1, 1944 and to 2885 on August 2, 1944. July 31 report is missing.
• 3. On August 3 there are 1408 Gypsies explicitly mentioned for BIIe camp, noted as being transferred elsewhere.
• 4. The difference, therefore is 1477 inmates of the Gypsy camp, who seem to have disappeared.
• 5. To explain the bulk of this disappearance Mattogno brings up the transport of 1298 Radom Jews (males), who arrived on July 31, 1944 and were registered on the same day. These Jews, however, don't appear in male labor deployment lists of August 1 and 2 (labor deployment lists noted the new arrivals). As could be established from quarantine camp documents, these Jews weren't in that camp either.
• 6. Mattogno, therefore, makes a logical conclusion: the increase of the male Gypsy camp population from 1518 on July 30 to 2815 on August 1, 1944 (the difference being 1297) is due to these Radom Jews being temporarily placed in the Gypsy camp. This is not unheard of, as the Gypsy camp was also used to lodge some Jews during the Hungarian action. The difference in 1 person might have been covered by the missing July 31 report.
  
  So far, the argument seems reasonable, and it's a pity the mainstream researchers didn't put it up first, and rather assumed that all 2815 inmates on Aug. 1 were Gypsies, because this, obviously, does some serious violence to their Gypsy death toll estimates.
• 7. Now, Danuta Czech assumes that all 2885 inmates of the Gypsy camp on August 2 were Gypsies (she calculates 2898 for Birkenau as a whole). She notes the transfer of 1408 Gypsies to other place (she says Buchenwald) and claims that 2897 Gypsies were gassed afterwards.
• 8. Mattogno thinks this is a stupid mistake:

  Here it should be pointed out that the number of the allegedly gassed gypsies contains a glaring arithmetic mistake: if there had been altogether 2,898 gypsies, and 1,408 thereof have been transferred, it is completely impossible that 2,897 were "gassed"! The number of the "gassed" would rather amount to (2,898-1,408 =) 1,490.

  Actually it is Mattogno's glaring mistake.
  
  Czech doesn't deal only with Birkenau Gypsies, she explicitly notes that 1408 transferred Gypsies came from Blocks 10 and 11 of Auschwitz I camp (Aug. 2 entry). The 1989 text of the Kalendarium (both English and German) is actually confusing, but even then one can understand that she is talking about Stammlager Gypsies, especially when one reads May 23 entry. Here's the more clearly worded German version, from the Auschwitz Trial DVD:

  Am Nachmittag wurde auf der Eisenbahnrampe innerhalb des Lagers Birkenau ein leerer Gueterzug bereitgestellt, in den 1.408 Zigeunerinnen und Zigeuner verladen wurden, die am 23. Mai 1944 im Lagerabschnitt BIIe selektiert worden waren, damals in die Bloecke 10 und 11 im Stammlager verlegt worden waren, am Leben gelassen und in andere Konzentrationslager ueberstellt werden sollten und jetzt vom Stammlager nach Birkenau gefuehrt wurden.

  Indeed, in May 23, 1944 entry Czech claims, based on a testimony of T. Joachimowski, that there were about 1500 Gypsies lodged in blocks 10 and 11 of the main camp, waiting to be transferred elsewhere.
  
  So Mattogno's argument about Czech's "mistake" is bogus (regardless of veracity of Czech's method).
  
  Czech gives the death toll of 2897 (and not 2898) because one Gypsy stayed in camp BIIf.
• 9. And yet, we still have to subtract 1298 Radom Jews from Czech's death toll, leaving us only with only 1599 Gypsies which, according to Czech's methodology, could have been gassed.
• 10. However, here is where both Mattogno and Czech make a fatal mistake. All this time they were dealing with male labor deployment lists. How on the basis of the male population of the Gypsy Family camp Czech could make a conclusion that "2897 defenceless women, men and children" were gassed, and how, on the basis of male population could Mattogno make his conclusion about the lack of gassings of any Gypsies?
• 11. What they both amazingly ignored are the existing strength reports for female population of camp BIIe, i.e. the Gypsy camp. I've had them for some time from Dr. John Zimmerman, but only recently Dr. Nicholas Terry realized, that this is it - the actual numbers for the female Gypsies, covering the period from 16 to 31 July, 1944. The reports were available to Czech, and basically to everybody, and yet nobody seems to have realized their significance until Nick, which is rather baffling.
• 12. July 31, 1944 report records 3422 women in Gypsy camp BIIe:
  
  
• 13. Therefore, taking into account everything said before, and assuming D. Czech is correct about 1408 Gypsies being from Auschwitz I, there could have been as many as (1599+3422)=5021 Gypsies gassed.

Well, actually this is problematic too, because this assumes that Czech is correct when she claims that 1408 Gypsies were male AND female Gypsies from Stammlager. Once again, the assumption that female deportees were mentioned in the male labor deployment lists is shaky at best. So we're left in uncertainty about the number of Gypsies who could have been gassed. Until proven otherwise, we should assume that 1408 transferred Gypsies were males, and there could have been females transferred as well (though we don't know the numbers).

It is also not completely clear whether these 1408 Gypsies were indeed from Auschwitz I, or from Auschwitz II. If they were from Auschwitz II, then we should subtract them from the Birkenau Gypsy population, having as many as (5021-1408)=3613 Gypsies potentially gassed.

It is possible that it was a mix of both Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II male Gypsies, but it is also possible that no Gypsies were brought from the main camp at all, and this is only D. Czech's assumption (testimonies from the Frankfurt trial don't seem to support this version, and some contradict it, saying that the Gypsies were in the main camp just for quarantine for several days only).

In any case, it seems clear that D. Czech's - and Auschwitz Museum's - number of 2897 gassed Gypsies is absolutely unfounded, and potentially, many more hundreds of Gypsies could have been gassed, mostly women and children. To establish the true number and to remove uncertainties, further research is required.

Correction Corner #2: Himmler's visit to Birkenau in 1942

This posting could have gone into "That's why it is denial, not revisionism" series, but since it corrects a significant mistake in the mainstream Auschwitz historiography, it is more fit for the Correction Corner.

Historians universally accept that Heinrich Himmler visited extermination camp Birkenau in July of 1942, and personally witnessed the gassing of the Jews in the gas chambers of Bunker 2. Danuta Czech, Raul Hilberg, Franciszek Piper, Jean-Claude Pressac, Robert Jan van Pelt, Laurence Rees and many others have accepted this only on the basis of testimony of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess.

However, in 1999 Peter Witte et al. published Der Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmlers 1941/42 - Himmler's diary/appointment book. It mentions Himmler's presence in Auschwitz complex on July 17 and 18 (in accordance with Hoess' testimony), but, strangely, it lacks any mention of his supposed visit to Birkenau.

Here's how the entries for these dates look like in translation.

17 July:

12:00 trip, Friedrichsruh airport, Loetzen
12:45 takeoff Loetzen
RFSS, Prof. Wuest, Kersten, Grothmann, Kiermeier
15:15 landing, Kattowitz
Pick up Gauleiter Bracht, O’Gruf. Schmauser
and Stubaf. Hoess

Trip to Auschwitz

Tea in the Commandant’s quarters
Talk with Stubaf. Caesar and O'Stubaf. Vogel,
Stubaf. Hoess

Inspection of the agricultural operations
Inspection of the prisoners’ camp and of the FKL
Dining in the Commandant’s quarters

Auschwitz-Kattowitz trip
to the residence of
Gauleiter Bracht
Evening with Gauleiter Bracht

18 July:

09:00 breakfast with Gauleiter Bracht and wife
Trip to Auschwitz
Talk with O'Gruf. Schmauser
" Stubaf. Caesar
" the Commandant of the FKL
Inspection of the factory grounds of the Buna
Auschwitz-Kattowitz trip
13:00 flight, Kattowitz-Krakow-Lublin
15:15 landing, Lublin
Pick up O'Gruf. Krueger and
Brigf. Globocnik. tea with Globocnik
Talk with Staf. Schellenberg
Trip to the Jastrow fruit concern
21:00 talk at Globocnik’s with SS O’Gruf. Krueger, SS O’Gruf.
Pohl, SS Brigf. Globocnik, SS O’Stuf. Stier.

On the first day Himmler visited the prisoners' camp and women's camp (FKL). At that time FKL was in the main camp, not in Birkenau (cf. D. Czech, Auschwitz Chronicle, p. 211). Birkenau was not a prisoners' camp, but POW camp (KGL, Kriegsgefangenenlager).

Given that the entries are detailed, it is fair to conclude that the probability that Himmler did not visit Birkenau on his second visit is high. Some argue that Himmler wouldn't mention the gassing because of secrecy concern. The point is that he doesn't even mention a trip to Birkenau, which wouldn't be a secret. Besides, the diary does contain some pretty incriminating stuff concerning the "Final Solution".

(Note: there are many photos of Himmler's visit to Buna-Monowitz sub-camp, but there are no photos of his visit to Birkenau (or to the main camp, for that matter). There seem to be no testimonies mentioning Himmler's visit to Birkenau on the relevant dates, except Hoess'. At least I haven't been able to find any in the records of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial or in other sources accessible to me.)

Here's Hoess' long account from his autobiography written in Polish prison (Death Dealer, pp. 286ff):

The next meeting was in the summer of 1942, when Himmler visited Auschwitz for the second and last time. The inspection lasted two days and Himmler looked at everything very thoroughly. Also present at this inspection were District Leader Bracht, SS General Schmauser, Dr. Kammler, and others. The first thing after their arrival was a meeting in the officers’ club. With the help of maps and diagrams, I had to show the present condition of the camp. After that we went to the construction headquarters, where Kammler, using maps, blueprints, and models explained the planned or already progressing construction. He did not, however, keep quiet about the difficulties that existed which hindered the construction. He also pointed out those projects which were impossible not only to start, but to finish. Himmler listened with great interest, asked about some of the technical details, and agreed with the overall planning. Himmler did not utter a single word about Kammler’s repeated references to the many difficulties. Afterwards there was a trip through the whole area of concern: first the farms and soil enrichment projects, the dam-building site, the laboratories and plant cultivation in Raisko, the cattle-raising farms and the orchards. Then we visited Birkenau, the Russian camp, the Gypsy camp, and a Jewish camp. Standing at the entrance, he asked for a situation report on the layout of the swamp reclamation and the water projects. He also wanted a report on the intended expansion projects. He watched the prisoners at work, inspected the housing, the kitchens, and the sick bays. I constantly pointed out the shortcomings and the bad conditions. I am positive he noticed them. He saw the emaciated victims of epidemics. The doctors explained things without mincing words. He saw the overcrowded sick bays, and the child mortality in the Gypsy camp and he also witnessed the terrible childhood disease called noma (a gangrenous mouth disease in children weakened by disease and malnutrition). Himmler also saw the overcrowded barracks, the primitive and totally inadequate toilet and wash facilities. He was told about the high rate of illness and the death rate by the doctors and their causes. He had everything explained to him in the greatest detail. He saw everything in stark reality. Yet he said absolutely nothing. He really gave me a tongue lashing in Birkenau, when I went on and on about the terrible conditions. He screamed, ‘I don’t want to hear anymore about any existing difficulties! For an SS officer there are no difficulties. His task is always to immediately overcome any difficulty by himself! As to how? That’s your headache, not mine!’ Kammler and Bischoff got the same answers. After inspecting Birkenau, Himmler witnessed the complete extermination process of a transport of Jews which had just arrived. He also looked on for a while during a selection of those who would work and those who would die without any complaint on his part. Himmler made no comment about the extermination process. He just looked on in total silence. I noticed that he very quietly watched the officers, the NCOs and me several times during the process. The inspection continued to the Buna Works, where he inspected the plant as thoroughly as he had done with the prisoner workers and how they did their jobs. [...] From the Buna Works we went to the sewer gas installations. There was no program at all because the materials were not available. This was one of the sorest points at Auschwitz and was everyone’s main concern. The almost untreated sewage from the main camp was draining directly into the Sola River. Because of the continuing epidemics raging in the camp, the surrounding civilian population was constantly exposed to the danger of epidemic infections. The district leader quite clearly described these conditions and begged Weise to remedy this situation. Himmler answered that Kammler would work on the matter with all his energy.

Himmler was much more interested in the next part of the inspection, the natural rubber plantations Koc-Sagys. [...]

On the evening of the first day of the inspection tour, all the guests and camp officers of Auschwitz were present at a dinner.

After dinner the district leader invited Himmler, Schmauser, Kammler, Caesar, and me to his house near Katowice. Himmler was also supposed to stay there because on the following day he had to settle some important questions concerning the local population and resettlement with the district leader. [...]

On the second day Schmauser and I picked him up at the district leader’s house, and the inspection continued. He looked at the original camp, the kitchen, and the women’s camp. At that time the women were located in the first row of barracks, numbers 1 to 11, then next to the SS Headquarters building. Then he inspected the stables, the workshops, Canada, and the DAW (German armaments factories), the butcher shop, the bakery, the construction units, and the planning board for the troops. He examined everything thoroughly and saw the prisoners, asked about their reasons for being there, and wanted an accurate count. He did not allow us to lead him around. Instead he demanded to see the things he wanted to see. He saw the overcrowding in the women’s camp, the inadequate toilet facilities, and the lack of water. He demanded to see the inventory of clothing from the quartermaster, and saw that everywhere there was a lack of everything. He asked about the food rations and extra rations given for strenuous labor down to the smallest detail. In the women’s camp he wanted to observe the corporal punishment of a woman who was a professional criminal and a prostitute. She had been repeatedly stealing whatever she could lay her hands on He was mainly interested in the results corporal punishment had on her. He personally reserved the decision about corporal punishment for women. Some of the women who were introduced to’ him and who had been imprisoned for a minor infraction he pardoned. They were allowed to leave the camp. He discussed the fanatical beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses with some of the female members. After the inspection we went to my office for a final discussion.

[...]

This is how Himmler finished his important inspection of Auschwitz. He saw everything and understood all the consequences. I wonder if his ‘I am unable to help you’ statement was intentional? After our meeting and discussion in my office, he made an inspection of my home and its furnishings. He was very enthusiastic about it and talked at length with my wife and the children. He was excited and in high spirits. I drove him to the airport; we exchanged brief goodbyes, and he flew back to Berlin."

So Hoess gives a vivid and detailed description of the supposed visit, upon which Himmler's diary casts serious doubt. Now, does that mean that Hoess lied, was tortured, etc.? "Revisionists" will undoubtedly say "yes".

And here's where the difference lies between the real historical methodology and Holocaust denial. In Special treatment in Auschwitz [large PDF] Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno argues at length that Himmler did not attend the gassing in Birkenau, using both Himmler's diary and some supplemental arguments, which, according to him, show that even if Himmler did visit Birkenau, he could not have witnessed any gassing. He leaves it at that, without trying to find an explanation of the paradox. And why should he? After all, "revisionists" have long ago dismissed Hoess' autobiography and other testimonies as product of coercion and fantasy - by the British captors, by the Nuremberg "thugs", by the "Polish Communists".

Now, whatever can be said about Hoess' treatment in the hands of all of his captors, his testimonies in Polish captivity (the essays he wrote for judge Jan Sehn, his autobiography, his trial testimony) are hardly compatible with coercion. He described how he was brutally mistreated by the British. He described initial mistreatment in Polish prison. He renounced his previous testimony about partial Auschwitz death toll (3 million dead, about 2.5 million of them gassed), providing far lower figures, completely incompatible with the Polish figure of 4 million (or even with 2.5 million). He called survivors' exaggerated estimates figments of their own imagination. Some coercion!

Still, what are we to make of the contradiction between Hoess' testimony and documentary evidence?

When I began to think about this issue seriously, I kept in mind that human memory is such, that different events can become confused or even blended in it. Hoess' memory was not ideal. He frequently misdated events, thus, claiming that Himmler ordered the conversion of Auschwitz into death camp in summer of 1941, mentioning that other camps in the east (meaning Aktion Reinhard(t) camps) were not up to the task for the anticipated large actions. The problem, of course, is that with exception of Belzec, these camps did not exist in 1941 (construction of Belzec began in November of 1941), and their operation began in 1942. Historian Karin Orth cites several more examples, and convincingly argues that Hoess regularly "telescoped" 1942 events into 1941 ("Rudolf Höß und die "Endlösung der Judenfrage". Drei Argumente gegen deren Datierung auf den Sommer 1941", in Werkstatt Geschichte, Heft 18, 6 (1997), S. 45-57). Hoess also misremembered the name of the death camp Sobibor, calling it "Wolzek" (one possible explanation is that he remembered for some reason the name of the village Wolczyn, which was even closer the the camp Sobibor than the village of Sobibor itself; interestingly, deniers who use this mistake as an argument for coercion cannot give any reason for the "torturers" to feed Hoess this misinformation).

So the possible explanation was to look for another notable visit, which happened close to the period in question, and see if Hoess could have blended the details of two visits.

I knew that WVHA chief Oswald Pohl visited Auschwitz on September 23, 1942 (Czech, op. cit., p. 243). I also knew that according to Pohl's itinerary for that day he was supposed to visit "Station 2 der Aktion Reinhardt", which historians Bertrand Perz and Thomas Sandkuehler interpreted as the gas chamber "Bunker 2" - i.e., the same gas chamber, the gassing in which Himmler' was supposed to have witnessed, according to Hoess ("Auschwitz und die "Aktion Reinhard" 1942-45. Judenmord und Raubpraxis in neuer Sicht", Zeitgeschichte 5, 26. Jg., 1999, S. 283-316). Although their conclusion was mostly based on the hunch (they exclude Kanada II in an endnote, as not constructed yet, so they conclude that it was Bunker 2).


Pohl's itinerary
Thus I proposed that Hoess could have mixed the details of the two visits in his narrative. It was a wild guess, frankly. When I proposed this hypothesis, I had not yet analyzed Pohl's itinerary closely. But then something caught my eye. Both Hoess and Pohl's itinerary mentioned visiting DAW (Deutsche Ausrüstungswerke, German armament works). I began to compare further, and, to my surprise, I found a whole slew of "coincidences". They're summarized in a table below.

No.	Hoess' description	Corresponding item in Pohl's itinerary
1	After that we went to the construction headquarters, where Kammler, using maps, blueprints, and models explained the planned or already progressing construction. Anschließend ging es zur Bauleitung, wo Kammler an Hand von Karten, Bauplänen und Modellen die beabsichtigten oder im Bau befindlichen Bauvorhaben erklärte...	Discussion of the construction projects of the KL Auschwitz in the construction headquarters. Besprechung der Bauvorhaben des KL Auschwitz in der Bauleitung
2	Afterwards there was a trip through the whole area of concern: first the farms and soil enrichment projects, the dam-building site ... Hiernach Fahrt durchs ganze Interessen-Gebiet. Zuerst die landwirtschaftlichen Höfe und Meliorationsarbeiten, den Dammbau...	Dam-building site at Vistula Dammbau an der Weichsel
3	... the laboratories and plant cultivation in Raisko ... ... die Laboratorien und die Pflanzenzucht in Raisko ...	Raisko
4	Standing at the entrance [tower], he asked for a situation report on the layout of the swamp reclamation and the water projects. Vom Eingangsturm aus ließ er sich die Lage-Einteilung und die im Bau befindlichen Be- und Entwässerungsanlagen erklären, ebenso die beabsichtigten Erweiterungen.	Inspection of the whole area from the tower of HWL. Besichtigung des gesamten Gelaendes vom Turm des HWL
5	After inspecting Birkenau, Himmler witnessed the complete extermination process of a transport of Jews which had just arrived. (From an earlier testimony: "During his visit in the summer of 1942, Himmler very carefully observed the entire process of annihilation. He began with the unloading at the ramps and completed the inspection as Bunker II was being cleared of the bodies.") Nach der Besichtigung in Birkenau sah er sich den gesamten Vorgang der Vernichtung eines gerade eingetroffenen Juden-Transportes an. ("Der Reichsführer SS sah sich anläßlich seines Besuches im Sommer 1942 den gesamten Vorgang der Vernichtung genau an, angefangen von der Ausladung bis zur Räumung des Bunkers II.")	Station 2 of operation Reinhardt Station 2 der Aktion Reinhardt
6	From the Buna Works we went to the sewer gas installations. Vom Buna-Werk ging es zur Faulgas-Anlage...	Sewer gas installations Faulgasanlage
7	Then he inspected the workshops, the stables ... ... die Werkstätten, die Ställe ...	new stables neuer Pferdestallhof
8	... Canada ... ... "Kanada" ...	Disinfestation and effects chamber /operation Reinhard/ Entwesung u. Effektenkammer /Aktion Reinhard/
9	... and the DAW (German armaments factories) ... ... und DAW ...	DAW
10	... the butcher shop ... ... Fleischerei ...	Inspection of the butcher shop Besichtigung der Fleischerei
11	... the bakery, the construction units ... ... und Bäckerei, Bauhof ...	Construction yard Bauhof
12	... and the planning board [?] for the troops. ... und Truppenwirtschaftslager.	Troops' camp at Birkenau Truppenlager Birkenau

There may be more coincidences, less obvious ones, but even from these 12 we can make a simple conclusion: Hoess' memory played a trick on him. He blended the two events - Himmler's and Pohl's visits to Birkenau.

Given this, there is no problem at all with stating that Himmler did not visit Birkenau on July 17 or 18 and that he did not witness a gassing in Bunker 2 at that time. It was Pohl who visited Bunker 2 and probably saw a gassing. Thus, we have solved the problem without abandoning the general veracity of Hoess' memoir (although once again confirming that it should not be used uncritically), established that "Station 2 der Aktion Reinhardt" was "Bunker 2" (thus also confirming the link between Auschwitz and Aktion Reinhard(t), posited by several researchers) and corrected a serious mistake in mainstream Auschwitz historiography.

Interestingly, Mattogno, who knows and quotes Pohl's itinerary, and who is allegedly an "accomplished linguist, researcher, and is a specialist in textual analysis", did not think of this simple solution.

There remains a question of whether Himmler was present at any Auschwitz gassing at all. This is possible. The same Mattogno quotes early testimony of Filip Mueller in the book Auschwitz: Crematorium I and the Alleged Homicidal Gassings [large PDF]:

It may have been June [an obvious mistake for July - SR] 17 or 18, 1942. On that fine sunny day everything was hastily cleaned, ‘general cleaning’ was the order of the day. We watched the excited SS people and realized that something was going on, but we did not know what, we could only surmise that some visitor was expected. Around ten o’clock, a high-ranking SS officer appeared in the door, wearing a white uniform, accompanied by two SS men - it was Himmler himself. He inspected everything meticulously. He saw us in the room, in which the clothes and underclothes of those executed were stored. When he saw those blood-stained clothes, he was surprised and asked our SS bosses why there was this blood. Not satified with their answer, he became angry and said sharply: ‘We need the clothes of these dirty dogs for our German people! It is a waste to gas those people with their clothes on!’

Did Himmler also witness a gassing in crematorium I? We don't know, but further research may help to answer this question.

I should also note that there is a third narrative mixed in Hoess' testimony. He describes Himmler visiting the Gypsy camp, but the Gypsies began to arrive en masse only in 1943 (Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, p. 446). Was that a disputed Himmler's third visit to Auschwitz, for which there are only a handful of contradictory testimonies? This also remains to be seen.

I wish to conclude with the quote from Prof. van Pelt's expert report in the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial:

So what can we learn from the archive. First of all, the archive contains some copies of paperwork that was in general circulation among the various departments in the camp, and which more than hint at the possibility that Auschwitz was not a normal concentration camp. One such document is a copy of a pep-talk given by Oswald Pohl, the business administrator of the SS, to senior SS personnel during his visit to Auschwitz on September 23, 1942.

During today’s observations I have silently noticed that you have an ideal inner relation to the issue at stake and an ideal attitude towards the tasks at hand. This conclusion is especially necessary in relation with the issues and the special tasks, about which we do not have to speak words—issues that belong however to your responsibilities. I observe that you do your duty from an inner obligation and this is the precondition for results.
There remains a very large field of action ahead, on which we may create furthermore great values. In this respect you have ahead of you a wide and vast terrain.
In the last months I have made many of these inspections, and I am pleased to state here that Auschwitz significantly transcends everything else. I have noted a very good relationship between men, NCO’s and officers, and I call upon you to remain conscious of your responsibility in this matter.
I would like to remind you about the importance about the tasks set by the Reichsführer-SS, tasks that will be very important for the time when we will have achieved the final victory. Even when you are not with the fighting troops, your tasks do not demand less from you, tasks the importance of which will only be recognized in the time after the victory. It are those tasks that on the other hand put great pressure on each individual, pressures that are equal to those faced by the fighting troops on the front.

In what way was Auschwitz vastly different from other concentration camps? In what way could the job of a concentration guard be compared to that of a soldier in the field? It is obvious that Pohl referred to the so-called “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” that, shortly before, had become an official part of the operation of Auschwitz.

Correction Corner #1: "Every Jew is a nationalist..."

In this irregular series of postings we will be correcting various historical inaccuracies that got into mainstream historical literature and are frequently thought to be factual - sort of urban legends of history. Of course, they will be somehow related to the general thrust of this blog, even if loosely. They may be minor, but they do nothing but muddy the waters, so they deserve their own "column" here.

The first correction concerns Stalin's famous quote:

Every Jew is a nationalist and potential agent of the American intelligence.

This is purported to have been said on December 1, 1952, and recorded in the diary of vice-chair of Sovmin, V.A. Malyshev.

Well, it turns out that this quote has been mangled. Here's the true text of the diary (with some context), as first published in Istochnik in 1997, and also by Gennadij Kostyrchenko in Gosudarstvennyj antisemitizm v SSSR. Ot nachala do kul'minatsii, 1938-1953 (Moscow, MFD, Materik, 2005, pp. 461, 462):

The more successes we have, the more the enemies will try to harm us. About this our people have forgotten under influence of big successes; placidity, heedlessness, conceit have appeared.
Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the USA (there you can become rich, bourgeois, etc.). They think they're indebted to the Americans.
Among doctors there are many Jewish nationalists.

Note that in the correct version Stalin did not call all Jews nationalists and spies, even if he thought that they really were. He was quite "politically correct" to the end.

This is not to say that he wasn't an antisemite. In fact, the book edited by Kostyrchenko is a collection of documents mainly from Stalin's era, which show the rampant antisemitism under guise of "anti-cosmopolitanism" and "anti-Zionism". The documents describe complaints about disproportionate numbers of Jews in various state institutions (from orchestras to physics departments at universities), anti-Jewish purges which followed these complaints, documents conclusively proving that Stalin personally ordered the murder of Solomon Mikhoels (but no order on paper has been found, so I guess Holocaust deniers may accept the official Soviet version of death), JAC case, Doctors' plot, etc.

Given the wealth of other evidence, this mangled quote should not be used to prove Stalin's antisemitism.

Update: Brent and Naumov on p. 355 of Stalin's Last Crime (which, by the way, has been thrashed in Kostyrchenko's review in Lechaim) give the mangled version of the quote, and cite Istochink as their source. So, it seems, they are to blame for mistranslation.