British tabloids like The Sun, Daily Star, Daily Express and Daily Mail are currently agog at the news that Himmler's diaries have been discovered in Russia, having learned that their German equivalent Bild is serialising excerpts (behind a paywall) of a remarkable discovery by German and Russian historians in the Russian archives.
Showing posts with label mainstream mistakes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mainstream mistakes. Show all posts
Monday, August 01, 2016
Thursday, August 02, 2007
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:
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
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:
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):
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.
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]:
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:
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, Loetzen18 July:
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
09:00 breakfast with Gauleiter Bracht and wifeOn 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).
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.
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.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".
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."
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.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.
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.
WJC removes Stern's comments
Apparently, WJC became embarrassed of Maram Stern's comments on the issue of Auschwitz renaming, because the news note can no longer be found in the archive. For some time it will be available through the Google cache.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Henryk Świebocki answers Maram Stern
Swiebocki:
I wish to believe, that when you made the statement you were not driven by ill will. But it rather resulted from your unfamiliarity with the subject. I do not dare to suspect you of making a suggestion that Poles are, to a certain degree, responsible for Auschwitz, and “The government in Warsaw wants […] make clear that Poland had no involvement in the death camp”.Note: I don't think it has been proven that one of the aims of the Nazis when establishing the camp has been extermination of the Poles. But that does not diminish Swiebocki's other points.
Are you aware of the fact, that Auschwitz, before it became one of the death centers for Jews, had been established by Nazi Germany to exterminate Polish population? And of the fact that its first victims were Polish citizens? And that at least 75 000 Poles perished in the camp, being the second largest group of victims?
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
"I have seen the gas chambers, I have seen the crematoria"
We've received clarification of our post about the widely circulated Oskar Groening interview for the BBC Auschwitz series.
Though we pointed up a discrepancy between the English transcript and German audiotrack of Groening's interview, it turns out, according to director Laurence Rees, that
Unlike deniers, at least we publish corrections.
Though we pointed up a discrepancy between the English transcript and German audiotrack of Groening's interview, it turns out, according to director Laurence Rees, that
the transcript correctly represents what Mr Groening said in his interview. He did say he had seen the gas chambers. But these words were not used in the final edited sequence of the film. Much fuller versions of Mr Groening's testimony are already available in published form in the book of the series which I wrote. On page 373 of the British paperback edition, for example, you can read a more complete section of his interview where he talks about seeing the gas chambers. It was this section which was edited down for inclusion in programme six of the series. Elsewhere, on page 207 he describes seeing the Zyklon B inserted into a gas chamber.
Unlike deniers, at least we publish corrections.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
'Commentary' mangles Prof. Charny's letter
[Source]
`Protestcide' - The Killing of Protest of a Denial of Genocide
Armenian News Network / Groong
March 27, 2006
by Israel W. Charny
To what extent does a publication have the right to alter a Letter to
the Editor that criticizes the publication, and then to publish their
altered version of the letter without the full permission of the
letter writer, especially in light of his explicit refusal to approve
their revision?
In December 2005, Commentary published a lengthy article denying the
Armenian Genocide by one, Guenter Lewy, a retired professor who has
previously published denials of other genocides as well, including a
denial that the Gypsies were victims of genocide in WW II (Simon
Wiesenthal defended the role of the Gypsies as fellow victims of the
Holocaust, and on several occasions wrote and told passionately of
seeing the Gypsies in Auschwitz in the barracks right next to his);
and including a denial that the Native Americans (Indians) were
victims of genocide in America. It is clear that Lewy has established
himself as an arch specialist in denial who has now relegated no less
than three victim peoples to some kind of status of sufferers other
than victims of genocidal mass murder. I think that readers of this
current Commentary piece denying there was a genocide of the Armenians
had a right to know of the author's previous publications of denials
(one of which was also in Commentary), but not a word was mentioned.
Lewy's article in Commentary is entitled, `The first genocide of the
20th century?' Lewy himself mentions in his article that the
International Association of Genocide Scholars, of which I am the
current president, had passed a unanimous resolution some years ago
confirming the validity of the Armenian Genocide. When Commentary was
approached by a colleague as to whether they would publish a rejoinder
to Lewy's article by me, the editor agreed immediately to receive a
600-word statement from me. So far to their credit. But then in the
grotesque sequence of censorship and revisions of my rejoinder that
follows, Commentary at first refused to identify my connection to the
same Association that passed the resolution, and finally did in fact
identify me as somehow affiliated with the Association but eliminated
identifying my leadership role. A personal slight? Then it's
irrelevant. Or is it a diminution of the significance of my protest?
In the meantime, Commentary published a lengthy rejoinder by Lewy in
the same issue with the following statement that, by a wave of the
Lewy-Commentary wand removes any significance to our association's
informed judgment: `I am less than impressed by the unanimous vote of
the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Armenian
case `was one of the major genocides of the modern era' writes Denier
Lewy conclusively and then presumptuously slams the members of the
association that virtually no one (but him) has done real research.
No matter. Commentary commits more serious infringements to the point
of not allowing me to voice my definite judgment about their question,
`The first genocide of the 20th century?'
In my letter I write about how the Turks also killed other Christian
(therefore non-Turkish) groups such as the Assyrians and Greeks as
well as the Armenians (the first Christian people of Europe) and that
this was `outright genocidal murder.' Commentary removed this vital
statement from my letter. Remember, the article by Lewy they have
published is asking explicitly if this was genocide, and the section
of Letters to the Editor in February is re-entitled, `Genocide?' but
my clear-cut rejoinder that it was `outright genocidal murder' was not
permitted.
Moreover, what does Lewy do? I say in my letter that I wonder if
readers of the Jewish-sponsored Commentary (this remark by me is also
censored out) know that the Turks were also responsible for two forced
expulsions of Jews from Jaffa-Tel Aviv in 1914 and 1917, both of which
resulted in losses of life of the elderly, infirm and ill. As if
referring to this information, Lewy says to me in his rejoinder,
`Mr. Charny stops short of calling these occurrences `genocide,'' but
he and the hard-working editor who we have seen manages to censor my
writing so fastidiously, thus manage to get across a message that
seems to refer to the whole bigger original issue of the Armenian
Genocide. Now, not only have I not been allowed to say what I did say
that there was clear-cut genocide, but it is as if claimed explicitly
that I too don't call the Ottoman murders genocide.
Higher-class deniers, like Lewy and Commentary, are a fascinating
study in the propagandistic logic-defying language mechanisms they
employ -- Commentary also removed from my letter a reference to an
article that Daphna Fromer and myself published in the British
journal, Patterns of Prejudice in which we analyzed the language-logic
of earlier deniers of the Armenian Genocide.
Ultimately, my most serious criticism is that Commentary is fully
responsible alongside of its author for publishing a bald exposition
of denial of an established major genocide. Thus, I conclude my
letter, `Regrettably, Mr. Lewy and Commentary too have now earned
places in the pantheon of genocide Deniers,' but -- by now you guessed
it -- you will never see that sentence, or an earlier statement
similarly critical of Commentary in the letter they published.
I ask, do responsible publications in a free world have the right to
censor and arbitrarily revise Letters to the Editor beyond
considerations of space, bad language such as epithets, and ad hominem
attacks (but not legitimate major criticisms of an author or the
publication!)? Obviously a publication holds the ultimate power and
can simply decline to publish a letter (who will ever know?). But to
cut and revise and remove and distort the thrust of the original
message, and fail to advise and fail to get approval of changes? I
don't know if there are legal controls against such tampering with the
lowly institution of a Letter to an Editor and/or op-ed writing, but I
do know such tampering violates the `natural law' of journalistic
integrity, and I think Commentary should be told so by an informed
public.
--
Prof. Israel W. Charny, Ph.D. is President of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia
of Genocide [www.abc-clio.com/product/109124] Executive Director,
Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem Prof. of Psychology
& Family Therapy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Tel & Fax:
972-2-672-0424 e-mail: encygeno@mail.com Author of forthcoming book,
Fascism and Democracy in the Human Mind, by the University of Nebraska
Press, May 2006
An e-mail transcript of all texts and correspondence between me and
Commentary is available immediately on request to encygeno@mail.com
`Protestcide' - The Killing of Protest of a Denial of Genocide
Armenian News Network / Groong
March 27, 2006
by Israel W. Charny
To what extent does a publication have the right to alter a Letter to
the Editor that criticizes the publication, and then to publish their
altered version of the letter without the full permission of the
letter writer, especially in light of his explicit refusal to approve
their revision?
In December 2005, Commentary published a lengthy article denying the
Armenian Genocide by one, Guenter Lewy, a retired professor who has
previously published denials of other genocides as well, including a
denial that the Gypsies were victims of genocide in WW II (Simon
Wiesenthal defended the role of the Gypsies as fellow victims of the
Holocaust, and on several occasions wrote and told passionately of
seeing the Gypsies in Auschwitz in the barracks right next to his);
and including a denial that the Native Americans (Indians) were
victims of genocide in America. It is clear that Lewy has established
himself as an arch specialist in denial who has now relegated no less
than three victim peoples to some kind of status of sufferers other
than victims of genocidal mass murder. I think that readers of this
current Commentary piece denying there was a genocide of the Armenians
had a right to know of the author's previous publications of denials
(one of which was also in Commentary), but not a word was mentioned.
Lewy's article in Commentary is entitled, `The first genocide of the
20th century?' Lewy himself mentions in his article that the
International Association of Genocide Scholars, of which I am the
current president, had passed a unanimous resolution some years ago
confirming the validity of the Armenian Genocide. When Commentary was
approached by a colleague as to whether they would publish a rejoinder
to Lewy's article by me, the editor agreed immediately to receive a
600-word statement from me. So far to their credit. But then in the
grotesque sequence of censorship and revisions of my rejoinder that
follows, Commentary at first refused to identify my connection to the
same Association that passed the resolution, and finally did in fact
identify me as somehow affiliated with the Association but eliminated
identifying my leadership role. A personal slight? Then it's
irrelevant. Or is it a diminution of the significance of my protest?
In the meantime, Commentary published a lengthy rejoinder by Lewy in
the same issue with the following statement that, by a wave of the
Lewy-Commentary wand removes any significance to our association's
informed judgment: `I am less than impressed by the unanimous vote of
the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Armenian
case `was one of the major genocides of the modern era' writes Denier
Lewy conclusively and then presumptuously slams the members of the
association that virtually no one (but him) has done real research.
No matter. Commentary commits more serious infringements to the point
of not allowing me to voice my definite judgment about their question,
`The first genocide of the 20th century?'
In my letter I write about how the Turks also killed other Christian
(therefore non-Turkish) groups such as the Assyrians and Greeks as
well as the Armenians (the first Christian people of Europe) and that
this was `outright genocidal murder.' Commentary removed this vital
statement from my letter. Remember, the article by Lewy they have
published is asking explicitly if this was genocide, and the section
of Letters to the Editor in February is re-entitled, `Genocide?' but
my clear-cut rejoinder that it was `outright genocidal murder' was not
permitted.
Moreover, what does Lewy do? I say in my letter that I wonder if
readers of the Jewish-sponsored Commentary (this remark by me is also
censored out) know that the Turks were also responsible for two forced
expulsions of Jews from Jaffa-Tel Aviv in 1914 and 1917, both of which
resulted in losses of life of the elderly, infirm and ill. As if
referring to this information, Lewy says to me in his rejoinder,
`Mr. Charny stops short of calling these occurrences `genocide,'' but
he and the hard-working editor who we have seen manages to censor my
writing so fastidiously, thus manage to get across a message that
seems to refer to the whole bigger original issue of the Armenian
Genocide. Now, not only have I not been allowed to say what I did say
that there was clear-cut genocide, but it is as if claimed explicitly
that I too don't call the Ottoman murders genocide.
Higher-class deniers, like Lewy and Commentary, are a fascinating
study in the propagandistic logic-defying language mechanisms they
employ -- Commentary also removed from my letter a reference to an
article that Daphna Fromer and myself published in the British
journal, Patterns of Prejudice in which we analyzed the language-logic
of earlier deniers of the Armenian Genocide.
Ultimately, my most serious criticism is that Commentary is fully
responsible alongside of its author for publishing a bald exposition
of denial of an established major genocide. Thus, I conclude my
letter, `Regrettably, Mr. Lewy and Commentary too have now earned
places in the pantheon of genocide Deniers,' but -- by now you guessed
it -- you will never see that sentence, or an earlier statement
similarly critical of Commentary in the letter they published.
I ask, do responsible publications in a free world have the right to
censor and arbitrarily revise Letters to the Editor beyond
considerations of space, bad language such as epithets, and ad hominem
attacks (but not legitimate major criticisms of an author or the
publication!)? Obviously a publication holds the ultimate power and
can simply decline to publish a letter (who will ever know?). But to
cut and revise and remove and distort the thrust of the original
message, and fail to advise and fail to get approval of changes? I
don't know if there are legal controls against such tampering with the
lowly institution of a Letter to an Editor and/or op-ed writing, but I
do know such tampering violates the `natural law' of journalistic
integrity, and I think Commentary should be told so by an informed
public.
--
Prof. Israel W. Charny, Ph.D. is President of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) Editor-in-Chief, Encyclopedia
of Genocide [www.abc-clio.com/product/109124] Executive Director,
Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem Prof. of Psychology
& Family Therapy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Tel & Fax:
972-2-672-0424 e-mail: encygeno@mail.com Author of forthcoming book,
Fascism and Democracy in the Human Mind, by the University of Nebraska
Press, May 2006
An e-mail transcript of all texts and correspondence between me and
Commentary is available immediately on request to encygeno@mail.com
Monday, April 10, 2006
WJC representative shows lack of logic
We have already written about Poland's request to change the designation of Auschwitz from "Auschwitz Concentration Camp" to "Former Nazi German Concentration Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau".
Now World Jewish Congress chimes in:
That "everybody in area knew about its existence", etc., does not change the fact that Auschwitz Birkenau was a German Nazi camp.
Really, it's not rocket science, Mr. Stern.
Update: the news item disappeared from the site. It will be available through the Google cache, until it expires.
Now World Jewish Congress chimes in:
Polish request to rename Auschwitz site met with criticismLet's be frank here: Mr. Stern's claim is silly. To repeat, the proposed new designation is "Former Nazi German Concentration Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau". This describes the camp absolutely correctly. How can a correct description "redefine history"?
07 April, 2006
The Polish government's request to change the official name of the "Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp" to "Former Nazi German Concentration Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau" has been met with criticism. Maram Stern, deputy secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, said that "they want to redefine history by changing the name". Although the camp had been built and run by Nazi Germany, everybody in the area had known about its existence and workers were recruited from the Polish population in the neighboring village. The government in Warsaw wants the history of Auschwitz, which is listed as a UNESCO world heritage site, to be separated from Polish history and make it clear that Poland had no involvement in the death camp. Officials in Warsaw expect an answer to the renaming request from UNESCO later this year.
That "everybody in area knew about its existence", etc., does not change the fact that Auschwitz Birkenau was a German Nazi camp.
Really, it's not rocket science, Mr. Stern.
Update: the news item disappeared from the site. It will be available through the Google cache, until it expires.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
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:
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):
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Friday, April 07, 2006
When deniers are right
Holocaust deniers are seldom right, even in the details. But, very rarely, their claims of falsified evidence do turn out to be correct. Such is the case with Laurence Rees' Auschwitz documentary.
The transcript of the part 6 contains the following text:
I emphasized the critical part. Portuguese denier A S Marques wrote a letter to David Irving, in which he pointed out that the words "the gas chambers" were absent from Groening's speech in the documentary itself - both in the original German, and in the translation.
Upon checking, this claim turned out to be correct. Somebody has deliberately inserted the words "the gas chambers" into the transcript, and they've spread over the Web. This is the kind of thing that keeps deniers ticking.
Update: Mr. Rees has clarified the issue in the comments. Also see this posting. It's weird that the editor(s) chose to cut out these most important words.
The transcript of the part 6 contains the following text:
Oskar Gröning: "I see it as my task, now at my age, to face up to these things that I experienced and to oppose the Holocaust deniers who claim that Auschwitz never happened. And that's why I am here today. Because I want to tell those deniers: I have seen the gas chambers, I have seen the crematoria, I have seen the burning pits - and I want you to believe me that these atrocities happened. I was there."
I emphasized the critical part. Portuguese denier A S Marques wrote a letter to David Irving, in which he pointed out that the words "the gas chambers" were absent from Groening's speech in the documentary itself - both in the original German, and in the translation.
Upon checking, this claim turned out to be correct. Somebody has deliberately inserted the words "the gas chambers" into the transcript, and they've spread over the Web. This is the kind of thing that keeps deniers ticking.
Update: Mr. Rees has clarified the issue in the comments. Also see this posting. It's weird that the editor(s) chose to cut out these most important words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)