Quantcast
Channel: Holocaust Controversies
Viewing all 610 articles
Browse latest View live

"Here They Go Again for Gassing" - Nazi Euthanasia in German Documents

$
0
0
On 16 May 1941, the Higher Regional Court President of Frankfurt, Arthur Ungewitter, reported to the Reichs Minister of Justice on what the population in the area talked about the "extermination of unworthy life":

The children are said to shout "here they go again for gassing" when they spot "the vehicles with which the sick are taken...to the liquidation institutes". It is also told that the victims are brought to a "gas room, where they would be liquidated with hydrogen cyanide and a numbing gas". Note that the actual killing agent was carbon monoxide gas, although hydrogen cyanide was another candidate considered for the Nazi Euthanasia and possibly tested earlier, in 1939, in Fort VII in Posen (see also Sonderkommando Lange in German Documents: Euthanasia 1940/41).


DOCUMENT
TRANSCRIPTION
Der Oberlandesgerichtspräsident                   Frankfurt (Main), den 16. Mai 1941

313 IIE-III 23/41.347 gRs.

An den
Herrn Reichsminister der Justiz
Berlin W 8
Wilhelmstraße 65.                                                 [Geheime Reichssache]

Betr.: Bericht über die allgemeine Lage im
Oberlandesgerichts-Bezirk Frankfurt a. M.
(Erlaß vom 9.12.1936 -1 a 11012 -).

Anlagen: 2 weitere Berichtsausfertigungen.

Meinen Lagebericht vom 3. d. M. glaube ich hinsichtlich der Stimmung der Bevölkerung noch zu der Frage der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens ergänzen zu sollen:

In den Orten, in denen sich Heil- und Pflegeanstalten befinden und in benachbarten Orten, teilweise aber schon im größeren Umkreis, z. B. im ganzen Rheingau, wird fortgesetzt über die Frage der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens gesprochen. Die Fahrzeuge, mit denen die Kranken aus ihren Unterbringungsanstalten zu Zwischenanstalten und von da zu Liquidationsanstalten gebracht werden, sind der Bevölkerung bekannt. Wie man mir sagt, rufen schon die Kinder, wenn solche Transportwagen kommen: Da werden wieder welche vergast. In Limburg sollen auf der Fahrt von Weilmünster nach Hadamar täglich 1 bis 3 große Omnibusse mit verhängten Fenstern durchkommen, die Insassen in die Liquidationsanstalt Hadamar abliefern. Dort sollen nach den Erzählungen die Ankömmlinge sofort nach Eintreffen nackt ausgezogen werden, es werde ihnen ein Papierhemd angezogen und sie würden alsbald in einen Gasraum verbracht, wo sie mit Blausäure und einem betäubenden Zusatzgas liquidiert würden. Die Leichen würden auf einem laufenden Band in einen Verbrennungsraum geschafft, jeweils 6 in einen Ofen, die anfallende Asche würde auf 6 Urnen verteilt und den Angehörigen zugeschickt. Den dicken Rauch der Verbrennungshalle sähe man täglich über Hadamar. Es wird weiter davon gesprochen, daß den Leichen in einzelnen Fällen Köpfe oder sonstige Körperteile abgeschnitten würden, um sie anatomisch untersuchen zu lassen. Das mit der Liquidation befaßte Personal dieser Anstalten, das von auswärts abgeordnet sei, werde von der Bevölkerung völlig gemieden. Das Personal sitze abends in den Gastwirtschaften und spreche dem Alkohol auffallend stark zu.

Abgesehen von dem äußeren Hergang, der die Fantasie der Bevölkerung beschäftigt, beunruhigt sich die Bevölkerung vor allem auch über die Frage, ob nicht auch alte Leute, die im Leben Tüchtiges geleistet hätten und jetzt im Alter etwas schwachsinnig geworden seien, mit liquidiert würden. Es wird davon gesprochen, daß auch die Altersheime geräumt werden sollen. Es heißt, die Bevölkerung warte auf eine gesetzliche Regelung mit einem geordneten Verfahren, damit sichergestellt sei, daß insbesondere nicht solche alten, schwachsinnig gewordenen Menschen mit in die Aktion einbezogen würden.

Es wird auch behauptet, daß Kranke, die sich in einer Privatpflege befanden, jetzt abgeholt und beseitigt würden. Weiter wird gesagt, daß Kranke, die bisher in der Anstalt noch laufend nutzbringende Arbeit geleistet hätten und deren geistiges Leben noch durchaus nicht erloschen sei, mit liquidiert würden.

Vorstehend habe ich Gerüchte wiedergegeben, wie sie nach mir gewordenen Mitteilungen in der Bevölkerung, auch in der Großstadt Frankfurt a. M., umlaufen. Eine Nachprüfung dieser Mitteilungen ist mir nicht möglich.

Zum Schluß darf ich noch auf folgendes hinweisen:
In einer Gaupresse-Konferenz in Frankfurt a. M. vom 30. April 1941 hat der Gaupresseamtsleiter Uckermann die Hauptschriftleiter darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß in der letzten Zeit in der Tagespresse des Bezirks Todesanzeigen mit einem Text festgestellt worden seien, der künftig nicht mehr zum Abdruck kommen dürfe, z. B.:

a) Nach Mitteilung der Heil- und Pflegeanstalt verschied   
b) Wie bereits erwartet, erhielten wir die Nachricht   
c) Nach langer Ungewißheit   

Nebenbei erklärte der Gaupresseamtsleiter in einer abschließenden Bemerkung, daß die Zunahme von Todesfällen infolge Krankheit im Kriege, wie allgemein, so natürlich auch in den Heil- und Pflegeanstalten, üblich sei.

[Unterschrift]
TRANSLATION
The Higher Regional Court President            Frankfurt (Main), May 16, 1941

313 IIE-III 23 / 41.347 grs.

To the
Minister of Justice
Berlin W 8
Wilhelmstrasse 65.                                     [Secret State Affair]

Subject: Report on the general situation in the Higher Regional Court District Frankfurt a. M.
(Decree of 9 December 1936 -1 a 11012 -).

Attachments: 2 further reports.

My situation report dated 3rd of the month. With regard to the mood of the population, I think I should add to the question of the extermination of unworthy life:

In the places where there are mental hospital and in neighboring places, but sometimes already in the larger area, e.g. throughout the Rheingau, the issue of the extermination of unworthy life is discussed. The vehicles with which the sick are taken from their accommodation to intermediate institutes and from there to liquidation institutes are known to the population.

As I am told, the children shout when such trucks come: Here they go again for gassing. In Limburg, on the way from Weilmünster to Hadamar, 1 to 3 large buses with curtained windows are supposed to get through every day, which deliver inmates to the Hadamar liquidation institutes. There, according to the stories, the arrivals are to be stripped naked immediately after arrival, they would be dressed with a paper shirt and soon taken to a gas room, where they would be liquidated with hydrogen cyanide and a numbing gas. The bodies would be taken to a combustion chamber on a conveyor belt, 6 each in an oven, the ashes would be distributed to 6 urns and sent to the relatives. One sees the thick smoke of the furnace hall daily over Hadamar. It is also said that heads or other parts of the body are cut off in individual cases so that they can be examined anatomically. The liquidation staff of these institutes, who were seconded from abroad, is completely avoided by the population. The staff sit in the restaurants in the evenings and are remarkably strongly indulged in alcohol.

Apart from the external course of events, which occupies the imagination of the population, the population worries above all about the question of whether even old people who have done well in life and have now become somewhat moronic in old age, would be liquidated. It is said that the old people's homes should also be cleared. It is said that the population is waiting for a legal regulation with an orderly procedure to ensure that, in particular, not such old people, who are stupid, are included in the action.

It is also alleged that the sick who were in private care were now being picked up and removed. It is further said that sick people, who had previously done useful work in the asylum and whose mental life was still not extinct, would be liquidated.

Above I have given rumors of how they are reported to me in the population, including in the city of Frankfurt a. M., circulate. A review of these messages is not possible.

Finally, I would like to point out the following:
In a Gaupresse conference in Frankfurt a. M., dated 30 April 1941, the head of the Gaupress office Uckermann informed the chief typists that in recent days in the daily press of the district death notices had been found with a text which in the future shall  not be reprinted, e.g.:

a) After notification of the health and nursing institute
b) As expected, we received the message
c) After a long period of uncertainty

Incidentally, the head of the Gaupress explained in a concluding remark that the increase in deaths from illness during the war, as is generally the case in mental hospitals, is common.

[signature]
(BArch R 3001/25021, p. 102-103; my transcription and translation)

Correction Corner #9: Höß on how long the crematoria could work continuously.

$
0
0
In his methodologically brilliant rebuttal of the Auschwitz Holocaust denial of the David Irving variety The Case for Auschwitz, 2002, Robert Jan van Pelt quotes an excerpt from Rudolf Höß' testimony during his Cracow trial (p. 262):
Even as we added another 1,000 additional inmates to the squads sorting the luggage, there was no way to speed up the action. We had not enough space to store all these things, and this is why we failed in our effort to faster send out of the camp all the clothing and belongings these people had brought to Auschwitz. No improvements could be made to the crematoria. After eight to ten hours of operation the crematoria were unfit for further use. It was impossible to operate them continuously. As Eichmann had mentioned that we should expect by the end of the year 1944 and in 1945 more transports, we planned a larger crematorium. It was to be a huge, circular brick furnace, to be built underground. Due to lack of time, it was never designed.”
This quote was seized upon by the semi-revisionist Fritjof Meyer, whose pretty pathetic 2002 article on the number of the victims of Auschwitz misused various sources to severely reduce the number of the Jewish Auschwitz victims. The quote was one of the cornerstones of Meyer's argument, signifying to him that the ovens couldn't be used 24/7 and thus the number of the victims had to be lower.

Meyer's overall thesis was soundly debunked, but when responding to this particular point, Meyer's opponents merely appealed to Höß' other statements indicating that the ovens could indeed be operated longer than the 8-10 hours in the quote. This was done by Albrecht Kolthoff, John Zimmerman and Franciszek Piper. While this response did its job, what should actually have been done is checking the Polish transcript in question.

Here is the relevant page (AGK, NTN 108, p. 170):

Höß writes about 8-10 "tygodni", i. e. weeks, not hours.

Meyer's argument had already been null and void, but this simply destroys any possibility of it having been correct. Höß merely claims that the operation couldn't be literally continuous since after a few weeks of use crematoria would have to have some repair work done (which doesn't mean they wouldn't be made operational very soon, just that the operation was not contunous - but that's nothing new, we already knew about the regular breakdowns of the crematoria due to heavy use, among other things).

While both Zimmerman and Kolthoff did not have an easy access to the transcripts, Piper did, but for some reason never bothered to check the correctness of the citation.

(For fairness' sake I will mention that this mistranslation was first pointed out by the otherwise deceptive and ignorant Holocaust denier Mattogno in his article "Über die Kontroverse Piper-Meyer: Sowjetpropaganda gegen Halbrevisionismus", VffG, 2004, Heft 1, p. 76, though it was his second attempt, in his earlier article on the Meyer affair he merely speculated about a translation mistake without however going to the original text.)

Lesson: try to go to the original sources as much as possible.

Still lying about Wiernik... and others.

$
0
0
In 2006, in the article Lying about Wiernik I exposed Mattogno and Graf's mendacity by showing that their accusations of plagiarism against Yankiel Wiernik were completely unfounded - they failed to prove that the map included in an early edition of his book was claimed to have been drawn by him (yet they still made the false claim of plagiarism) and they further falsely claimed that Wiernik claimed to have drawn his map in 1943 (he made no such claim) and by omitting the part where he explicitly says he drew it in 1944.

In a 2007 article If they're the best, what about the rest? I exposed Mattogno and Graf's dishonest omissions of eyewitness descriptions of openings on the roofs of the Treblinka gas chambers that would have been used to avoid overpressure in the chambers (even if some witnesses were unsure about their function). I pointed out that they ignored the cache of the 1944 Treblinka survivor statements given to the Soviets even while using some sketches from the same file. This alone tells everything one needs to know about their level of "research".

In the failed response (The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt", 2013) to our debunking of denial on Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor Mattogno returns to the topics of these posts insofar as they were discussed in our critique.

P. 885:
On p. 306 Myers begins to shine light on his critique:
Myers offers here another sample of his obvious bad faith. He fails to mention that Wiernik speaks about “a hermetic cap” on the roof of the “gas chambers” only in relation to the first gassing building, but not in relation to the second.
“In his Treblinka account with Graf, Mattogno criticized Wiernik for failing to include a vent opening to remove engine exhaust from the gas chambers; instead, they believe the Soviets fabricated such an opening into their drawings to make the gassing claims more technically plausible. Unfortunately, such a conclusion can only be supported through sloppy research and ignorance. Treblinka worker Abraham Goldfarb, who took part in the gas chamber construction at Treblinka but who has been entirely ignored by MGK, stated for the new chambers that ‘there was a separate opening in the roof’ for the removal of gas, while also noting that the older gas chambers had a similar vent. Wiernik himself wrote that the new gas chambers had an ‘outlet on the roof’ with a ‘hermetic cap,’ with the cap clearly being removable to ventilate out exhaust gas from the chambers. While Mattogno criticizes Wiernik for failing to provide for an exhaust vent, they quote the relevant testimony from Wiernik in the same book. Such sloppiness is inexcusable.”
While the attribution of the cap to the new gas chambers in our critique is a mistake (probably arising from Wiernik mentioning 10 new gas chambers in the previous sentence), that's a secondary point. The main point is this: Wiernik outright mentioned a hermetic cap on the roof for the old gas chambers. Mattogno and Graf knew about this, yet in their Treblinka book still wrote:
Since the Soviet judge understood significantly more about engineering than that witness, he enhanced the drawing with another element, which would have been indispensable for a hypothetical mass killing with engine exhaust fumes, but of whose necessity Wiernik had not been aware: the openings for the removal of the gas, i.e. of the air-gas mixture.
Without mentioning Wiernik's hermetic caps in the same paragraph. The point stands as before. Mattogno and Graf lied.

Further:
He refers in fact to p. 70 of our book about Treblinka (footnote 132 on p. 306) in which Wiernik’s description of this building is quoted, but not to the next page in which the description of the second building is quoted. Goldfarb’s testimony, as seen previously, also refers to the first building. “Such sloppiness is inexcusable.”
Here Mattogno lies outright, since as I pointed out in my article linked to above, Goldfarb explicitly mentioned the openings in the ceiling in both sets of gas chambers and for the new ones he explicitly identified its function:
For removal of the gas from the chamber there was a separate opening in the roof.
I concluded in this article:
So Jurovskij did not just imagine these openings for gas removal! Now re-read what M&G wrote. Don't they appear as ignorant conspiraloons in light of these facts?
Well, yes, they still do.

P. 888 of the "response", on Wiernik's alleged plagiarism:
Coming back to the suspicion of plagiarism, first of all, according to the Wiernik’s description, the first gassing facility contained four rooms in total, three “gas chambers” and one “elektrownia” (“power station plant”) which, according to the American translation, “operated alongside these chambers,” but the Polish text (a machine written account of 22 pages which made up for all later narrations) says: “the power station plant was located along the chambers [wzdłuż komory znajdowała się elektrownia]” and not behind one of them as appears in his drawing. The fifth room, no. 27, the one “with dentists sorting teeth taken from the dead,” is never mentioned.
A patent falsification: Wiernik choosing to describe only four rooms in his text is not the same as "according to the Wiernik’s description, the first gassing facility contained four rooms in total". Thus there is no contradiction between his text and his sketch.

Mattogno's confusion is in itself confusing. Obviously, the power station plant couldn't be located on the long side of the building since on both long sides there were doors. So when Wiernik writes about the power plant located "along" the chamber (note that he uses singular "chamber", not plural in the excerpt Mattogno quotes), he may not the using the best word (it's not a precise technical report after all), but he can only mean what Mattogno names "behind" the chamber. There is no contradiction whatsoever.

Mattogno's mendacious "suspicion of plagiarism" has failed so far.
Secondly, in Wiernik’s sketch, close to the bottom-right corner of room 26 (Illustration 8.14) there is a small circle which, according to the caption, represents a “well.” This is mentioned in the report about the “steam rooms,” but not in Wiernik’s description, who therefore took this small detail from this source as well.
Non sequitur. Logical fail. Wiernik not describing something as mundane as a well in his text but placing it on his sketch does not confirm any plagiarism in any way, shape or form. Moreover, it wouldn't be plagiarism even had Wiernik's memory been stimulated in this regard by the sketch appended to the November 15, 1942 report. It appears that Mattogno doesn't even understand what plagiarism is.
The report 15 November 1942 contains all elements of his plagiarism: the type of building (“a brick construction”), the number and layout of the rooms, the presence of pipes in them, the presence of a Diesel engine.
Mattogno lies about Wiernik's plagiarism which he has been unable to establish, and hopes that repetition will do the trick. Both Wiernik and the November 1942 report describe the same building, so pointing to the bare-bones descriptions of the building as evidence of plagiarism is laughable. Moreover, notice Mattogno's deceptive trick - Wiernik's text does not say the motor was a diesel.

Pp. 888-9:
The issue of the “hermetic cap” deals the final blow to Wiernik’s credibility. A handwritten draft of his report exists titled “Report of a Jew, an escapee from Treblinka, Jankl Wiernik, living in Warsaw at Wołyńska street 23, 53 years old [Relacje Żyda, uciekiniera z Treblinki, Jankla Wiernika, zamieszkałego w Warszawy przy ul. Wołyńskiej 23, lat 53],” in which the first gassing building is described as follows:
“Plać zabudowany 13 komorami gazowymi (kąpiel). Komora gazowa 2m wysokości 7m długości i 7m szerokości. Z jednej strony [normalne] drzwi wejściowe. Po stronie przeciwnej – klapa którą się otwiera po zagazowaniu ludzi, tamtędy też wyciąga się trupów. Na dachu klapa bezpieczeństwa używana w wypadku uśmiercania ludzi chlorem. Po rzucenia odpowiedniej ilości chloru klapą zamyka się hermetycznie.”
“13 gas chambers (bath) were built in the place. A gas chamber is 2 m high, 7 m long and 7 m wide. On one side [normal] entry doors. On the opposite side – a flap gate which opens after the gassing of the people; from there corpses are extracted. On the roof a safety valve used in case of killing people with chlorine. After throwing in the proper amount of chlorine the lid closes hermetically.”
At that time Wiernik had not yet decided what the alleged method of extermination was, hence he picked up rumors of killings with chlorine spread even about Sobibór, which was also echoed by the witnesses Szymon Goldberg and Samuel Rajzman for Treblinka.
It cannot be excluded that some other chemical (that some witnesses identified - not necessarily correctly - as "chlorine") was experimented with for gassings. We know after all that even gas vans were experimented with at Belzec, so why not also some other chemical substance?

Even if this hypothesis turns out to be incorrect (and I don't see how Mattogno can prove that it is), this would only indicate a wrong assumption on Wiernik's part, nothing more. He still mentioned the ceiling openings and Mattogno and Graf still made their mendacious claims about the witnesses not mentioning such openings.

Notably, above Mattogno complained that Wiernik only mentioned such caps for the old gas chambers. Yet he himself now quotes Wiernik's early text which clearly describes the new gas chambers (7x7 m) and thus attributes the cap to them too. In fact, in this early text Wiernik describes all 13 gas chambers at once, and while this is not too precise, he uses the dimensions of the "majority" gas chambers (the 10 new ones) in his description of all gas chambers.

In his later texts he would divide the descriptions (5 x 5 m for the old chambers, 7 x 7 m for the new chambers). In regard to this Mattogno writes:
In the published Polish report, the passage which interests us goes asfollows:
“Wielkość komory wynosiła 5x5 m., razem 25 m. kw, wysokość 1,90 m. Wylot na dachu z hermetycznym zamknięciem i wloty rury, podłoga terakotowa pochyla ku rampie.”
“Chamber size was 5 × 5 m, altogether 25 sq.m., height of 1.90 m. On the roof an outlet with a hermetic cap and inlet pipes, the terra-cotta floor slanting toward the ramp.”
There are several elements worth noting in this text. The first refers to the dimensions of the gas chambers, which are 5 m × 5 m × 1.90 m in the typed version, while the handwritten text says 7 m × 7 m × 2 m. All this comes from a reworking of the data contained in the report of 15 November 1942, which mentions (for the second gassing building) “gas chambers” of 35 m² each 2 meters high. Wiernik has therefore taken this height and has broken the surface in 5 m × 7 m (= 35 m²), and, in the final version, the respective single digits have been allotted to the first (5 × 5) and to the second (7 × 7) gassing building, allowing himself a little freedom on the height (1.90 m instead of 2 m).
None of this is based on fact, all of this is sheer speculation by the lying paranoiac. This second text refers specifically to the 3 old chambers, whereas the earlier text referred to all the 13 chambers (while giving the dimensions of the 10 new chambers). There is not a slightest sign of any "reworking of the data contained in the report of 15 November 1942". The report does not mention the linear dimensions of the chambers, Mattogno's claim that "Wiernik has therefore taken this height and has broken the surface in 5 m × 7 m (= 35 m²), and, in the final version, the respective single digits have been allotted to the first (5 × 5) and to the second (7 × 7) gassing building" is pure fantasy. The word "therefore" is completely out of place here, it's not a logical conclusion from the data, it's almost literally something that Mattogno pulled out of his butt!
The second element is the terra-cotta floor (“podłoga terakotowa”) of the “gas chambers,” which is equally copied from the 15 November 1942 report: “The floor in the chambers has a terra-cotta inlay [Podłoga w komorach wyłożona jest posadzką terakotową].” Wiernik’s plagiarism is therefore an indubitable fact.
Or they simply saw the same terracotta floor! Just as Abraham Krzepicki did in 1942 (A. Donat, The Death camp Treblinka, 1979, p. 105):
The floor was covered with orange terra cotta tiles.
Once again Mattogno outright invents plagiarism where there is none.

It is notable that terracotta tiles were found in the gas chambers area during the recent archaeological digs at Treblinka.

Source: C. Sturdy Colls, M. Branthwaite, "'This is Proof'? Forensic Evidence and Ambiguous Material Culture at Treblinka Extermination Camp", International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 2017, 22(3).
P. 890:
As shown above, Jurowski’s sketch of the first gassing building originates from the drawing in Wiernik’s booklet, and this also applies to the description given in Goldfarb’s witness testimony.
Needless to say, nothing close to it has been shown "above".

Pp. 890-1:
As for the second building, Jurowski’s plagiarism is even more obvious. The findings of the preliminary investigation had in fact concluded the alleged existence of 12 gas chambers of 6 m × 6 m, in which the victims had been killed by pumping out the air.
During the second investigation no witness described the second gassing building in a manner consistent with Jurowski’s design, and therefore one must naturally ask what his source was. In order to clarify the question, we must return to the issue of Wiernik’s plagiarism concerning the second gassing building in relation to the first.
Here Mattogno is outright lying once again. Abraham Goldfarb on 21.09.1944 (GARF 7445-2-134, p. 30):
Поднимаясь по ступенькам вы входите в длинный коридор, от которого вправо и влево расположено по пять камер с той только разницей, что с левой стороны рядом с последней камерой, маленькая комната для мотора.
Climbing up the stairs you enter a long corridor, from where to the right and left there are five chambers each, with the only difference that on the left side next to the last chamber [there is] a small room for the engine.
Mendel Korytnicki on 23.09.1944 (GARF 7445-2-134, p. 56b):
К этому времени уже было готово и функционировало первое здание "бани", состоящее из трех камер, второе, десятикамерное находилось в стадии строительства.
By that time, the first "bathhouse" building, consisting of three chambers, was ready and functioning, and the second, ten-chamber building was under construction.
The liar goes on (p. 891):
A comparison of Illustrations 8.15, 8.16 and 8.17 shows the relation of the plan enclosed in the booklet A Year in Treblinka (Ill. 8.16) and of  Wiernik’s plan published in 1945 (Ill. 8.17) with that of the 1942 report (Ill. 8.15), and also the relation of Jurowski’s plan (Ill. 8.18) with that published in A Year in Treblinka (Ill. 8.16). Because the original plan has no eleventh room for the engine, Jurowski took a chunk of the corridor to accommodate the engine (Ill. 8.18), and the same thing was later done by Wiernik.
Actually, as was pointed out to Mattogno in 2007, Yurovsky's plan is based on Goldfarb's testimony. And indeed, Goldfarb described just the engine room seen on the plan.

So we see the room on the plan not because "the original plan has no eleventh room for the engine" but because Yurovsky's plan was based on Goldfarb. Mattogno is committing the very same mendacious "mistake" that was pointed out to him in my article!

And note how he falsely accusess even Yurovsky of plagiarism now. Seems like this very sick mind sees imaginary plagiarists in every corner...

P. 891:
At the Eichmann trial, Wiernik declared under oath: “[Attorney General] – After the War, immediately following the War, you drew a sketch of Treblinka? [Witness Wiernik] – Yes. This is it. I drew it. I prepared it when I was still underground, after my liberation in 1943. I drew it.” Therefore Wiernik would have drawn up his plan already in 1943 (and not in 1944).
And once again Mattogno is lying. He is simply repeating the very same claim that was debunked by me in 2006. As I have already pointed out, Mattogno has completely failed at basic English and Wiernik did not claim to have drawn the sketch in 1943. Rather:
He claimed to have drawn it after his liberation (which happened in 1943), while still in underground. I.e., M&G can't comprehend English.
Furthermore, Mattogno deliberately ignored Wiernik's explicit dating of the sketch:
Later in the testimony Wiernik was asked more questions about the sketch T/1300:
Judge Halevi: [to witness] When you were a member of the Armia Ludowa, was it then that you drew this sketch?
Witness Wiernik: I prepared it when I was working in Warsaw in the Tashitza Palace. The SS was there on the one side, and I was a night watchman against air attacks - I also have a certificate about that. I used to sit there at night. Nobody disturbed me, and I gradually made that sketch.
Q. Do you remember in what month and what year you drew this sketch?
A. It was in 1944. It took a long time. I also wrote A Year in Treblinka. In 1944, it was already in America, via the underground.
So he explicitly said that he drew it in 1944. I.e., M&G didn't even read his rather short testimony in full.
And they still haven't - all those years later! They chose to lie instead.

P. 891:
Myers further writes that “nowhere in the text of his account does Wiernik refer to the map illustration.” In his booklet Wiernik wrote:
“I, for one, resolved to give the world a description of the inferno and a sketch of the layout of that accursed hell hole.”
The earliest typewritten Polish text we have is much more simple and precise:
“Naszkicowałem plan miejsca zbrodni, by światu pokazać.”
“I have sketched a map of the crime scene to show to the world.”
And? Where is the reference specifically to the sketch based on the November 1942 version? The point stands: nowhere in the text of his account does Wiernik refer to the November 1942 version. Moreover, Mattogno hides the context of the second excerpt:
Chcieliśmy żyć. Ja za cel sobie obrałem żyć, by to opisać. Naszkicowałem plan miejsca zbrodni, by światu pokazać. To dodało mi mocy do walki z tymi szatanami.
We wanted to live. My goal was to live in order to describe it. I drew up a plan of the crime scene to show to the world. It gave me the power to fight these devils.
Note that Wiernik is talking specifically about the preparations to the August 2 revolt. So if we are to take his past tense ("drew up a plan") literally, then he is talking about some sketch he made in the camp, so not about the 1944 sketch we are discussing in the first place. Quite possibly this was meant to convey his wish to draw up such a sketch in the future (as is evident from later editions). Whatever the case, this doesn't prove that the 1944 sketch existed at the time of the first publication of the book.

P. 891:
But the most extraordinary matter is the fact – obviously omitted by Myers – that the Polish original brochure by Wiernik, which was used for the translation, does not contain any map at all!
Which, if at all relevant, would simply further confirm that there is no evidence that Wiernik was referring to the sketch based on the one attached to the November report.

P. 892:
Here we must point out another of Myers’s tricks. On p. 307 he presents these two plans (reproduced as Illustrations 8.19 and 8.20) with the following caption: “Compare the map included in Wiernik’s 1944 report (left) with the map Wiernik testified to drawing (right).” In reality the plan published on pp. 24f. of Wiernik’s booklet is the one which appears in Illustration 8.21.
The plan published by Myers, however (Ill. 8.19), has been clumsily tampered with, cutting out the second gassing building completely!
Worse than that, even the Wiernik plan published by Friedman and used by Myers (Ill. 8.20) was cut, as is apparent from Illustration 8.22, which reproduces the plan recognized by Wiernik as his own during the Eichmann trial. This partial image corresponds perfectly to that published by Filip Friedman in 1946 (Ill. 8.22a).
The liar Mattogno ascribing mendacious "tricks" to us? It is to laugh. Any trivial reverse image search would have shown Mattogno that the image we used comes from http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm. A slight technical oversight, for sure, but while it would have been better to use a more complete image, it doesn't help Mattogno and Graf in the slightest because every single point stands. And Mattogno never explains what has been "cut" from the second image, which more or less corresponds to the image at http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/t/Image150.gif - from his own book.

OK, let's use the images from Mattogno's own Treblinka book for the comparison:


Here is what we wrote:
Wiernik did testify during the Eichmann trial to drawing a map of Treblinka in 1944, which was subsequently published in 1945; Mattogno claims that with this map “the plagiarism shows up even more glaringly,” but do not provide any details or reasoning behind their statement. A simple comparison of the two maps [...] shows anything but plagiarism.[137]  

[137] Among other points, Wiernik’s 1944 map has more buildings in the reception area, more buildings in the extermination area, slightly different positioning of various buildings and the path to the gas chambers, has cremation grates and differently numbered buildings, and does not have any signs of orientation. The maps also look to be drawn by two different people.
Surprise, surprise: every single point still stands. Mattogno's plagiarism accusation is still a lie debunked by this simple comparison.

P. 893-4:
In this context, the question of whether the plan enclosed in the American edition of the Wiernik’s book has been designed by him or by others becomes entirely secondary for two reasons: first, as I documented above, Wiernik has undoubtedly plagiarized the plan of the 15 November 1942 report; second, the plan drawn up by Wiernik (Ill. 8.22 and 8.22a) clearly follows that of the report in question, so that his “testimony” depends both discursively and graphically on the 15 November 1942 report.
Watch the exposed liar backtrack! Suddenly, his initial plagiarism accusation "becomes entirely secondary"! No, it doesn't, because Mattogno and Graf did make this accusation and they made it on false grounds. It is thus of primary importance for judgment of Mattogno and Graf's own credibility. (Needless to say, contrary to Mattogno, he didn't establish any plagiarism or dependency between Wiernik and the November 1942 report/sketch).

P. 899:
To summarize, Myers’s position is hopeless: on the one hand Wiernik’s plagiarism is indubitable, and on the other the question of authorship is inescapably bad. If the Treblinka sketch published in his booklet was drawn by himself, this constitutes another confirmation of his plagiarism. However, if it was not drawn by him, then Myers must explain, preferably with some evidence, why Wiernik, in his 1944 booklet, did not include a map referenced in the text which he had drawn in 1943 – or for what reason the editors did not publish it.
As we have already seen, the map was drawn by him in 1944, not 1943, as to why the map (if it even existed at the time of the book's publication - see the discussion above) wasn't printed in the first edition, first of all, who cares at all, second, if there was a map at all, it was quite possibly a purely typographical difficulty, maybe the underground didn't - at this particular moment - have the time and/or the resources necessary to include elaborate drawings like Wiernik's sketch (the first edition of the book is extremely simply made). Whatever the reason was, once again, who cares and how is it relevant?

To summarize, so far the only evidence Mattogno has provided is of his own lies in regard to Wiernik's alleged plagiarism. He couldn't provide any evidence of his accusations and in process he lied even more than in the original book, already debunked by us. Both Mattogno's defence and his attack have failed. He's an incompetent wannabe pseudoresearcher and a mendacious pseudohistorian.

On fakes, misunderstandings and sensationalist headlines.

$
0
0
A few days ago Tablet published an article by Mel Laytner entitled "How a Fake Nazi Document Fooled the Experts".

The article itself is a good piece of research. Laytner points out that many publications and exhibitions have used an alleged document in which the Nazis supposedly calculated the "profitability" of the averge inmate including the allowance for the costs of cremation and the use of ashes and bones. From the information gathered by Laytner it becomes clear that claims about the alleged document are based on the data published by the survivor and historian Eugen Kogon in 1946 and then republished by Reimund Schnabel in the book Macht ohne Moral and then mistaken by various authors as an actual document.

Unfortunately, the title of the article, chosen not by the author but rather by a Tablet editor (acc. to a personal communication from Mel Laytner) is absolutely misleading. There is no actual document involved, so there was no "fake Nazi document" to speak of, nobody forged an actual document in this case.

Let's look deeper into the issue of the alleged document. In the book Der SS-Staat Kogon presents the information in question as follows (translated version quoted from The Theory and Practice of Hell, Berkley Books, 1998, pp. 301-2):
No super Jew of Streicher's ever accomplished what SS Lieutenant-General Pohl managed to do-putting the mass utilization of human bodies on an efficiency basis. During his lifetime each concentration-camp slave, obtained without capital investment, represented the following profit value when fully "utilized" from a financial aspect: 
Daily farming-out wage, 6 to 8 marks, average 6.00
Minus: 1. Food 0.60
2. Clothing Depreciation 0.10 0.70
5.30
Multiplied by 270 (average life span of nine months) 1,431 marks
Efficient utilization of the prisoner's body at the end of nine months increased this profit by the return from:
(1) Dental gold
(2) Personally owned clothing (part of which was used in other camps, reducing expenses for new clothing, while part was utilized in respinning for army uniforms)
(3) Valuables left by the deceased
(4) Money left by the deceased
(Down to the early war years, money and valuables were returned only to the families of the minority of prisoners who were German citizens)
From these returns must be deducted an average cremation cost of two marks per prisoner, but the direct and indirect profit per body averaged at least 200 marks
In many cases it ran to many thousands of marks
The total profit per prisoner, at an average turnover rate of nine months, therefore ran to at least 1,630 marks
Here and there a concentration camp obtained additional revenue from the utilization of bones and ashes
Let it not be thought that this calculation is my own handiwork. It comes from SS sources, and Pohl jealously guarded against "outside interference." The SS Main Economic and Administrative Office forever sent out inspectors to counter small- or large-scale competition, such as the German police in the east tried to establish in the form of "labor camps,""police detention camps," and the like. 
It is obvious that this calculation is not presented by Kogon as any sort of a document. It is clear already from the language (decidedly informal and in past tense; not presented as a document citation either). It is Kogon's own text. Now, he claims that the calculation was created by the SS ("sie ist von SS-Seite aufgestellt worden"). This means he claims the SS as his own source.

We can practically exclude that he had a direct access to some sort of high-level WVHA stats. But Kogon himself was a privileged prisoner in Buchenwald, he was a valued assistant (a secretary) to the infamous Nazi doctor Erwin Ding-Schuler who conducted human experiments in Buchenwald. Kogon may have discussed the data similar to that published in his book with Ding-Schuler and other SS doctors, who could have made some speculative remarks, they may have even made a similar informal calculation just for fun. This would then be Kogon's probable SS source. (It should be added that we also cannot entirely exclude that Kogon partially invented the data. Some scholars suspect him of tampering with other evidence, cf. P. Weindling, Epidemics and Genocide in Eastern Europe, 1890-1945, 2000, p. 354, incl. fn143).

In any case, without being able to verify the exact source of Kogon's data and the veracity of the transmission of the information by him the numbers are entirely useless. It certainly cannot be established from Kogon's uncorroborated and unsourced claim what the SS officially thought on the matter. This might have remained a probably speculative, and thus ignorable, claim by a historian if not for Raimund Schnabel's 1957 document collection Macht ohne Moral, which printed Kogon's numbers without specifying the source on p. 203 (Kogon's book is only mentioned in the general literature list).

As Laytner points out, Schnabel clearly marked this as a citation (even if he didn't specify where this citation comes from), and not a document, by using the letter "Z" (Zitat) instead of "D" (Dokument). It is also clear that it's not even a literal citation from Kogon but merely a short, dry, reformulated and partially confused (note the wrong line order) summary of Kogon's data. E. g. "here and there a concentration camp obtained additional revenue from the utilization of bones and ashes" becomes "additionally, the proceeds from the utilization of bones and ashes".

What happened next is painfully clear - a hapless author, or several, misunderstood this as Schnabel quoting an actual Nazi document. Then other authors quoted the first ones. And so on, and on, and on... (Someone apparently even made a copy of this page, which copy was then misunderstood by someone else as a copy of an original document.) We've seen this before.

Clearly, we see a scholarly failure here. Laziness, overreliance on secondary sources, what have you. (That's why here, at this blog, we try to publish as many originalkeydocumentsaspossible.)

But none of this requires an explanation of fakery. Hanlon's razor: this is a big, dumb mistake, a misunderstanding. No fake document actually existed, there was no document at all in the first place.

Laytner writes in the article:
The episode provides a cautionary lesson in how a dramatic document of problematic provenance insinuated itself into the conventional wisdom about the Holocaust - and may have inadvertently provided ammunition to deniers.
But an accusation of scholarly laziness arguably pales, ammunition-wise, in comparison with a false accusation of fakery which the Tablet editors (though not Laytner) have now made, handing the actual ammunition to the low-brow chan/Twitter/etc. online hordes who are usually content to post screnshots of sensationalist headlines as quick visual "gotchas". And they are not wasting any time.


So this is darkly ironic. Tablet should rectify the situation.

"Russian Insider" Lies about the Spread of Holocaust Denial in Hungary and Poland

$
0
0
"Only 17% of Hungarians Believe the 'Holocaust' Happened, 21% in Poland"

Would you believe this headline? I mean that Holocaust denial - one of the world's least appealing and alluring conspiracy theories - gained such a momentum in Hungary and Poland (two countries that saw a large part of its Jewish population systematically mass exterminated by the Nazis during the Second World War) that only a small minority still believe the Holocaust happened? Seriously?

Source of the claim: the antisemtic web site "Russian Insider". Enough said.

The statement is indeed a lie. The figure below shows the actual result of the survey (data taken from "ADL Global100"): 



Now the shocking news to all Holocaust deniers (especially to Nicholas "the International Red Cross...visited Auschwitz regularly throughout the war to checkout its hygiene standards" Kollerstrom aka "astro", who considered the lying article published at "Russian Insider" apparently so exciting that he shared it on a heavily censored"Revisionist"internet forum):

For less than 1% of the population in Hungary and Poland, the statement "the Holocaust is a myth and never happened" comes closest to their views about the Holocaust. While the figures of 18% and 16% of the population in Poland and Hungary, respectively, doubting its magnitude appear to be somewhat disturbing, even this minority is still affirming the Holocaust as such and thus presumably fundamentally contradicting Holocaust denial.

Here's the next disillusioning piece of free information for "Revisionists" we have compiled from the results of the ADL Global100 survey:  it does not look much better for them in the rest of the world. 


(note that I would take the results of the survey with a pinch of salt as it might have been discriminatory towards people who did not know the term "Holocaust"; it would have been more meaningful for determining the actual spread of Holocaust denial if the term was also explained, most preferable with a range of death toll)

Solving the mystery of the seventh gas chamber of Majdanek.

$
0
0
For decades after the war the State Museum at Majdanek claimed that the camp's so-called new crematorium had a homicidal chamber. After the historian Tomasz Kranz became its new director, the official Museum death toll for the camp was revised downwards (to 78,000), but aside from that Kranz also reduced the number of the claimed homicidal gas chambers from 7 to 2. One of the formerly alleged gas chambers which the current Museum no longer acknowledges is the concrete room in the crematorium.[1]

So far no scholarly publication has managed to explain why the room was claimed to have been a gas chamber and what function it actually served.

In this article we'll try to fill that void.

The so-called new crematorium at Majdanek, built in 1943, was nearly totally destroyed by a fire right before the liberation of the camp by the Soviet forces. On the photos made shortly after the liberation one can usually see the ovens and the chimney (often with scaffolding, made by the Soviets apparently in order to install the iron bands, such as seen there nowadays, so that the chimney, obviously damaged by the fire and now having no surrounding supporting structures, doesn't crumble).

Fig. 1. The remains of the crematorium, including the entrance to the room (with two openings in the wall) that would be claimed to be a gas chamber.[2]
Fig. 2. Human remains near  the entrance to the room (with two openings in the wall) that would be claimed to be a gas chamber.[3]
Fig. 3. The remains of the crematorium before the chimney was provided with the scaffolding, including a behind view of the room that would be claimed to be a gas chamber.[4]
No testimony so far is known to us that would describe gassings in the crematorium in credible detail. There are vague, general, short claims in very few testimonies  that allege homicidal gassings in the crematorium, but they don't stem from people who would necessarily be in-the-know about the crematorium but rather mostly originate with what we would call "casual" witnesses. The mentioned gassings are not claimed to have been personally seen by the witnesses, so these are not eyewitness claims but hearsay at best (probably repeating the rumors), some of the statements explicitly saying as much.[5] The absolute majority of the Majdanek statements that mention both the gas chambers and the crematoria strictly separate the two (usually by locating the gas chambers somewhere in the bath complex and/or describing the bodies of the victims as transported to the crematorium).[6]

Even though the Museum would subsequently claim that there was a homicidal gas chamber in the new crematorium (based apparently on the vague non-eyewitness testimonies)[7], it should be noted that the Polish-Soviet commission that investigated the camp in August 1944, while identifying the room in question as a "gas chamber" three times in their report (twice in the text, once in an appendix), never ascribed any homicidal role to it.[8]

The report, or act, dated 4-23.08.1944, was quite clear on the issue: in the beginning it speaks of "six gas chambers" [9] and in the conclusion it only mentions these 6 gas chambers as established homicidal gas chambers, using only these 6 for a gassing capacity calculation (fig. 4).[10]

Fig. 4. The gassing capacity calculation based on the gas chamber areas.
The crematorium "gas chamber" is not even mentioned in the conclusion.

Neither do the protocols of the Polish-Soviet commission's sessions contain so much as a hint that there was any gas chamber in the crematorium, even when the crematorium is discussed explicitly.[11] In the protocol no. 3 from 22.08.1944 only 6 homicidal gas chambers are identified.[12]

Nevertheless, it is true that the commission's final report identified a certain room in the new crematorium as some sort of a "gas chamber". According to the report, the "gas chamber" is one of the few structures that survived the fire[13]:
During the inspection of the buildings it was found, that all wooden parts of the buildings are burned [...]. After the fire only all brick, concrete and ferroconcrete buildings and parts of buildings remain, among them:
a/ the incineration ovens with the upper smoke channel and flues;
b/ the smoke chimney with two ventilation plants;
v/ the concrete room of the gas chamber with ferroconcrete roofing and two small windows for observation on the side of the morgue;
g/ the brick wall separating the bathtub room and the toilet from the dissection anteroom;
d/ the brick wall separating the dissection room from the dissection anteroom;
e/ a part of the brick wall before the entrance into the bathtub room and
k/ the foundations, the brick plinths and concrete floors of all the mentioned 12 rooms and the concrete table installed on concrete posts in the dissection room.
It is identified as a gas chamber in a table with the crematorium rooms (fig. 5, room no. 3[14]; the words "газовая камера" are handwritten, and we will come back to this issue shortly).

Fig. 5. The list of crematoria rooms.
And it can be seen on the plan of the crematorium drawn by the commission (fig. 6, room no. 3[15]):

Fig. 6. 1: incineration room 2: dissection room; 3: gas chamber; 4: corpse storage; 5: fuel storage; 6: dissection anteroom; 7: bathtub room; 8: toilet; 9: ventilation room; 10-12: rooms; 13: corridor.
Interestingly enough, the text of the report doesn't mention the square hole in the ceiling of the room (later assumed by the Museum to have been a Zyklon B introduction hole) which would have been an important feature of a homicidal gas chamber, but the hole does appear in the section A-A of the crematorium building in the appendix to the report[16] in the roof of the concrete bunker (fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Section A-A (see the plan above) through the "gas chamber" (the concrete bunker on the left).
Fig. 8. The ceiling hole as it looks now. ©C. Mattogno[17]
The section is obviously partially a reconstruction, since the wooden structures around the concrete bunker burned down, including any wooden parts that could have been inside the hole (above the rebar), albeit the chimney structure would have probably been built around the hole anyway, just as depicted in the section.[18]

What was the room's function? The French researcher J.-C. Pressac claimed that on a German plan the room is identified as a morgue.[19] He doesn't cite any source for this claim. We haven't found such a plan in the scholarly literature. Neither is it known to the Holocaust deniers C. Mattogno and J. Graf, who in their "monograph" on the camp published quite a few original German plans of the new crematorium, and such a plan would have been very important for their thesis (denying homicidal gas chambers).[20] The latest plan they found was from 23.11.1942 and the annexes in which the concrete bunker in question resided had not yet appeared in the plan, but there already is a morgue (fig. 9).[21]

Fig. 9. The 23.11.1942 crematorium plan, still without the annexes. The room on the left: "Leichen-Halle", i.e. morgue.
Pressac's unsourced claim thus cannot be taken seriously and was probably just a mix-up on his part, confusing the morgue to the left of the oven room with the concrete bunker ("gas chamber"). Mattogno and Graf claim that the room was probably a "funeral parlor or urn room", without giving their reasoning. They may have been influenced by a statement of the crematorium's head Erich Mussfeld made on 13.08.1947 in Cracow[22]:
The part of the building located on the side of the crematorium chimney was walled up as Fachwerk ["post-and-beam" construction]. In that part there was a morgue /Leichenhalle/, a dissection room /Sezierraum/, coke storage room /Koksschuppen/ and a hall for corpse viewing /Leichensausbahrungsraum/ [sic! Actually: Leichenaufbahrungsraum].
This apparently refers to the design of the roof (cf. the section A-A in fig. 7 which exhibits a Fachwerk-like design, probably reconstructed on the basis of early testimonies) and thus refers to all the rooms to the "left" side of the chimney on the plan. Thus, the room for corpse viewing - a funeral parlor - would either be the room 6 on the Polish-Soviet plan (dissection anteroom) or 3 ("gas chamber").

On the one hand Mussfeld would have been best positioned to name the purposes of all the rooms. And that he doesn't mention any gas chamber is significant - it can hardly be argued that he didn't mention it so as not to incriminate himself, since he readily talks about his incriminating activities (on a much larger scale) related to the Auschwitz crematoria and gas chambers.

On the other hand, assuming he did mean the concrete bunker as a funeral parlor and was intending to tell the truth, it may not have been the only or the main function of the room. We will shortly see that this is indeed the case.

As we have noted before, in the Soviet technical report/act about the gas chambers the words "gas chamber" are handwritten in the table listing all the crematorium rooms. In fact, there was something else typed there, and then partially scrubbed (fig. 10).

Fig. 10. "Газовая камера" = "gas chamber". There are fewer handwritten letters than there are typed ones.
One can clearly see the outlines of some of the letters of the initial semi-erased text (fig. 11).

Fig. 11. The visible letters.
The first 7-letter word has "К" and "т". It is most probably "Комната", "room" (the same word as used for the room no. 10). The general outlines of some of the visible parts of the other letters (like "мн") generally match, if we consider that the authors tried to rub out the initial words. In any case, we cannot find another match.

The 7-letter word or part of a word in the second line beginning with "ср" and ending with "ств" is unlikely to be anything but "средств" (plural genitive of sredstvo = medium, substance, agent). We don't see a viable alternative here either.

The last three letters in the first line, the last of them being "з", most probably build a compound noun with the last word. There are three versions we can think of.

1. "дез" - an abbreviation of "дезинфицирующих", an adjectival form of "disinfection", in which case the whole would read "дезсредств" - disinfection substances.

2. "хоз" -  an abbreviation of "хозяйственных", referring to the household use, in which case the whole would read "хозсредств" - household substances, or, more properly, household chemicals.

3. "газ" - "gas", in which case the whole would read "газсредств" - gas substances/agents.

All the variants  are theoretically possible in Russian, albeit the third one would be a pure occasionalism. It seems however that the "wide" upper element of the first letter, that can still be seen, excludes the variant 1, since the upper stroke of "д" is narrow. Moreover, there seems to be a gap in the upper stroke of the first letter which indicates that the letter is a semi-erased "х" rather than a "г" (fig. 12).

Fig. 12. A comparison of the letters.
It would seem that the most probable reading of the original typed text is then "Комната хозсредств" (room for household chemicals).

Now we come to two important witness statements. First of all, let's deal with the 1945 memoir of the Soviet Majdanek inmate Suren Barutchev.[23] Barutchev was an experienced surgeon already before the war. After the liberation he was tasked with organizing a Majdanek exhibition for the Military-Medicine Museum, then residing in Moscow. While he doesn't claim to be an eyewitness to the gas chambers, he certainly tried gathering as much information as possible. As his sources of knowledge about the crematorium he gives his May 1944 talks with a POW named Anatoly Sklyarov (whose descriptions he later found to be too simplified) and own numerous visits to the crematorium together with the Soviet commission.[24]

He describes the inside of the crematorium part that was facing the Field 5 as follows[25]:
[...] a big chamber 10 x 10 m apparently for storing corpses; a hall(handwritten insert) small chamber (/handwritten insert) 10 x 7 m for poisoning with chlorine gas; (handwritten insert) connected to the small chamber with two large openings (/handwritten insert) a storage room for chlorinated lime 7 x 7 m and a dissection room for autopsies of some corpses. Behind the wall, in the corridor, near the dissection room, there was a bathtub.
Fig. 13. The relevant excerpt from a draft of Barutchev's memoir.
He claimed that this gas chamber was used when the main gas chambers (in the concrete bunker near the bath) were busy.

From the sizes of the rooms it is clear that Barutchev thought the room 5 in the Polish-Soviet plan (fuel storage), ca. 10 x 10 m (in the plan: 9,4 x 9,7 m), to have been a morgue.

The next room he names a homicidal gas chamber, ca. 10 x 7 m. The next room in the Polish-Soviet plan, roughly matching that size and proportion (9,7 x 5,7 m), is the room no. 4, the morgue.

The next room, ca. 7 x 7 m, connected to the room no. 4 with two large openings he describes as chlorinated lime storage, whereas in the Soviet plan this room no. 3. is a "gas chamber" (5,92 x 6,7 m but with thicker, concrete walls). The rest of the rooms are listed by him more or less as in the plan (he apparently describes the dissection anteroom as a part of the dissection room, since it is the anteroom that borders on the washroom with a bathtub).

Barutchev thus identified the concrete bunker as a chlorinated lime storage and misidentified the morgue as a homicidal gas chamber.[26]

Another important testimony is the 05.08.1944 statement of the Polish worker Józef Jajszczyk[27], who, according to his statement, worked as a plumber in the camp from September 1942 until April 1944, visited the new crematorium 2 times, knew it well and talked to the inmates who worked there. He described the crematorium rooms as follows:
[...] a small room where the doomed undressed. Their clothes are still there now. Another, larger room - storage of corpses for incineration. The third room was a storage room for chloride[28], the fourth one - for coke, with which the ovens were fueled in the crematorium. The ovens stood in the middle of the fifth room.
Near the crematorium, under the same roof, there was built a room for the head of the crematorium.
In the undressing room, as inmates who worked in the crematorium showed me, there was a concrete table [...]
Fig. 14. The relevant excerpt from Jajszczyk's statement.
That Jajsczyk, who visited the crematorium two times and talked to the inmates there, doesn't mention any homicidal gas chamber further confirms that there wasn't one in the crematorium.

The concrete table he mentions was in the dissection room[29] and on several photos one can see clothes lying around (fig. 15).

Fig. 15. The concrete table in the dissection room with the clothes lying around. 01.09.1944. ©RIA "Novosti".[30]
Take away the morgue (room no. 4 in the Polish-Soviet plan), the fuel storage (room no. 5), the dissection room (room no. 2) and the dissection anteroom (room no. 6) - it's highly unlikely that chemicals would be stored in an anteroom and it is further improbable that Jajszczyk would omit one of the most curious rooms, the concrete bunker, from his description - and we're left with the room no. 3 - the "gas chamber" - as the "chloride" storage.

On 2-3.08.1944 the military prosecutors of the 69th Army visually inspected the camp and described its most important structures. When it comes to the new crematorium, we read the following[31]:
In the room, the stone walls of which survived, and near that room there is a large amount of a powder-like mass of white color, having the form of barrels and emitting the strong smell of chlorinated lime.
Fig. 16. The relevant excerpt from the act.
That's a clincher. The room's purpose was to store barrels with chlorinated lime.

Chlorinated lime (German: Chlorkalk) is a mixture of calcium hypochlorite, calcium chloride and calcium hydroxide. Its uses include "bleaching of cellulose, paper and textiles, disinfection / decontamination (e.g. of stables, latrines and carcasses)".[32] From a modern safety sheet (emphasis ours):
Specific hazards arising from the substance or mixture.
Non-flammable, but promotes fire by releasing oxygen.
In case of fire, the following may be produced: chlorine, hydrogen chloride, toxic combustion products. [...]
Instructions for fire fighting.
[...] Cool endangered containers with water spray jet and, if possible without danger, remove them from the danger zone.
Heating can lead to dangerous pressure increase (danger of bursting).
[...]
Measures to protect against fire and explosions: Notes on safe handling.
Ensure good ventilation of the storage and work area. Special fire and explosion protection measures are not required. The material does not burn, but gives off a lot of heat during decomposition. The elimination of oxygen causes it to have a strong oxidizing effect.
Caution: Flammable materials contaminated with product, such as textiles or paper, can ignite spontaneously. Contaminated materials must be washed out immediately with plenty of water.
Avoid aerosol formation. Do not inhale dust. Avoid contact with substance.
[...]
Requirements for storage rooms and containers.
Store in the original container. Do not store together with acids. Store separately from flammable materials.
Chlorinated lime thus would be used for disinfection (e.g. when there were too many corpses in the storage to burn them quickly, so as to slow down the decomposition process; to occasionally disinfect rooms and objects that came into contact with corpses, especially of the sick people; etc.), its presence in the crematorium was natural. But there was a problem: most crematorium walls were wooden (i.e. flammable) except for the plinths, and chlorinated lime also had to be kept away from a casual contact with other flammable materials (like clothes of the victims) too.

This fact most probably explains why the chlorinated lime storage room was the only non-wooden room in the building and indicates that its purpose might have been such (or very similar) from the start. Moreover, the opening in the ceiling was almost certainly an exhaust ventilation opening connected to a wooden chimney protruding through the roof. Judging by the rebar in the hole, it could have been made after the fact, after it was realized that an exhaust ventilation would be necessary for an effective use of the storage room. Today it is hard to say conclusively whether the ventilation was mechanical or based on natural draft (though it was probably the latter as no small ventilator is claimed to have been found in the crematorium ruins and also due to further technical considerations concerning the issue of the replacement/supply air).

The dangerous substance (that under some circumstances can emit the gas chlorine, associated with chemical warfare since its use in WWI) stored in the crematorium (which was a place not only where corpses were burned but where also shootings and probably other kinds of murders happened) and probably simply confused with chlorine at times due to linguistic ambiguity (e.g. the Polish "chlorek", "chloride", would sometimes get mistranslated into Russian "khlor", "chlorine"), gave rise to a rumor that there was a gas chamber there. The rumor was very limited in scope among the camp inmates, as already pointed out, but it nevertheless found its way into the press, including the mentions of "chlorine" as the killing agent, despite extremely few witnesses mentioning it as such.[33]

The Soviet war journalist and writer Konstantin Simonov in his 1944 series about Majdanek mentioned a gas chamber in the crematorium - most probably getting the information from Barutchev, whom he names "Barychev"[34], since he misidentifies the rooms just as Barutchev did (for Simonov the gas chamber in the crematorium was the room with only one brick wall still standing). Simonov notes about the method of murder in that room: "whether by means of "Zyklon" or some other gas has not yet been ascertained".[35] Another Soviet war journalist and writer Boris Gorbatov wrote in his Majdanek article that "they asphyxiated with Zyklon. They poisoned with chlorine".[36] Interestingly, their colleague Evgeniy Kriger didn't mention anything about chlorine or a crematorium gas chamber even when writing about the crematorium.[37]

The then major-general Nikolay Popel' wrote in his memoirs about his visit to Majdanek at the end of August 1944. Among other things "we saw cylinders with the scary gas "Zyklon". The gas was specially prepared "for the East only". When there was too few "Zyklon", people were poisoned with chlorine".[38] The Soviet war cameraman and film director Roman Karmen, who shot some of the famous Majdanek footage, published an article about the camp atrocities, in which he claimed, among other things[39]:
Groups of 100 people would be brought here to be burned almost alive. They already had been stripped and then chlorinated in special gas chambers adjoining. The gas chambers contained some 250 persons at one time. They were closely packed in a standing position so that after they suffocated from the chlorine, they still remained standing. Executioners then would enter, remove the suffocated victims, some of whom still stirred feebly and place the bodies in special carts.
and:
It is difficult to believe it myself but my eyes cannot deceive me. I see the human bones, lime barrels, chlorine pipes and furnace machinery.
The barrels he saw are obviously the same ones found by the Soviets in the "gas chamber".

Fig. 17. Roman Karmen's article.
Most exaggerated were Thomas Mann's claims in his 14.01.1945 address that "one and a half million European men, women and children were poisoned there with chlorine in gas chambers and burned"[40] (something never claimed by the Soviets or Poles; Mann's claim might be an extrapolation from Karmen's article).

These reports most probably stem from the same small group of Soviet POWs, which included Barutchev, who talked to the Soviet journalists when they first arrived in the camp. After all, Simonov, Gorbatov, Kriger and others were in the camp at the same time. And, as already mentioned, only very few witnesses mentioned crematorium gassings and even fewer - chlorine as the killing agent, so the reports had to stem from the same small group. It would make sense that the Soviet journalists would be partial to the Soviet POWs as their sources. Notably, the Western journalists who arrived in the camp at the end of August don't seem to mention the crematorium/chlorine gassing claims.[41]

Let's sum it all up. As we have seen, apparently the Polish-Soviet commission (or at least the experts who wrote the technical report about the gas chambers) at first thought that the room in question was a storage for household chemicals. And indeed, from the existing evidence we can conclude that it was a storage room for chlorinated lime, a strong disinfectant (for corpses, among other things), that had to be kept away from flammable materials in a preferably ventilated space.

This identification was subsequently amended to "gas chamber" (without mentioning the type of the gas chamber - disinfestation gas chambers can also be gas chambers). This correction might have been influenced by the few claims about there having been a gas chamber in the crematorium (which themselves probably arose partially due to a confusion between the terms referring to chlorinated lime and chlorine in different Slavic languages) and/or by the fact that the commission experts saw the only concrete room in the crematorium as fit for gassings (of whatever nature).

Nevertheless, the alleged homicidal nature of the chamber was completely avoided in the report, despite the claims of the crematorium gassings (incl. with chlorine) appearing in the central Soviet press, like Pravda and Izvestiya, right in the middle of the commission's work.

It was the State Museum at Majdanek that eventually identified the room as a homicidal gas chamber in its exhibition, and specifically a Zyklon B gas chamber (something apparently not claimed before that), with the probable ventilation opening in the ceiling now becoming a Zyklon B introduction hole (this would have been extrapolated from the other gas chambers residing in the bathhouse complex).

Already in the 21st century the Museum withdrew this identification since it was recognized that no credible evidence actually exists that this room was a homicidal gas chamber.


I want to thank Dr. Nicholas Terry, without whose informational support this article would not have been possible.


[1] The current position of the Museum is explained in an article on the Museum's website, where the formerly claimed gas chamber in the new crematorium is mentioned once in the beginning and is never returned to or explained. For a brief insight into the Museum's claims about this chamber see Michal Chocholatý's bachelor's thesis Plynové komory v KL Lublin ve světle poválečného bádání, 2012, pp. 69ff.

[2] USHMM photo #04859.

[3]http://www.majdanek.com.pl/obozy/majdanek/powyzwoleniu.html
Also see the Ghetto Fighters House Archive, catalog no. 10700 and 10647.

[4] The 5 Rim publisher's collection of ChGK photos from Majdanek.

[5] For example, the statements of Georgiy Kondrat, 03.08.1944, GARF f. 7021, op. 107, d. 8, l. d. 52-3; Mikhail Atrokhov, 03.08.1944, ibid., l. d. 86;  Georgiy [Grzegorz?] Bargielski, 08.08.1944, ibid., l. d. 364; Suren Barutchev's memoir as explored further in the article; Danuta Mędryk's explicitly hearsay statement in D. Ambach, T. Köhler, Lublin-Majdanek. Das Konzentrations-und Vernichtungslager im Spiegel von Zeugenaussagen, 2003, p. 164; SS-man Alfred Bajerke (Baierke), 13.08.1947, AIPN NTN 144, pp. 97-8 (on 19.03.1965 he explained that his knowledge of gas chambers (he didn't name a specific one) comes from hearsay, BArch B162/2349, p. 2365).

[6] E.g. see the statements in Ambach, Köhler, op. cit., and in GARF f. 7021, op. 107, d. 8.

[7] During the first Majdanek exhibition in 1945 (A. Ziębińska-Witek, "Representation of Death in Exhibitions: The Case of the State Museum at Majdanek" in S. Gigliotti, J. Golomb, C. Steinberg Gould (eds.), Ethics, Art and the Representation of the Holocaust. Essays in Honor of Berel Lang, 2014, p. 268) one of the panels (Ghetto Fighters House Archive catalog no. 38519) accepted the results of the Polish-Soviet investigation, explicitly mentioning "6 komor gazowych", "6 gas chambers". (As a side note: the panel also mentioned the 2,000,000 estimate that was initially proposed by the Soviet military investigation that preceded the commission's work, but the number was outdated, as far as the Soviets were concerned, already in August 1944, as we can see it corrected by hand to "one and a half million" in the typed commission session protocol no. 4 from 24.08.1944, GARF f. 7021, op. 107, d. 30, l. d. 201; the Museum might have based the panel on the documentary footage of the commission's sessions in which the number 2,000,000 was, of course, unedited.)

[8] Thus, contrary to T. Kranz, The Extermination of Jews at Majdanek Concentration Camp, 2010, p. 41, the commission did not actually claim 7 homicidal gas chambers and there is no contradiction with a later Soviet communique. The Soviet claim was 6 homicidal gas chambers from the start.

[9] GARF f. 7021, op. 107, d. 9, l. d. 230.

[10]Ibid., l. d. 238-9.

[11] GARF f. 7021, op. 107, d. 30.

[12]Ibid., l. d. 182.

[13] GARF f. 7021, op. 107, d. 9, l. d. 235.

[14]Ibid., l. d. 236.

[15]Ibid., l. d. 253.

[16]Ibid., l. d. 252.

[17] C. Mattogno, J. Graf, Concentration Camp. Majdanek. A Historical and Technical Study, 2016 (3rd edn), p. 345, photo XXI.

[18] Thus contrary to the Holocaust denial thesis in C. Mattogno, J. Graf, op. cit., p. 152, the current absence of a chimney doesn't confirm that the hole was fabricated post-liberation. Even if the chimney base was inside the hole, as opposed to around it, then whatever remaining burned wooden parts of the chimney possibly stuck to the hole would be removed later, e.g. during the crematorium reconstruction. The crude look of the hole could be explained by it having been chiseled into the roof after the fact (as indicated by the rebar inside the hole) before the liberation. Additionally, it cannot be excluded that the hole edges were partially damaged during a clean-up attempt.

Curiously, the authors, after writing that the "Polish-Soviet Commission did not see fit to mention the opening (26 cm × 26 cm) cut through the ceiling, whereas it certainly did consider those in Chambers I, II, IV, V and VI worthy of note" did not see fit to mention to their readers that the hole does nevertheless appear in the section of the room in the appendix to the report. This refutes the fabrication thesis (also adopted by Chocholatý with some minor hesitation; Chocholatý, 2012,  op. cit., p. 73), since we know that the hole existed early on and thus was not a result of the Museum's reconstruction work; and the Polish-Soviet commission had no reason to fabricate the hole only then to ignore it in the text of the report, while not even claiming that the "gas chamber" in question was homicidal in the first place.

[19] J.-C. Pressac, "The deficiencies and inconsistencies of the 'Leuchter Report'', in S. Shapiro (ed.), Truth Prevails. Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter Report, 1990, p. 55.

[20] See Mattogno, Graf, op. cit., the documentary appendix.

[21]Ibid., p. 310 (doc. 19). The image here is from the Arolsen Archives, file reference 2455000, document 82115857.

[22] AIPN NTN 144, pp. 71-2.

[23] On Barutchev's background see his interview given around 1971, L. Palievskaya, "Chelovek, perezhivshiy smert'" in Prometey, 1971, no. 8, pp. 117-129, this project by the pupils of the Kislovodsk school MBOU SOSh№2, which quotes from his diary; this article about K. Simonov, which, on the basis of Barutchev's diary, establishes the date when Barutchev began dictating his memoir as 31.01.1945; and this article about a modern exhibition in the Military-Medical Museum that mentions Barutchev's guidebook to the first Majdanek exhibition. Barutchev's memoir is in GARF f. 7021, op. 107, d. 32. It wasn't published during the Soviet time due to censorship; in one review of a draft it was found that Barutchev's memoir had the wrong "tone", seeing some gray and not only black and white, painting some of the Nazis in an allegedly positive light and the Soviet inmates allegedly in a negative light, etc. See ibid., l. d. 2-3. On Barutchev's work on a book about Majdanek also see ibid., l. d. 4, 5. The first draft was ready in the spring of 1945.

[24]Ibid., l. d. 104-5.

[25]Ibid., l. d. 106.

[26] In the published interview with Palievskaya the crematorium gas chamber claim doesn't appear, even though the crematorium is described in some detail (pp. 126-7) and so are the gas chambers in the bunker near the bath (pp. 125-6).

[27]Ibid., l. d. 242 for the Russian translation, l. d. 246-6v for the Polish text.

[28]"magazyn chlorku"; in Russian mistranslated to "склад хлора" - "chlorine storage".

[29] According to Mieczysław Okupniak's 06.08.1944 statement (ibid., l. d. 302) he worked in the new crematorium for 3 weeks, installing the sewer system. He also names the room with the table the "undressing room" and says he was told by the inmates working in the crematorium that corpses were dissected on that table when they were suspected of having swallowed golden coins or precious stones before death. (Notably, Okupniak doesn't mention being told about an existence of any gas chamber in the crematorium.) Also see Andrzej Stanisławski's statement in Ambach, Köhler, op. cit., p. 205.

[30] RIAN photo #5347; AiF. Also cf. a photo of the dissection room full of clothes (described as undressing room) in E. Kriger, "Nemetskaya fabrika smerti pod Lyublinom" (part 2), Izvestiya, no. 192 (13.08.1944), p. 2 and the Ghetto Fighters House Archive catalog no. 10537 and 9067.

[31] GARF f. 7021, op. 107, d. 9, l. d. 112.

[32] This and the following quotes are from Hedinger, "Sicherheitsdatenblatt gemäß Verordnung (EU) Nr. 453/2010. Chlorkalk 32-35%", 25.02.2012.

[33] Barutchev in his hearsay report (it is hard to say whose testimonies he is basing this on; might have been several, might have been one); there is also a statement about chlorine gassings in the bath complex - that of the Soviet-Ukrainian POW Lev Karol', made on 3-4.08.44 (GARF f. 7021, op. 107, d. 9, l. d. 129). This is probably just a mutation of the initial crematorium chlorine rumor. On the mistranslation of "chlorek" as "chlorine" see the note 28.

[34] K. Simonov, "Lager' unichtozheniya" (part 2), Krasnaya Zvezda, no. 190 (11.08.1944), p. 3; K. Simonov, The Death Factory Near Lublin, 1944, p. 20.

[35] K. Simonov, "Lager' unichtozheniya" (part 3), Krasnaya Zvezda, no. 191 (12.08.1944), p. 3; K. Simonov, The Death Factory Near Lublin, 1944, p. 14.

[36] B. Gorbatov, "Lager' na Majdaneke" (part 2), Pravda, no. 193 (12.08.1944), p. 3.

[37] E. Kriger, "Nemetskaya fabrika smerti pod Lyublinom" part 1 in Izvestiya, no. 191 (12.08.1944), p. 2; part 2 in no. 192 (13.08.1944), p. 2.

[38] N. Popel', Vperedi - Berlin!, 1970, p. 116. The confused and irrelevant "for the East only" claim is also made by Simonov, Kriger and Gorbatov. In fact, the Zyklon B label in question read: "Alleinanwendungsberechtigt für das ostelbische Reichsgebiet einschl. Sudetengau, das Generalgouvernement, das Reichskommissariat Ostland u. für Dänemark, Finnland u. Norwegen", "Sole use authorization for the East-Elbian territory including the Sudetengau, the Generalgouvernement, the Reichskommissariat Ostland and for Denmark, Finland and Norway" (GARF f. 7021, op. 107, d. 9, l. d. 244b). This was merely due to a commercial agreement between Dr. Bruno Tesch and Degesch, see J. Kalthoff, M. Werner, Die Händler des Zyklon B Tesch & Stabenow. Eine Firmengeschichte zwischen Hamburg und Auschwitz, 1998, p. 118.

[39] R. Karmen, "Lublin Extermination Camp Called 'Worst Yet' by Writer", Daily Worker, 14.08.1944, p. 8.

[40] T. Mann, Deutsche Hörer! Europäische Hörer! Radiosendungen nach Deutschland, 1986, p. 136.

[41] Cf. W. H. Lawrence, "Nazi Mass Killing Laid Bare in Camp", New York Times, 30.08.1944, pp. 1, 9 (Zyklon B, carbon monoxide, gas chambers in the bath and near the bath; crematorium description); D. de Luce, "Murder Camp Details Told", The Baltimore Sun, 30.08.1944, p. 3 (6 chambers, cyanide and carbon monoxide); A. Werth, a contemporary report unpublished at the time, in Russia at War, 1941–1945, 1964, pp. 891-4 (six chambers "side by side" at the bath-house; crematorium description).

Rebutting the "historical" appendix to David Cole's book "Republican Party Animal".

$
0
0
A post on David Stein/Cole's book Republican Party Animal, or rather on the historical appendix to it in which he explains his views on the Holocaust.

Short intro: Cole used to be a hardcore Holocaust denier in the early 1990s, shot a comical video about Auschwitz which became a hit among the deniers (the deceptions of this video are fully exposed here). He reinvented himself as a Republican event organizer in Hollywood and there was a moderately large scandal when his cover got blown up.

He tells about this event and many others in his "tell all" book. He moderated his historical views considerably, coming to the conclusion that extermination camps did exist. His shtick had always been being a Jewish denier. Now it's a drunken ex-denier who kinda saw the light, but is still an asshole towards both sides. He condemns total hardcore denial, but also claims that Auschwitz wasn't an extermination camp at least from 1943 on and the well-documented gas vans didn't exist.

In fact, Cole didn't find anything new or big about the Holocaust, he simply takes the extremely well-known documents like the Korherr report and interprets them with varying degrees of plausibility, while ignoring the documents that contradict his other positions. All banal, nothing notable. But for some reason some see his position as the "golden middle", or something. Nonsense. This deeply confused and superficial individual has nothing new or interesting to add to the Holocaust historiography.

In the appendix to his book Cole tries to lay out his views. Let's take a look at a couple of points.

He tries to formulate "the standard story" on the Wannsee conference:
The Standard Story: In January 1942, a top-secret meeting was convened in Wannsee, a Berlin suburb, for the purpose of drafting a plan for the “Final Solution.” It was decided that Europe’s Jews would be killed.
And fails: that the decision was taken during the conference, while long a popular layman misconception, is not a part of the "standard story". Ignorance or deception?

He then tries to respond to the "standard story" and oh boy, is his reply a bunch of hooey:
My Take: The standard story is incorrect. The Wannsee Conference’s top-secret “protocols” mention nothing of murder. The protocols are actually quite vague. They include a rundown of the number of Jews in Europe (approximately 11,000,000 according to the Nazis’ figures), and a discussion of what to do with “special classes” of Jews (Jews in mixed marriages, Jews in mixed marriages with children, and Jews over 65, all of whom would be to one degree or another exempted from the “final solution”).
But what was the “solution?” Well, the protocols are, as I said, vague. At one point, they state, “Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.”
So, able-bodied Jews basically being worked to death. Nothing is said about the non-able bodied.
Of the able-bodied Jews: “The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, bei freilassung, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history).”
You’ll note that I kept two words in the original German. That’s because shifty translations are one way that bad historians fuck with you. Dishonest historians have, for decades, mistranslated “bei freilassung” as “if released.” In that context, the passage in the protocols could be summed up as “watch out for the surviving remnant if they are ever released.”
But actually, “bei freilassung” is best translated as “at release” or “when released” or “upon release.”
The Wannsee protocols clearly state that, at some point, the Jews will be released.
The protocols end with the representative from occupied Poland asking that immediate attention be given to the “problem” of the Jews in his sector.
The vagueness of the Wannsee protocols is neither proof of a genocide plan, nor proof of no plan. It just means that in January 1942 there was a lot still undecided.
Let's start from the end: he claims that the protocol states the remainder of the Jews would be set free by the Nazis. He bases it on the words "bei Freilassung" (for some reason he doesn't capitalize the German nouns; it's as if he's not very good at German...) which mean "at release". He seriously argues that the passage means that the remainder of the Jews after all the tribulations were to be released by the Nazis! One couldn't find a more hare-brained interpretation if one wanted to. Let's recap what the Wannsee protocol [original German | English translation] proposed:
  • All European Jews (with a very small exception) were to be transported to the Russian East. Even those not fit for labor. Those fit would be used for involuntary labor.
  • The slave labor would take place under strict separation of sexes (i.e. no more children).
  • The greater part (Großteil) of these Jewish slaves would die out "naturally"
  • The rest would have to be "treated accordingly", since "upon release"/"if released" they would constitute a "germcell" of the Jewish revival. 
The protocol then warns: "(See the experience of history)". Nowhere does the protocol state that the Jews would be released. Cole literally argues that the Nazis planned to let the most resistant Jews go free after committing a genocide against the rest (because what is described here is already a genocide) in order for them to usher in a new Jewish revival.

Really. Cole argues that the Nazis wanted a Jewish revival in the end. Never suspected that the most "resistant" Jews would want to take a revenge for the genocide, for causing the death of the weakest (old people, sick, children etc. etc.). I mean, how can I expose Cole more than he has already exposed himself? He never explains what the part about treating this remainder "accordingly" means, nor does he explain the warning about the "experience of history". Since obviously the warning about the "experience of history" in the Nazi sense would be not to have a Jewish revival. According to Cole, the Nazis proposed an Endlösung without an end.

Nor does the grammar support him in the least. Translated as literally as possible the passage reads:
Der allfällig endlich verbleibende Restbestand wird, da es sich bei diesem zweifellos um den widerstandsfähigsten Teil handelt, entsprechend behandelt werden müssen, da dieser, eine natürliche Auslese darstellend, bei Freilassung als Keimzelle eines neuen jüdischen Aufbaues anzusprechen ist. (Siehe die Erfahrung der Geschichte.)
Der [the] allfällig [possibly] endlich [eventually] verbleibende [remaining] Restbestand [remnant population, remainder] wird [will], da [since] es [it] sich bei [with] diesem [it=them] zweifellos [undoubtedly] um [about=with] den widerstandsfähigsten [the most resistant] Teil [part] handelt [deals], entsprechend [accordingly] behandelt [treated] werden [will] müssen [have to], da [since] dieser [it=they], eine natürliche [a natural] Auslese [elite, selection] darstellend [representing], bei Freilassung [upon release] als [as] Keimzelle [germcell] eines neuen [of a new] jüdischen [Jewish] Aufbaues [reconstruction=revival] anzusprechen [to be viewed [as], to be spoken of [as]] ist [is]. (Siehe [see] die Erfahrung [the experience] der Geschichte [of history].)
The possibly eventually remaining remnant population will, since with them one undoubtedly deals with the most resistant part, have to be treated accordingly, since they, representing a natural elite, have to be viewed, upon release, as a germcell of a new Jewish revival. (See the experience of history.)
Anzusprechen, in the sense of anzusehen (to be viewed [as], Duden Online, ansprechen, meaning 5), refers to a possible, not necessarily to an actual future. One could as well have used the subjuctive mood here, but it's not necessary.

"Bei Freilassung", when you read it in the original German, is obviously a conditional statement that does not necessarily indicate an actual reality. This sense is somewhat lost in English unless you translate it as an explicitly conditional construct, such as "if released" - which is a correct translation  properly conveying the sense of the sentence. The major German dictionary Duden clearly indicates this conditional sense as one of the meanings of the preposition "bei":
10. zur Angabe der Begleitumstände; mit konditionalem Nebensinn; wenn …, dann
10. for indication of the accompanying circumstances; with conditional subordinate meaning; if ..., then
Cole's claim about deceptive translations is incorrect (at best). So Cole has failed both at German and at basic common sense.

Now, it is clear that the end result - this "suitable treatment" of the most resistant Jews in the end - meant murder. So at that point no Jews remain. Cole notes: "Nothing is said about the non-able bodied."

Bingo, Sherlock! From the whole logic of the protocol - (almost) all Jews are deported to "the East", but only able-bodied would work until they die out or are killed directly - it also follows that the Jews unable to work no longer exist in the relatively short term, since they're not even discussed (and had the Nazis provided for their actual long-term existence, the topic had to be discussed, as it would constitute the main problem here).

And guess what? That's exactly what happened! Especially at Auschwitz, but when writing about the extermination camps Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor (which Cole accepts as such), Goebbels noted that 60% of Jews transferred there would have to be "liquidated" since they were ... unable to work.

Now, we are not saying that specifically during the Wannsee conference it was planned to immediately and directly kill almost all Jews unfit for work. Possibly the solutions under discussion consisted of a mix of direct murder and decimation, including starving groups of such Jews in camps/ghettos, which would still be short-term. The details were still being worked out. But what interests us is not so much the method but the end result. And it was short-term death for the Jews unable to work.

There you go. Cole asked the right question and the answer was staring right at him, but he was too busy being a "maverick" to see it. So yes, the Wannsee protocol was all about the wholesale murder of a people - partially direct, partially indirect one. While in January many details were still murky, the general genocidal principle was there.

Cole then claims that there was no overarching plan for the extermination of the European Jewry:
There never was a plan. There was never a decision about what to do with European Jewry as a whole. The Holocaust was a patchwork. Some things were “planned” but never carried out. Some things happened that weren’t planned. The “Final Solution” as murder was applied in certain places, to certain groups of Jews, while, at the same time, there was an understanding that a “final” Final Solution for all European Jews had not been decided on.
It is true that in the beginning there was more of a patchwork of different plans (for the Soviet Jews, for the Jews of Warthegau and so on). The Wannsee meeting was an attempt to begin to unify various policies, and in the end we know that the "general" plan for the "Final Solution" did work more or less uniformly (in the big picture), even if its roots were varied.

The decision-in-principle about the fate of the European Jews, call it a "plan" or not, taken by Hitler at some point in late 1941 and announced on 12.12.1941 in a small circle of the top Nazis, on the other hand, is clear. Cole's word games are just dull.

Albeit apparently denying the Zyklon B gas chambers of Auschwitz, Cole at least acknowledges the CO gas chambers of the other camps. His "standard story" claim about them ("technological marvels [...] automated, assembly-line mass murder") is more of a layman's strawman than anything.

Let's proceed to Cole's hot take on Auschwitz:
The Standard Story: At the same time that the four extermination camps were operating in occupied Poland in 1942, Jews were also being gassed at Auschwitz, which was a combination labor and extermination camp. As Auschwitz had not been built to be an extermination camp, makeshift gas chambers were used in ’42—first, a semi-underground building at the Main Camp, and then a small building (called “the farmhouse” or “the cottage” or “the bunker”) outside the perimeter of Birkenau. 
My Take: Yes and no. Everyone agrees that the primary focus of Auschwitz was labor, but, did killings take place there in 1942 (at the same time as the mass killings in the extermination camps in Eastern Poland)? There’s certainly evidence for that, the most damning being the factually unassailable diary of camp doctor Johann Kremer in summer/fall 1942 (he describes brutal “special actions” against inmates and new arrivals). However, there is no evidence that any killings took place in the semi-underground building in the Main Camp (that’s the building that, until my work was publicized, was routinely shown off to tourists as the “gas chamber”).
So he claims that there is no evidence that some killings took part in the crematorium I of the main camp. Had he only limited his claim to documentary evidence, he would be correct, but unfortunately for him there is enough credible testimonial evidence for killings in that small makeshift gas chamber - and yes, testimonial evidence is also evidence. More specifically, the gassings in Krema I follow from the convergence of the following:
  • The sum of the testimonial evidence by the people prima facie in the know (such as the SS men), given not only in circumstances where coercion can be suspected (such as in Communist Poland - albeit we know for a fact that, for example, Höß made numerous key statements contradicting the Polish Communist narrative, and thus cannot be argued to have been coerced by them) but also where coercion was reasonably out of question (such as during the West-German investigations in the 1960s), including inadvertent self-incriminating statements (such as by Hans Stark). This is the key evidence.
  • The sum of the testimonial evidence by the people not prima facie in the know but who credibly alleged to have worked there. This evidence is strongly confirmatory. (For simplicity's sake I'm omitting bystanders here.)
  • The fact that the claims by the above mentioned groups and by many, many others about the Birkenau Krema gas chambers (to which we will return shortly) are proven documentarily, which strengthens the overall credibility of the testimonies in question and makes the "smaller" claim of the Krema I gassings a non-issue in terms of acceptance.
(Note that in this small gas chamber likely no more than 10,000 people were gassed, it played a relatively minor role in the mass gassings, except maybe in the symbolic sense.)

Cole asks whether the 1942 killings in Auschwitz, which he acknowledges, were authorized. He probably means, as a part of a central policy. Well, some were local initiatives, but the Jewish ones were indeed authorized, and we have documentary evidence of that.

Cole deceptively cherrypicks the Morgen testimony, making it seem to the unaware that the SS investigator Konrad Morgen implicitly denied gassings:
In ’43, Auschwitz Gestapo chief Grabner was arrested by the SS. SS judge Konrad Morgen claimed that the killings at Auschwitz were done by the officers at the camp to “make it easy on themselves.” But he points out that the murders were by bullets, not gas: “The officers in the KZ [Auschwitz] made it easy for themselves. When new inmates arrived and he had no room, they took out the last batch, put them up against the wall and shot them, and made room for the new batch.” (Interview with Konrad Morgen, Roosevelt Library, John Toland papers, box 53)
In fact, Morgen and his colleagues like Wiebeck extensively testified about the gassings in Auschwitz throughout the decades. Here is an excerpt from Morgen's 09.03.1964 testimony about his visit to one of the Auschwitz' underground gas chambers during his investigations in the camp:
Then on the wall there was a big arrow pointing into a corridor, and on it was written, succinctly, "To the shower rooms," and that was repeated in six or seven languages. So they were told: "You will undress and you will be showered and disinfected. And along this corridor there were various chambers without any furnishings, bare, naked, cement floors. The only thing that was conspicuous and at first inexplicable was that in the middle there was a latticed shaft that led up to the ceiling. At first I had no explanation for this, until I was told that through an opening in the roof, gas, in crystalline form, Zyklon B, was poured into these death chambers. Up to that moment the prisoner was therefore unsuspecting, and then of course it was too late. Opposite the gas chambers were the corpse elevators, and these now led to the first floor or, seen from the other side, to the ground floor. The actual crematorium was a huge hall, on one side of which the crematory ovens stood in a long row, with flattened floors, everything exuded an objective, neutral, technical, value-free atmosphere.
Indeed, it was during his investigations in Auschwitz when Morgen interrogated Rudolf Höß' inmate lover Eleonore Hodys and she mentioned the gassings. In 1944. 

Cole then mentions the "twitter denial"-level argument about the British Auschwitz decodes not mentioning gassings, fully addressed here, albeit he apparently uses it not to deny the murders but rather to confirm that they were not authorized (but the argument fails for the same reasons as explained at the link).

And then he proceeds, after having acknowledged 4 extermination camps, to deny that Auschwitz was one from 1943 on:
My position is that in 1943, after having lost the battle at Stalingrad, and with their situation on the Eastern Front looking dire, the Nazis ended exterminations of Jews in favor of using the remaining Jews for labor. Due to circumstances at the front, the “use them for labor” voices had prevailed over the “ethnic cleansing” voices. Auschwitz-Birkenau was revamped in order to become a functional, “modern” labor camp without the massive death toll from disease that Himmler had been bitching about since 1942.
Notice a logical mistake here. Labor did not necessarily contradict extermination. Especially as in Auschwitz it was Jews not fit for labor who were murdered.

Anyway, let's look at Cole's "evidence":
The four extermination camps were closed, Himmler and Goebbels began speaking of the Final Solution in the past tense, Hitler ordered the term never to be mentioned again, and Himmler received the statistical report he commissioned from SS master statistician Dr. Richard Korherr. Korherr referred to this as a “final extended report.” Final
Himmler had wanted the report at the beginning of 1943, and Korherr presented him with the “first provisional report” on March 23, asking for a few more months until July - to present the “final extended report.” Korherr’s figure of murdered Jews is 2,419,656 (1,786,356 killed in the extermination camps, and 633,300 on the Eastern Front). Korherr’s figure jibes with a coded message sent in January 1943 by Hermann Hoefle, a staff member of the SS and police leader in Lublin, to SS Lt. Col. Heim, deputy commander of the SS and SD in Krakow.
Himmler received the report and signed off on it, instructing Korherr to make one small change - remove the term “special treatment” (the euphemism for murder) next to the figure of dead Jews, for “camouflage purposes.”
Cole never provides a source for "Hitler order[ing] the term [Final Solution] never to be mentioned again", but he must be thinking of Bormann's 11.07.1943 letter, which reads:
Im Auftrage des Führers teile ich mit:
Bei der öffentlichen Behandlung der Judenfrage muss jede Erörterung einer künftigen Gesamtlösung unterbleiben.
Es kann jedoch davon gesprochen werden, dass die Juden geschlossen zu zweckentsprechendem Arbeitseinsatz herangezogen werden. 
On behalf of the Führer, I hereby announce:
During the public treatment of the Jewish question any discussion of a future total solution is to cease.
It is allowed to be said, that the Jews will be deployed in a united fashion for suitable work.
Needless to say, this doesn't help Cole in any way, since the focus of the letter is on the public look of the policy and not on its actual content.

In his 23.03.1943 letter Korherr does speak about a possible future "definitive" (endgültig), "enlarged" report, which however refers to 3 possible dates - 1 July, 1 Oct. or 31 Dec. 1943. It is clear that he means a "definitive" report up to one of those dates (to be chosen) containing statistics without contradictions (as opposed to the situation at the time of the writing) and so on, not about the "final report on the whole of the Final Solution" or some such thing. Cole's use of this phrasing is misleading and does not support his thesis.

Korherr's 23.03.1943 letter to Brandt [source].
After receiving the report, Himmler wrote to Kaltenbrunner:
The most important thing to me is still that now as many Jews are being driven to the East, as only humanly possible.
The "Final Solution" was thus proceeding full speed ahead.

Himmler's 09.04.1943 letter to Kaltenbrunner [source].
Cole fails to mention Korherr's remark in the short version implying that the previously given number of the Jews murdered in the Soviet occupied territories (633,000) is not complete:
Only some of the deaths of Soviet Russian Jews in the occupied eastern territories could be included, while those in the rest of European Russia and at the front are not included at all.
So Korherr's report is not complete and admits being such.

Cole then throws in another argument, which however doesn't make sense:
And here we have another blow to historians who claim that the four extermination camps were closed in order to make way for a “bigger and better” Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination complex. Who was going to be sent there? The Nazis never made a claim on the Romanian Jews, and they barely made a claim on the French Jews (the Nazis had mainly deported foreign Jews living in France, but not the massive population of French-citizen Jews). And Hungary? Hitler had acquiesced to his ally Admiral Horthy’s demand that Hungary’s Jews not be deported. So, in ’42 and ’43, who were they building this “extermination mega-complex” for?
The Nazi policy did lay claim on all European Jews, temporary delays were just that - temporary (as the actual events demonstrated), due to political and military circumstances at each particular time and place. Nevertheless, one only needs to look at the deportations to Auschwitz that took place in that time period. Polish, Dutch, German, Belgian, Greek Jews. Come on. Read a book. Moreover, Cole doesn't mention when it was that Hitler temporarily acquiesced to Horthy. It was in ... May 1943. By that time the buildings of the two crematoria with the underground gas chambers had already been completed, with Krema II having been handed over on 31.03.1943 and some work still being done on the equipment of the Krema III. And of course Cole is silent on the Kremas IV and V with the documented above-ground gas chambers...

So where's the "blow" Cole is talking about? Maybe he was thinking of something else at the time...

Cole then denies that the underground rooms in the crematoria were gas chambers:
The Auschwitz renovations had been ordered in 1942 during the typhus outbreak mentioned earlier. The underground rooms, which are portrayed as “gas chambers,” were morgues - cold rooms for body storage. Auschwitz was getting a makeover to become more “hygienic.”
Except they are documented as gas chambers (Gaskeller - gas cellar, Vergasungskeller - gassing cellar) by the Germans themselves. And we also know they weren't some sort of delousing installations, temporary or permanent, because they were not on the list of such. (And the moldy "air-raid shelter" thesis that died during the Irving v. Lipstadt trial is even more absurd.)

Cole distorts the cremation process, claiming Jews had to be put one by one into muffles whereas the multiple cremations in one muffle are documented. Nor can he explain this document.

Cole carps on the Krema II and III morgues having been initially planned as morgues, but how is this relevant given that we know they were re-planned as gas chambers? Which replanning also explains the suboptimal ventilation design (further see here).

Cole then writes several largely incoherent pages about the deportations of the Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz. He never mentions that the vast majority of them were unable to work: about 320,000 out of about 430,000 deportees. He thus deceptively ignores their fate.

No wonder, for the fate of the Hungarian Jews in Auschwitz immediately destroys his whole thesis. He cannot argue that the ca. 320,000 Jews unable to work were transferred "to the Russian East" - he rightly derides such explanation attempts in regard to Treblinka etc. as the, "Unicornville" thesis. But he himself implicitly engages in the very same Unicornville thinking. For the fact is that these ca. 320,000 Jews unable to work were not transported out of Auschwitz at all. Nor did they stay in the camp. The conclusion is obvious.

In the middle of talking about the Hungarian Jews Cole suddenly remembers about the fate of Anne Frank (?!). Since Frank was 15 at the time, she was selected as a part of the potential labor pool, there is no mystery about this at all

Cole's appendix basically ends at this point (thankfully), but all he has demonstrated is the ignorance about the very basic facts of the Holocaust history and the inability to properly process basic texts, nothing more. Like the old joke goes: Cole's thesis is both true and original. Unfortunately the parts that are true aren't original; and the parts that are original aren't true.

Looking for the Katyn lighthouses.

$
0
0
We have already devoted a coupleofposts to the neo-Stalinist apologetics, showing how it is qualitatively not different from Holocaust denial. In this one we will deal with an example showing how the denial methodology isn't much different from flatearthism.

The prototypical case of what we are about to see we can find in Robert Schadewald's classic "Looking for Lighthouses", in which the 19th century flatearthism proponent Rowbotham is explored. Allow me a long quote:
Before the days of electronic navigation systems, lighthouses were vitally important to mariners. Standard navigation references (such as Bowditch) contained detailed descriptions of the locations, characteristics, and visibility of the most important lights. Navigation charts showed the exact positions of all lighthouses, and local pilotage guides listed all lights in a given area. Besides these, the standard English-language reference was known as Lighthouses of the World (Findlay, 1862). Rowbotham made extensive use of Lighthouses of the World [...] 
Rowbotham's calculation is correct, although he made no allowance for atmospheric refraction. But even deducting 1/7 of the dip for refraction (a generous correction) does not solve the problem for sphericity. Rowbotham went on: [...]

Again, Rowbotham's arithmetic is correct, and even a generous correction for atmospheric refraction cannot solve the problem for sphericity. Rowbotham gave about 20 such examples in Zetetic Astronomy, and he averred that “many other cases could be given from the same work, shewing that the practical observations of mariners, engineers, and surveyors entirely ignore the doctrine that the earth is a globe.” 
Suspicious reader that you are, you probably wonder whether Rowbotham cited Lighthouses of the World correctly. Bresher wondered, too. When he consulted the work, however, he found that the published numbers were exactly as Rowbotham stated them. But that was not the whole story. Bresher noted:
I have carefully looked over the book alluded to, and find that out of above 2000 cases, the few selected by “Parallax” are nearly the whole that do not verify the truth of the doctrine in question. And what do these few, about thirty out of upwards of 2000, prove?
An excellent question. Before considering it, we should note another of Bresher's discoveries:
[W]hile “Parallax” was attentively scanning the “Lighthouses of the World” to find out some that could be seen farther than they ought to be seen, on the supposition that the earth is a globe of about 25,000 miles in circumference; he could not but find many more which cannot be seen as far as they ought to be, on the above supposition... 
The proper conclusion from the above facts is, that either there is a misprint in the book at these places, or that the localities where these lighthouses are situated possess some peculiarities which, if known, would account for these deviations. For it is a monstrous assertion which “Parallax” makes ... that one single instance, like the one he mentions, entirely destroys the doctrine of the earth's rotundity.
Well said, Reverend Bresher! 
Rowbotham, of course, was neither the first nor last to promote the 1.5% of the data that supported his position while ignoring the 98.5% that contradicted it. This technique is the common property of those determined to convince others of their position by whatever methods they find expedient. [...] 
And what about Rowbotham's anomalous lighthouses? Beats me. Perhaps the reported observations were made under unusual conditions. Perhaps, for those lighthouses still operating, new observations would not confirm the reported anomalies. By now, however, some of Rowbotham's lighthouses presumably have been closed, torn down, or destroyed by the elements. For these, we will never know. One thing is certain; those who seek only anomalous lighthouses will never find light.
It is in Rowbotham's vein that the neo-Stalinist professor Grover Furr (previously exposed here) published the article "The “Official” Version of the Katyn Massacre Disproven? Discoveries at a German Mass Murder Site in Ukraine" in the pseudoscholarly journal (because what other journal would publish pseudoscholarship and let it stand?) Socialism and Democracy, 2013, vol. 27, issue 2, pp. 96-129.

The article exhibits all that we have come to expect from the Holocaust denial articles. Here is his treatment of the NKVD witnesses who testified about some of the killings in the Katyn massacre complex (which includes not only the Katyn forest victims but also the ones buried in Mednoye near Tver (Kalinin) and Pyatikhatki in Kharkov:
All three men were threatened with criminal prosecution if they failed to “tell the truth” and were told that Soviet guilt had already been established. It is therefore possible that out of fear of prosecution they gave answers they felt their interrogators wanted. Many of the interrogators’ questions were “leading” questions. Of course this is common in criminal investigations. But it does appear that the confessions of these three old men were not entirely voluntary.
Needless to say, there is zero evidence of any coercion with these three witnesses and their statements are extremely strong pieces of evidence.

He deals in the same Holocaust-denial vein with the other arguments (the incriminating documents are fake, based on the nonsensical and ignorant views of how the Politburo bureaucracy functioned, easily debunked by a simple comparison with other documents, etc.). The usual stuff.

But the main thrust of the article can be seen from its first paragraph:
In 2011 and 2012 a joint Polish-Ukrainian archeological team partially excavated a mass execution site at the town of Volodymyr Volyns’kiy, Ukraine. Shell cases found in the burial pit prove that the executions there took place no earlier than 1941. In the burial pit were found the badges of two Polish policemen previously thought to have been murdered hundreds of miles away by the Soviets in April–May 1940. These discoveries cast serious doubt on the canonical, or “official,” version of the events known to history as the Katyn Massacre.
And in some more detail:
In May 2011 Polish news media reported that a numbered metal badge had been unearthed which had been identified by the Ukrainian archaeological team as that of a Polish policeman, Josef Kuligowski, heretofore assumed to have been executed by the Soviet NKVD at Kalinin (now Tver’), Russia, and buried with other such victims at Mednoe, outside of the town.
[...]
In September 2011 Polish media reported that police badge number 1099/II belonging to Senior Police Constable (starszy posterunkowy) Ludwik Malowiejski had been found in the Volodymyr-Volyns’kiy mass graves. It had been assumed that, like Kuligowski, Malowiejski was a “Katyn Massacre” victim whose body was buried in a mass grave at Mednoe near Kalinin, where – it has been assumed – other “Katyn” victims shot by the NKVD in 1940 are buried. Malowiejski’s name is also on the recent Polish lists of Katyn victims. Like Kuligowski he is memorialized in the “Mednoe Cemetery Book” [...]
Furr's conclusion? Should be obvious:
There is no evidence that the 14,000+ Polish POWs who were transferred out of Soviet POW camps in April and May 1940 were in reality being sent to be shot. This assumption has been one of the main supports of the “official” version of the Katyn Massacre. It must now be rejected. Since Kuligowski and Malowiejski were on those transportation lists and survived to be killed in 1941 by the Nazis, then others could have as well. [...]
Furr has found his lighthouses.

And just like with Rowbothan's lighthouses, his conclusion simply doesn't follow. The credible evidence (authentic documents (not limited to the ones from the sealed envelope no. 1), uncoerced witnesses (esp. the NKVD ones), untainted exhumations in the 1990s and 2000s (esp. at the sites in Mednoye and Pyatikhatki) and the main fact that no denier can account for the fate of the missing ~15,000 Polish POWs from the spring of 1940 to summer-autumn of 1941 - just like the Holocaust deniers cannot account for the missing Jews) shows that the Poles were shot in the spring of 1940. How do the two alleged exceptions disprove the rest of the mountain of evidence? Hasn't it occurred to Furr that there may be a simple explanation accounting for the presence of the two badges in the German victims' grave? Just off the top of my head, the badges could have been lost-and-found by or given to some other Polish POWs who then fell victim to the Germans. Such a scenario would be certainly much more plausible than overturning 99,999% of the evidence.

Thankfully, we don't have to wonder anymore, since the Russian historian Aleksandr Guryanov has solved the "riddle" in his thorough study Ubity v Kalinine, zakhoroneny v Mednom, 2019, vol. 1, pp. 79-81 (the references are omitted, see the original text):
The camp fate of one of them - Ludwik Małowiejski - could be traced back using archival documents of the NKVD from the moment of his capture, which made it possible to explain the discovery made in 2011 during the exhumation of mass graves of 1940-1941 by Polish and Ukrainian archaeologists on the territory of the former prison in Volodymyr-Volynskyi, Volyn region of Ukraine. During the excavations in the bulk "rubbish" layer (containing various damaged household items) above the grave pit with human remains (most likely people shot by the Nazis), a police registration plate number 1099/II belonging to Ludwik Małowiejski from Lodz was found. A year earlier, Ukrainian archeologists had also found a service registration plate with number 1441/II belonging to another prisoner of the Ostashkovsky camp, the Łódź policeman Józef Kuligowski (the Roman numeral II in both service plates means the prewar Łódź district of the State Police). After the report of these findings, Russian publications appeared, where the discovery of police registration plates during the excavations of mass graves in Volodymyr-Volynskyi was considered as evidence that Józef Kuligowski and Ludwik Małowiejski were buried there, and therefore they were shot in 1941. This statement was interpreted as one of the facts proving that there were no "shot Poles" in Mednoye at all (without any justification for the acceptability) of such an extensive extrapolation. The fact that official police signs during the exhumations in Vladimir-Volynsky were found not among human remains, but in the bulk layer above the graves, was ignored in these publications.
Meanwhile, according to documentary data of the UPV, Ludwik Małowiejski was indeed in Volodymyr-Volynskyi, but not in 1941, but in 1939. In the NKVD files of prisoners of war of 1939-1941, stored in the RGVA, his archival record card, filled in Shepetovka on February 7, 1940, which contains records of his capture on September 19, 1939 in Volodymyr-Volynskyi and his arrival on October 14, 1939 in Shepetovka reception center of the NKVD for prisoners of war.
Ludwik Małowiejski's record card.
Information about his capture in September 1939 in Volodymyr-Volynskyi and his transfer from there to the NKVD Shepetovka reception center for prisoners of war is recorded in the NKVD archive documents for some other prisoners of the Ostashkov camp. It should be noted that in the course of archaeological excavations of mass graves near the former prison in Volodymyr-Volynskyi, other Polish police registration plates were found, in particular, with numbers 639/XII (Pomeranian region), 1154/III and 2202/III (both in Kielce region), but the names of their owners have not been established (it is possible that these policemen were captured in Volodymyr-Volynskyi and then got into the Ostashkov camp). Ludwik Małowiejski's record card shows that after his captivity he was kept in custody in Volodymyr-Volynskyi for at least three weeks. We can assume that in prison his service badge was taken away from him and then not returned when he was sent from Volodymyr-Volynskyi to Shepetovka, and the badge remained in prison, and after the Germans occupied the prison it was thrown away by them together with other unnecessary items (damaged kitchenware) and got into a bulk layer on top of the mass grave of the shot. Since Ludwik Małowiejski was captured wounded in September 1939, after his arrival at the NKVD Shepetovka reception centre he was placed in a hospital in Shepetovka, where he was kept until he was sent to the Ostashkov camp. Documentary data on the date and place of the capture of Józef Kuligowski, as well as on where he was held as a prisoner of war until his arrival at the Ostashkov camp, are not available in the researched archive documents, but we can assume that he, like many other Polish soldiers and police, in September 1939, was captured in Volodymyr-Volynskyi and his police registration plate probably ended up in the bulk layer above the mass grave in Volodymyr-Volynskyi in the same way as the sign of Ludwik Małowiejski. It is very likely that Józef Kuligowski, like Ludwik Małowiejski, was transferred from Volodymyr-Volynskyi to the NKVD Shepetovka reception center, but did not go to the hospital, and was sent with one of the two groups that arrived in the Ostashkov camp in November 1939.
There you go. The most likely and reasonable explanation. All one had to do was simply dig a little bit deeper and read the actual reports, and do some archival research. Furr had no time for such trifles of course, he had to present his two "flat-Earth lighthouses" to the public. After all, he's not a researcher, he's a propagandist, looking not to find out what really happened but aiming to defend his blood-drenched hero Stalin at any cost.

In the article Furr also provides additional arguments, which are, however, even more laughable, as they could be debunked by simply reading the already published documents. The allegedly exhumed "documents" with Araszkiewicz and Lewandowski are of necessity Soviet fakes (the fact conceded even by the late Katyn denier Strygin), since they mention absolutely non-existent "ON" POW camps and the Poles in question as POWs later than the spring of 1940, and we know that these camps never existed not only because there is not a single trace of them in the GUPVI archive (or any trace in real life), but because we have summary documents from the period in question listing all the groups of Polish POWs and the camps where they reside. No "ON" camps are mentioned, and the "missing" Polish POWs in question are listed as transferred to UNKVD in April-May 1940. So whatever happened to them, they were no longer POWs at the time these reports were filed, contrary to the fake "documents" allegedly from the graves (most probably planted by one or two NKGB operatives inserted into the Burdenko team as low-rank "experts", like Zubkov (who "found" most of the "documents" and who had previously worked at the German exhumations and thus could have been prosecuted as a collaborator), - there's actually no credible evidence that most of the Extraordinary Commission's members were "in" on the cover-up). Obviously this was done in order to imply that not only the Kozielsk camp POWs were in the Katyn graves, which point could then be appealed to if the questions arose about the fate of the missing POWs from Starobielsk and Ostashkov. Nice trick!

With Kuczyński Furr deceptively ignores that Stanisław Kuczyński who wrote the postcard was actually Stanisław Kuczyński-Iskander Bej (and not the other Kuczyński from Ostashkov, as Furr claims) who, according to ch. 5. of Katynskij sindrom was not shot but rather transferred to Moscow. Now, it is true that one can find his name in the modern lists of those shot in Kharkov. But it's a mistake: the Starobielsk list is not a transportation list per se but simply contains the people who left the camp, whether for the execution or for some other reason. The list includes e. g. Zygmunt Berling (no. 177), who obviously was not shot. So it also includes Kuczyński-Iskander Bej (under no. 1414) as someone who left the camp. Since Kuczyński was not on the list of those transferred to Yukhnov, it was incorrectly assumed that he was shot in Kharkov, given that the document found by the Russian investigators were not known at the time when the lists were made. So Kuczyński could as well have been alive in 1943 and 1944 and could have written anything on NKVD/NKGB's request.

Finally, Furr appeals to a badge found by the Germans in one of the graves, which reads "T. K. UNKWD K. O 9424 city Ostashkov". "T. K." was "trudovaya koloniya" (work colony) and not "prison kitchen" as Furr assumes (Ubity v Kalinine, zakhoroneny v Mednom, 2019, vol. 3, p. 551n7). It is not clear what puzzles Furr so much about this, given that e. g. already on 19.11.1939 112 people were transferred from Ostahskov to Kozielsk. Yep, people got moved from camp to camp. Furr once again shows that he doesn't know the sheer basics.

I hope it has become clear by now that, ahem, products of Furr's activity have no more merit than YouTube videos promising us "200 PROOFS OF FLAT EARTH!!!".

How Mattogno & Rudolf Invented A Crazy Journey of a Jewish Transport from Holland Through Upper Silesia

$
0
0
Almost unnoticed, an Italian researcher made a surprising discovery on the route of Jewish transports to Auschwitz.

On 16 October 1942, a Jewish transport with 1,710 departed from the Netherlands (Westerbork camp) to Auschwitz. But the train did not only halt at the station Cosel in Upper Silesia, where 570 Jews were taken out for forced labour, as it was well-known so far.

According to this Italian researcher, the transport was diverted from its route to Auschwitz after reaching Cosel. Instead of going eastwards to Auschwitz, the train headed North-West to Gogolin, where some Jews were unloaded and accommodated in the camps St. Annaberg or Sakrau. At Gogolin, the transport was either going further North to Oppeln and then East to take a halt at Voßwalde. Here, some more people got off to go to the camp Malapane between Oppeln and Voßwalde. The journey continued South to Blechhammer, some 5 km East of Cosel, where the train had started its detour and where more people were again taken out for forced labour. The train headed straight to Königshütte near Kattowitz, where it let off more forced labourers for the Bismarckhütte. Finally, the transport arrived at the Auschwitz camp.

Alternatively, the deportees were sent back from Gogolin to Cosel via Kattowitz to Auschwitz. But the transport was not unloaded at the Auschwitz camp. Instead, some Jews were selected for forced labour for the camp Bobrek. The rest of the people was taken back to Blechhammer (5 km East of Cosel, where they had been earlier the day), then to Königshütte (which they pass now for the third time) to sent Jews to Bismarckhütte and finally to the Auschwitz camp.

How does that sound? Incredible? Unbelievable? Well, perhaps I should have mentioned that this Italian "researcher" is not doing historical research in the proper sense, but he is just watching out for any straw - how matter far-fetched and absurd - to deny the Holocaust.

The crazy journey sketched above is suggested by the Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno:
According to Czech’s Auschwitz Chronicle, a Jewish transport from Holland arrived on October 18, 1942, with 1,710 deportees, of whom only 116 women were registered, and the remaining 1,594 persons are supposed to havebeen gassed. The ‘special action’ mentioned by Kremer is supposed to have referred to this alleged gassing.

According to a Dutch Red Cross report, the transport in question, comprising 1,710 persons, departed from Westerbork on October 16 and stopped first in Kosel, where 570 persons were selected out. The rest continued on to the following camps:

“St. Annaberg or Sakrau – Bobrek or Malapane – Blechhammer and further some to Bismarckhütte/Monowitz. A separate group into the Groß-Rosen zone.”

A list of the transports from Westerbork to the east – probably prepared by Louis de Jong – names as the destinations of the October 16, 1942, transport “Sakrau, Blechhammer, Kosel.”

For its false assertions regarding this transport, Czech’s Auschwitz Chronicle again cites the Kremer diary! Thus only a small percentage of the Jews deported from Holland on October 16, 1942, actually arrived in Auschwitz.
(Mattogno, Special Treatment in Auschwitz, p. 86)

(Mattogno has taken the quote from the Dutch Red Cross report from a summary table, which describes the sequence of camps as "route followed by most of the transport")

This "discovery" may have gone unnoticed, if Germar Rudolf did not think to give it some more attention than in Mattogno's books, which are hardly read by anybody other than Holocaust Controversies and some "Revisionist" cheerleaders.

Rudolf featured the assertion in a last year's article:
"Here is what Carlo Mattogno has found out about that particular transport:

[above quote from Mattogno, Special Treatment in Auschwitz, p. 86]

So it wasn’t just Cosel where the trains stopped and deportees got off; they detrained at many stations."
(Rudolf, How Danuta Czech Invented 100,000 Gassing Victims)


Fact check: Hoax!

The transport with 1,710 Jewish people from Westerbork did not stop and unloaded Jewish people anywhere else than in Cosel and the old ramp near Auschwitz-Birkenau. On 18 October 1942, about 570 people were taken out in Cosel for forced labour in the camps of the so called Organisation Schmelt. In Auschwitz, 116 female Jews were selected for work and registered in the camp (Czech Kalendarium). The rest, more than 1000 people, were killed in the gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau. The action was described by the Auschwitz doctor Johann Kremer in his contemporary diary:

18 October 1942
Wet and cold weather, today Sunday morning present at the 11th special action (Dutch). Horrible scenes with three women, who begged for bare survival"
(Auschwitz State Museum, Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, p.160; my translation)

At his examination in Poland on 18 July 1947, Kremer explained what happened on this day:
"In the course of the special action I described in the diary on 18 October 1942, three women from Holland did not want to go to the gas chamber and pleaded for their lives. They were young, healthy women, yet their requests were not answered, but SS men who participated in the action shot them on the spot."
(Auschwitz State Museum, Auschwitz in den Augen der SS, p.160; my translation)

Now it is clear why Mattogno and Rudolf desperately wanted the transport to take more stopovers and get more people off than it was actually the case. So they could deny that these Jewish people were exterminated in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Just what the hell did Mattogno think when he suggested that a large transport with 1,710 people after a two days journey from the Netherlands to Cosel would tour back and forth through Upper Silesia to deliver people to individual forced labour camps?

Worse than that Mattogno and Rudolf took a nonsensical view on the transport logistics, the cited source does not even describe any such stops.

Mattogno has presented his snippet from an overview table in the Dutch Red Cross Report as tour of the train after leaving Cosel, but it is actually describing what happened over the next two years to the group of 570 Jewish people selected for forced labour in Cosel, as explained in the following detailed extract (this chapter is all about the fate of the Jews who got off in Cosel and uses "transport" in the sense of transport of the Jews selected in Cosel):
Chapter 2. The Cosel-transports

[...]

Transport from 16-10-1942.

Also this large transport (± 570 people got off at Cosel) has been taken from Cosel half to St.Annaberg and the other half to Sakrau.

Subsequently in October 1942, the vast majority of the transport was distributed over the Bobrek and Malapane camps.

A smaller transport (a total of 70 men, 40 of them from Sakrau and 30 from St.Annaberg, but not all of the present transport; but partly of the transports from 23 and 30-10-1942 and from 16-11-1942) went on 22-11-42 to the Gross Rosen resort (Tränke and later to Wisau and Bunzlau; see State II).Thanks to extensive data provided by intelligent returnees, almost all names of their last transport and their (probable) death dates are known.

Even smaller groups and individuals in special positions have followed an exceptional route (via Reigersfeld, Anthoniehütte, Breslau-Hundsfeld, Laurahütte or Königshütte-Johannsdorf-Ludwigsdorf-Brande to Blechhammer, or via Ottmuth-Neukirch or Königshütte-Johannsdorf-Ludwigs-Ludwdorf Gross Rosen), but these are isolated cases which must be treated as such.

The main issue is therefore to draw a general conclusion for those who have been transported to Bobrek and Malapane. There are also fairly detailed data from these camps, from which the individual fate of many people can be determined. Many died in the mentioned camps or were put on sick transport.

The survivors were transferred to Blechhammer around 23 March 1944, when the Bobrek and Malapane camps were closed down (see State I).

A total of 129 men were found in Blechhammer. For those who have not been reported in Blechhammer and of whom nothing else is known, the conclusion can only be drawn that they must have died by the end of March 1944, while in view of possible unknown dislocations the place of death would have been to be noticed: one of the labor camps in Silesia (Poland).

After Blechhammer, groups were taken to Bismarckhütte / Monowitz.
(Nederlandsche Roode Kruis, Auschwitz. Deel III: De Deportatietransporten in de zg. Cosel-Periode, p. 48-49; my translation)

There is also documentary evidence indicating that there were no stopovers of the transports from the Netherlands other than in Cosel:
OMA de OMF, 2 0700.3 239 249 250 46
RSHA IV B 4 Berlin, for the attention of SS Obersturmbannführer Eichmann, for information to Amtsgruppe D, Oranienburg, for the attention of SS Obersturmbannführer Liebehenschel.

Subject. Removal of Jews from the polo-czeck-Dutch areas to Auschwitz.
Reference: your telex of 5.10.42, No. 181 212, 17.55 p.m. Secret.

Regarding the Jewish transports from Holland, please give us the train numbers and the expected arrival times by radio, so that on the basis of these documents the Oppeln Railway Directorate can arrange that these transports do not stop in Kosel, but pass through to Auschwitz to prevent access by the representatives of the action Schmelt, as was agreed.

Gez. Hoess, SS Obersturmbannführer
(VEJ 16, p. 176, my translation)

Höß attempted (unsuccessfully) to cancel even the halt in Cosel to get all forced labourers exclusively to his camp.

We also know from the Korherr report that only 8,188 Jews were taken out to Schmelt labour camps from the transports to Auschwitz - out of a total of more than 150,000 Jews deported to the camp in 1942 (w/o the "stateless" Jews of Upper Silesia). Thus, the stopover of the Jewish deportees before Auschwitz does not explain what happened to the unregistered Jews in Auschwitz - let aside that people unfit for work were hardly the ones picked for work.

By the way, the source cited by Mattogno is clear what happened to Jews not selected for work in Cosel:

The "fit for work" men, who were taken off the train in Cosel, were in general of the age group of ± 15 to 50 years, in some individual cases a little older. Those who remained on the train to be transported to Auschwitz were thus, generally speaking, the older, weak or sick men and the women and children. In general it can be said that the latter groups were killed by gassing immediately upon arrival at Auschwitz.
(Nederlandsche Roode Kruis, Auschwitz. Deel III: De Deportatietransporten in de zg. Cosel-Periode, p. 8; my translation)

So the Dutch Red Cross Report, which Mattogno and Rudolf considered reliable, does not only not support their fantasy tour of the Jewish transports to Auschwitz, this source also contradicts their denial of the gassing of unfit Jews in Auschwitz.

Seriously Now, Where Did The Jews "Evacuated to The East" Go?

$
0
0
A simple question to corner any Holocaust denier:

Where did the Jews considered unfit for work by the Nazis and "evacuated to the East" go?

Figure 1: Map of Europe (google earth satellite image) with selected political-administrative areas of the Third Reich coloured; also shown: the number of "evacuated" Jews between June 1941 - April 1943, the number of Jews left as of 1943, partisan populated areas in the army rear and operation zone as well as the boundary of the operation zone and Eastern front line in mid-1942.

On 15 December 1942, Adolf Eichmann's RSHA department on Jewish matters, office IV B4, submitted as "Secret State Affair" an "operation and situation report on the Final Solution of the European Jewish Question" (not preserved). Himmler was discontent with the elaboration, which he considered "lacking professional accuracy" (image on the left, microfilm quality). He, therefore, ordered on 18 January 1943 his chief statistician Richard Korherr to take over and analyse the data collected at Eichmann's office (BArch NS 19/1577).

On 23 March 1943, Korherr provided a 16 pages long document "The Final Solution of the European Jewish Question" covering the period up to 31 December 1942 to Himmler. On 19 April 1943, he forwarded to Himmler's staff a shorter summary extending the period covered to 31 March 1943. This short version was meant to get incorporated into a larger (not preserved) report on the Final Solution for Adolf Hitler by the RSHA (BArch NS 19/1570, scans, text in German/English).

According to Korherr, about 2.6 Million European Jews had been "evacuated" eastwards by the Nazis. Taking into account double-counting, forced labour selections, and transports not destined to the extermination camps Auschwitz, Belzec, Kulmhof, Sobibor, and Treblinka, the figure of Jews "evacuated to the East" between June 1941 and April 1943 not accounted for by Holocaust deniers amounts to about 2.3 Million (see the appendix for details).

Even with combined forces, the Holocaust deniers Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues and Jürgen Graf were not able to tackle the issue. In their inverted comma orgy The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt" [TECOAR], they waffle about Jews fit for work deported through Europe or direct transports to the East but did not explain the fate of the unfit Jews deported to the extermination camps. Graf eventually admits in the epilogue "that we are unable to produce German wartime documents about the destination and the fate of the deportees" (TECOAR, p. 1503).

It's easy to see why the claim that the Jews were not killed in the extermination camps but resettled further East is a lie: according to contemporary German documents, the mass of the "evacuated" Jews did not show up in the occupied Soviet areas under civilian administration, while the military governed areas were partisan populated/endangered and largely free of Jews (map in Figure 1 above).

Holocaust deniers refer to the Pripet Marshes, located in the North of the Reichskommissariat Ukraine and the South of the Generalkommissariat Weissruthenien as possible resettlement areas (insinuated by Mattogno, Graf and Kues, Sobibor, TECOAR, p. 597ff.; explicitly mentioned by Steffen Werner, Die zweite babylonische Gefangenschaft).

The deportation of hundreds of thousands of Jews into the Pripet Marshes in 1942 would have been incomprehensible. The "evacuated" Jews were largely unfit for work and could not have been employed for heavy work in the area.

The Pripet Marshes were also subjected to severe partisan activity. Himmler was scared already by the concentration of less than 30,000 Jews in the Ghetto of Pinsk, which he considered "as the centre of all gang fighting in the Pripet swamps" and ordered "to immediately dissolve and destroy the Pinsk ghetto" in October 1942 (imageon the left, photographed at the exhibition Topographie des Terrors in Berlin).

Another example that partisan areas were as a matter of course cleared of Jews rather than a destination for deportations: on 4 October 1942, the quartermaster of the rear army area 550 (West North-Caucasus region) ordered that "30 Jewish families from the partisan area...are to be deported to Armavir" (NARA, T501/R69). Now if already 30 Jewish families posed a problem for the Nazis - what would 2.3 Million of them be then?

Moreover, during the mass deportations of Jews to Auschwitz, Belzec, Kulmhof, Sobibor, Treblinka, the Generalkommissariat Weissruthenien saw actually a decrease of its Jewish population - already decimated by the Einsatzgruppen shootings in 1941 - from 150,000 to 30,000 Jews by April 1943. So instead of taking up hundreds of thousands of Jews, the authorities worked hard to reduce the Jewish population, including those directly deported from Western parts of Europe. By July 1943, the Reichskommissariat Ostland counted about 72,000 Jews and was ordered to decrease the Jewish population to 50,000. [1]

Likewise, by April 1943, the Reichskommissariat Ukraine was almost free of Jews after the systematic extermination of its remaining Jewish population in 1942 (resulting in the 363,211 Jewish death toll presented by the Higher SS and Police Leader Hans-Adolf Prützmann at the end of 1942).

On 31 December 1942, the Generalkommissar Wolhynien (whose area included a large portion of the Pripet swamps) stated on the "Jewry" that "the cleansing of the area is almost completed" (see also Holocaust Denial & Himmler's Report to Hitler on "Jews executed: 363,211"). By April 1943, the Reichskommissar Ukraine no longer reported on Jews. On 8 July 1943, Adolf Hitler quoted the Gauleiter Erich Koch that "the Jews are all gone". On 25 November 1943, the Hauptmann der Schutzpolizei Josef Ruhr, whose police battalion 306 had been assigned to the Pripet Marshes in the second half of 1942, gave a lecture on the "Battalion's special action to solve the Jewish question. Ukraine free of Jews".  [2]
 
Thus, if deniers'"resettlement" assertion was true, 2.3 Million Jews - mostly unfit for work and useless eaters according to the Nazis - had to be sent to the army rear area. Such a huge population movement into the back of the fighting army - to areas with alarming partisan activity or along the army supply routes - seems incomprehensible both from the Nazis' point of view, who considered the Jews as "dangerous elements", and from that of the military forces. There is also not a shred of evidence for any large scale deportation of unfit Jews and the existence of numerous Jewish camps with the size of Auschwitz in the military-controlled Eastern area (no indication of camps, supplies, guards, survivors, etc.).

The northern military sector around Pskov had been free of Jews by April 1942 and the situation reports of the Befehlshaber im Heeresgebiet Nord from the subsequent months do not mention any Jews or deportation of Jews in the area. Note also that according to the report for August 1942, the Security Police and the army declined the installation of a concentration camp for oil shale works in Slanzy because of lack of guards, materials and workforce. [3]

The Einsatzgruppen had also largely decimated the Jews in the centre military sector. In early 1942, the army counted no more than 22.767 Jews in the military-controlled part of Weissruthenien. More than one year later, by mid-1943, only 1.615 Jews were accommodated in the forced labour camps of Organisation Todt.[4] In addition, the area was heavily populated by partisans. The systematic mass murder of the Jews there was carried out under the pretext of Jews being per definition dangerous elements. Accordingly, it can be ruled out that the Nazis sent a large number of (non-working) Jews into this area.

The southern military sector was also virtually free of Jews according to army reports of areas screened for this posting (i.e. all except those for the oblasts Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia; the Krim can be discarded as deportation target since heavy fighting was going on until July 1942).

About 1.7 Million mostly unfit Jews allegedly "evacuated" eastwards through Auschwitz, Belzec, Kulmhof, Sobibor, and Treblinka did not show up in the East. There is no trace of them after being sent to these camps.

As follows from a letter by Rudolf Brandt of 10 April 1943, Korherr had originally written in the long version of his statistical report that the "evacuations" to camps in the Warthegau and the Generalgouvernement, i.e. in Kulmhof, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka meant "special treatment of Jews", The term "special treatment" was the default euphemism for killings by the German paramilitary forces (see Mattogno's special treatment of evidence, Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz and Sonderkommando Kulmhof in German Documents - The Extermination of 100,000 Jews). By April 1943, the term was already too widely known that Himmler prohibited its use in such extremely incriminating context and ordered the innocent formulation "transportation" instead. 

Indeed, according to Korherr's conclusion, the "evacuated" Jews were "lost" to European Jewry and were counted as "off-going", yet did not go to other continents. They were thus considered as dead - exactly as corroborated by the body of evidence on the extermination camps. Another 633,300 "evacuated" Jews disappeared in the occupied Russian territories. This number corresponds approximately to the mass killings of Jews reported by the Einsatzgruppen to the RSHA (Kruglov, К вопросу о количестве евреев, уничтоженных эйнзатцгруппами в 1941-1943 гг). They were thus shot and gassed by the Einsatzgruppen (on gas vans, see the series Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans and Mattogno, his Einsatzgruppen book and the Gas Vans).

The use of "evacuation" (also "resettlement") to the East was the main cover-up scheme for the genocide of the Jews. The explanation worked up to the gates of the extermination camps, which were run by special forces bound to the highest level of secrecy (see also What's There to Hide? Camouflage and Secrecy of Nazi Extermination Sites). Whether for the Jewish victims themselves or the Jews who stayed back, whether for the local population or the authorities, whether for police forces rounding up and guarding the Jews or train conductors - none did have to officially know any more than the Jews were evacuated to the East (of course, unofficially, the information about the mass murder leaked through by escaped prisoners, outside observers and indiscretion and was all over the place).

In his infamous Posen speech on 4 October 1943, Himmler took up this cover-up scheme when he explained to his leading SS officers frankly that "I am talking about the 'Jewish evacuation': the extermination of the Jewish people".

Holocaust Denial

Most sources in reference [1, 2] have been cited already in Holocaust Controversies'critique of the deniers Mattogno, Graf & Kues, but were ignored in Kues' chapter in TECOAR, which failed to clear up the fate of the Jews. While bothering about small groups of Jews fit for work from Western areas, trainloads of goods and furniture stolen from Dutch Jews arriving in Vilna and mostly Ukrainian and Romanian Jews fit for work doing heavy forced labour along the Durchgangsstraße IV in Ukraine, he totally missed the point that no masses of Jews evacuated from the mentioned Nazi-controlled areas appeared in the Reichskommissariate Ostland and Ukraine.

(And Mattogno? He cared only about irrelevant matters - the way of citing and the present tense in the first two sentences of Koch's statement - instead of addressing the content; TECOAR, p.785).

Fun fact: Steffen Werner suggested in "Die zweite babylonische Gefangenschaft" (1990) that "the Jews were settled in the eastern part of White Ruthenia" and "are still held in a kind of captivity by the Soviet Union today!" Even Jürgen Graf, not exactly the sharpest knife among "Revisionists", had to admit that Werner's explanation has to be regarded "as impossible" - which is obvious since the Soviet Union ceased to exist and the hidden Jews did not turn up.

But also the former (no longer active) denier high-flyer (compared to the rest) Thomas Kues speculated about the lack of "evacuated" Jews after the war that "a large portion of them, together with the surviving deported Western Jews, were kept as prisoners behind the Iron Curtain and most likely deported to and hidden away in northern Russia or Siberia, so that Stalin could consolidate the myth of the extermination of Jews in 'gas chambers'" (TECOAR, p.755).

Apparently, Holocaust deniers prefer to make fools out of themselves by advancing even the most bizarre and nonsensical theories, then to admit the fact that the Nazis mass murdered the Jews.

In the big picture, there was no place where the Jews, who disappeared in the camps Auschwitz, Belzec, Kulmhof, Sobibor, and Treblinka, went to during the period of the Nazi reign and occupation. It is a straightforward refutation of the "Revisionist" transit camp claim and poses an existential challenge to Holocaust denial.

For the most part, deniers try to elude the whole issue by discussing only isolated, cherry-picked regions:

When looking at Auschwitz or Kulmhof, the East is supposed to have absorbed all unfit Jews who got lost in these camps. Talking about the 1.25 Million Jews that disappeared in Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, they like to point to the Reichskommissariate Ostland and Ukraine as an unlimited reservoir to take up Jews. The decimation of Jews in the Reichskommissariate Ostland and Ukraine is barely mentioned and going on the military-controlled areas along the Eastern front is avoided like the plague by deniers so not give up their last place of retreat.

But if the Jewish population in all regions is taken into account at the same time, the trick to shift missing Jews from one area under discussion into another only treated as a black box does not work anymore. Then the time has come to place all the cards on the table and be frank.

The Jews "unsuitable for work" vanishing from Auschwitz and Kulmhof did not pop up in the Generalgouvernement cause its Jewish population was eliminated only leaving behind forced labourers. The Jews cleared from the Generalgouvernement were not "resettled" into the partisan populated pripet swamps and the Reichskommissariate Ukraine and Ostland, which were depleted of Jews. The Jews gone from these Reichskommissariate were not exchanged between each other or pushed into the back of the fighting Eastern army and the partisan areas, which was largely free of Jews.

It's game over for Holocaust Denial. Again and again.

References:

[1] Protocol of a speech of Eduard Strauch of 10 April 1943,  Benz, Einsatz im Reichskommissariat Ostland, p. 235; Memo of 20 August 1943 on a conference of 13 July 1943, NO-1831, Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals, Volume 13, p. 1021.

[2] Situation report of Generalkommissar Wolhynien of 31 December 1942, Pohl et al., Der deutsche Krieg im Osten 1941-1944: Facetten einer Grenzüberschreitung, p. 184; situation report of Reichskommissar Ukraine,  Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard, p. 266; meeting of Adolf Hitler with Wilhelm Keitel and Kurt Zeitzler of 8 July 1943, Madajczyk, Rozstrzygnięcie przez Hitlera sporu o metody eksploatacji zasobów ludzkich okupowanej Europy Wschodniej, p. 171; notes by Josef Ruhr for a lecture on 25 November 1943,  Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde, p. 715.

[3]  Ereignismeldung UdSSR no 189 of 3 April 1942, Mallmann et al., Deutsche Berichte aus dem Osten 1942-1943. Dokumente der Einsatzgruppen in der Sowjetunion III, p. 256; monthly reports of Befehlshaber im Heeresgebiet Nord for July, August & September 1942 (entries on Jews lacking), NARA T501/R14.

[4] Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde, p. 684 & 688.

[5] Situation report of Befehlshaber Heeresgebiet Don of 7 December 1942 ("Jews have only been sporadically identified in the army area"); Situation report of Oberfeldkommandantur Donez of 24 September 1942 ("Significant numbers of Jews only exist in the Woroschilowgrad  area, e.g. in the city of Woroschilowgrad 1038, in Woroschilowsk around 100."); Situation report of Feldkommandantur 503 of 12 January 1943 (entry on Jews lacking); Oberfeldkommandantur 399 of 20 December 1942 (entry on Jews lacking), situation report of Feldkommandantur 239 of 2 December 1942 ("Otherwise [apart from one Jewess], as far as could be determined, Jews have so far not appeared"), situation report of Ortskommandantur 259 of 4 August 1942 ("only two Jews"), situation report of Feldkommandantur 668 of 4 October 1942 ("The Jews identified in the area were evacuated by the SD"), NARA T501/R19.

Appendix

The Numbers
Table 1
Region "Evacuated to East"
(Korherr report)
"Evacuated to East"
(adjusted figures)
Generalgouvernement1,274,1661,261,405
Warthegau145,301145,301
Reich (w. Protektorat Böhmen & Mähren,
Eastern territories, w/o Warthegau)
313,882175,769
France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway,
Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Greece
208,772110,302
Occupied Russian territories633,300633,300
SUM2,575,4212,326,077

To keep it simple, the figures on Jewish losses have been mainly taken from the reports of the RSHA statistician Richard Korherr.

As Himmler's statistician was provided only with deportation and Einsatzgruppen data by Eichmann's office, a large number of Jewish deaths caused by the National Socialist policy towards the Jews were not or not explicitly considered in his study (such as ghetto and camp deaths, shootings other than those documented by the Einsatzgruppen after the attack on the Soviet Union, mass killing of Jews by the Axis' puppet states). Therefore, the figure of "evacuated" Jews shall not be confused with an estimate of the total number of Holocaust victims up to 1943.

The sum for the Generalgouvernement, the Warthegau, the Reich, other European countries and the occupied Russian territories amounts to about 2.58 Mio. Jews (2nd column in Table 1).

On the other hand, the records available to Korherr did not capture forced labour selections among  "evacuated" Jews, double-counted some deportations and included transports to the Ostland. The adjusted figure of Jews "evacuated" via the extermination camps plus Einsatzgruppen killings is displayed in the 3rd column (about 2.33 Million Jews).

The Generalgouvernement figure was corrected as follows:
  • minus Polish transports to Majdanek (12,761; addition from late December 1942 in the Höfle telegram, presumed to be transfers from the Generalgouvernement throughout 1942, Schwindt, Das Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslager Majdanek, p. 183-186)
The Reich figure (with Protektorat Böhmen & Mähren, Eastern territories w/o Warthegau) computed from the Korherr reports was adjusted as follows:
  • minus transports from the Reich to Litzmannstadt (19,441; Feuchert et al. (ed.), Die Chronik des Gettos Lodz/Litzmannstadt 1941, p. 274 - since already included in Warthegau figures)
  • minus selections for work in Auschwitz (16,151; Czech, Kalendarium)
  • minus transfers to Majdanek (3,615; Höfle telegram figure for Majdanek until mid-December 1942 minus transfer of Slovakian Jews to Majdanek)
  • minus transports to Ostland (45,212; transport lists from Bundesarchiv Gedenkbuch "Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945" - for the sake of simplicity, this ignores that a significant number of those transports were subjected to direct extermination, e.g. at Maly Trostinez near Minsk).
  • minus transports Reich to Lublin area, w/o direct transports to Sobibor (31,092; transport lists from Bundesarchiv Gedenkbuch "Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945" - supposing that the Höfle telegram included also non-Polish Jews deported earlier to Ghettos in the Generalgouvernement but excluded direct transports from outside to the extermination camps).
  • minus Theresienstadt deportations to Ostland, the Lublin area (w/o direct transports to Treblinka, Sobibor) and registered prisoners in Auschwitz from Theresienstadt transports (22,602; deportation list here and Czech, Kalendarium -  the subtraction is done to be on the safe side, assuming Korherr had fully accounted for the Theresienstadt deportations, which is questionable)

The figure for France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Slowakia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Greece was adjusted as follows:
  • minus selections at Cosel (8,188; Korherr report)
  • minus registered prisoners in Auschwitz (56,419; Czech, Kalendarium)
  • minus selections of Slovakian Jews from direct transports for Majdanek (ca. 4,000; Schwindt, Das Konzentrations- und Vernichtungslager Majdanek, p. 106)
  • minus transports from Slovakia to Lublin area, w/o direct transports to Sobibor (29,863; Büchler, The Deportation of Slovakian Jews to the Lublin District of Poland in 1942, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 151-166, 1991)

Sources used for the Map (other than Korherr reports)

Blue swords: Partisan activities in the area of the Befehlshaber des Heeresgebiet Süd in May & June, August 1942, NARA T501/R12, T501/R19, T501/349; Partisan areas according to the map Lage Ost map of 11 May 1942.

Black swords: Partisan activities in the area of the Befehlshaber des Heeresgebiet Mitte in May, September 1942, NARA T501/349, USHMM RG-30.004.

Reichskommissariat Ostland: 

see 2nd source in reference [1]

Reichskommissariat Ukraine: 

see reference [2]. The figure of Jews left in Ukraine has been put to < 10,000 to take into account the possibility of closed formations of forced labour Jews from Hungary and Romania dragged through the area by the respective armies.

White shade of army north rear territory:

see 2nd source in reference [3]

White shade of army south rear territory: see reference [5]

Auschwitz & Schmelt: 45,000 prisoners by 1 April 1943 (IPN GK 196/134, p. 280 & 284), thereof presumably about 10,000 non-Jews and 50,570 prisoners in the Schmelt camps (Korherr report).

The Soviet Bombing of Auschwitz and Treblinka in 1942/1943

$
0
0
From 20 August to 14 September 1942, the Soviet Air Force flew several air raids deep into the Reich and its Allies. On 4 September 1942, the bombers were sent out for especially far and politically prestigious targets: Vienna and Budapest. In the night of 4 to 5 September, around 00:30 a.m., 12 bombs were dropped on the Kispest area and another 17 bombs on the areas Rózsadomb and Városmajor across the Danube. 11 people were killed and about 60 injured during the air raid in Budapest (see here and here). In Vienna, eight explosive bombs hit the Ostmärkische Mineralölwerke on the floodplain Lobau (BArch R 58/3580, p. 237).

The Allied press celebrated the Soviet coup to strike the (former) Austrian and Hungarian capitals together with the British bombing of Bremen (with at least 116 deaths). The German side commented that the Soviet bombings were "nuisance raids" with "slight damage and some casualities" and "one plane was shot down" (The Vancouver Sun, 5 September 1942). Another article reported that "Russian planes in difficult weather on Friday night started 33 fires in Budapest...Thirty raiders participated in the Budapest attack, and they dropped 17 heavy bombs in the centre of the city" (The Argus, Melbourne, 7 September 1942).

Figure 1: Newspaper report,The Vancouver Sun, 5 September 1942.
Along their flight paths in the Generalgouvernement, the Soviet bombers already let down some of their load on a number of sites. As the air-planes followed the railway line Kattowitz-Vienna as guidance, four explosive bombs were dropped over Auschwitz, hitting the so-called area of interest of the concentration camp Auschwitz.

A report of the Order Police described the event as follows:



The Chief of Order Police            Berlin, 6 September 1942

Subject: Air strikes on the Reich territory and occupied territories

Situation report no. 634.

[...]

4.9.[1942] Reisko and Auschwitz District Bielitz

Inspector of Order Police Breslau.
4 bombs [dropped] on cleared area. Small glass damage to Harmense Castle and 1 farmhouse in Reisko.

[...]
(Situation report no. 634 on air raids of the Chief of Order Police of 6 September 1942, BArch R 58/3580, p. 236)

This source has been previously cited by Olaf Göhler in 1991 (The Soviet Long-Range Airforces in the Great Patriotic War of the USSR (1941-1945)), but his finding that "on September 4 Soviet bombs were also dropped around Auschwitz" was considered as "open to question" by Joseph White as Göhler did only use a German police report "but not Russian primary sources" (Target Auschwitz: Historical and Hypothetical German Responses to Allied Attack).

Rajsko and Harmense are situated at about 1 to 2 km distance to the camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. Although the bombing is so far not confirmed by other sources, it seems plausible given the detailed description of number of bombs, location and caused damage. In addition, Auschwitz was indeed in the flight path of the Soviet air planes to Vienna.

The map below shows the bombing raids on the Reich and Generalgouvernement according to German police and army reports:

Figure 2: Soviet air-raids on 4/5 September 1942 with presumed flight path to Vienna and Budapest.

Vienna was apparently approached via Wolbrom in the Generalgouvernement, Auschwitz in Upper Silesia and Vsetin in Böhmen and Mähren.

At 23 p.m. on 4 September 1942, air raid alarm went-off in the Generalgouvernement district Krakau as Soviet air-planes heading to Budapest bombed Wylewa, Przemysl and Sanok before crossing the border to Slovakia and entering Hungary.

Another group of bombers attacked Rava-Ruska. Lviv, Drohobych and Skole before reaching the Hungarian border. At Lozyno near Lviv, a Soviet airplane crashed down and a "Russian officer" jumped-off the aircraft was captured 20 km South near Horodok. The Soviets also dropped leaflets in German, Russian and Hungarian along their flight route.

(see situation reports on air raids of the Chief of Order Police of 6 & 7 September 1942, BArch R 58/3580, p. 236-238; Monatsbericht of OFK Krakau Abt. 1a of 20 September 1942, NARA T-501/R-216/1142; Monatsbericht of OFK Lemberg Abt. 1a of 17 September 1942, NARA T-501/R-216/1185).

The Soviet airforce resumed their air-raids on the Reich and Generalgouvernement in spring of the following year.

In the night of 4/5 May 1943, so the German police reported, "some enemy planes also flew from east into the Warthegau and Upper Silesia". The Soviets dropped "9 light bombs" on the area of the IG Farben-Industrie at Dwory (some 10 km at distance to Auschwitz-Birkenau).

Treblinka was struck with "explosive bombs on cleared area" apparently as the Soviet bombers approached targets like Brest, Chelm, and Lublin (situation reports on air raids of the Chief of Order Police of 5, 6 & 7 May 1943, BArch R 58/3581, p. 39-46, see also Figure 3).

Figure 3: Soviet air-raids on 4/5 May 1943.

The bombing of the Auschwitz IG Farben complex is confirmed by other contemporary sources:

Figure 4: SS-WVHA to RF-SS on 13 May 1943 (Online archive of Arolsen Archives, signature 2207006, document ID 82347096)


The Number of Jews in Europe at the Eve of the Holocaust

$
0
0
Somebody requested in a Holocaust denial forum on my blog article Seriously Now, Where Did The Jews "Evacuated to The East" Go? that "the issue of these transported Jews" shall be "addressed correctly and precisely" by deniers. Fair point! But also pretty naive - we are not calling that place "the cesspit" for nothing. Readily illustrated by the moderator "Hannover" with his nervous attempt of damage control. High spam factor, little relevance and zero impact on the issue at the hand.

The deniers Graf, Mattogno and Kues? Already addressed in the same blog posting.

Babi Yar? A well documented Nazi massacre.

Jews in labour camps west of Treblinka and "Jews evacuated to USSR during war"prior Nazi occupation? Does not deal with the fate of unfit Jews "evacuated to the East"during Nazi occupation.

"1,250,000 – 1,500,000 Polish Jews homeless in Europe" and an "Influx of 3,000,000 JEWS" after the war? That's from the same bag of denier's trick and ignores that a figure of 3 - 4 million Jews in Europe after the war is the order of magnitude expected after the decimation of 5-6 million anyway. It does not help to explain away the Jewish losses during the war. But let's have a closer look at this one.

How many Jews had there been at the eve of the mass extermination of Jews in continental Europe (i.e., always without Great-Britain)? Let's start with how many Jews the Nazis estimated had been in Europe. The result is compared with early estimations after the war as well a more recent monograph on Holocaust demographics.

First of all, we have the so-called Korherr report - long version of 23 March 1943, short version of 19 April 1943  (BArch NS 19/1570, scans, text in German/English). The "long" Korherr provides figures of the Jewish population in Europe that sum up to 10.05 million (without Switzerland, Spain, Norway and Denmark). From this, one has to subtract double-counted 1.2 million Jews in Soviet occupied Poland. On the other hand, one needs to add 217,748 Jews who had been evacuated from the Reich and about 19,000 excess mortality in the Altreich and Ostmark to back-calculate to the 1941 figure. Including about 30,000 Jews from countries omitted by Korherr, there had been about 9.12 million Jews in Europe.

Secondly, there is the so-called Wannsee protocol of 20 January 1942 by Adolf Eichmann. The figures on page six of the protocol sum up to about 10.9 million Jews. However, there is a mistake in the number for France. Instead of 700,000 for unoccupied France, it should read 170,000, which was provided by the Commissioner-General for Jewish Questions Xavier Vallat and reported in German News in December 1941 (see also Michman, Waren die Juden Nordafrikas im Visier der Planer der "Endlösung"?). The Wannsee protocol probably double-counted Galicia with 784,000 Jewish people (figure calculated from the next source). The figures for the baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania correspond to the situation in January 1942 - not to that in before Nazi occupation. According to the so-called 2nd Stahlecker report (PS-2273), about 205,000 Jews had been shot in the area. With these changes, the total number of Jews in continental Europe amounts to 9.78 millionJews.

Thirdly, we have an estimation of the Reichsvereinigung der Juden of 7 August 1941 provided to the RSHA (BArch R 58/7218, also BArch R 8150/25), which yields a sum of 9.3 million Jews in Europe. Note that some of the data in the compilations of the Reichsvereinigung der Juden was also reproduced or used as basis for calculations in the Wannsee protocol and the Korrherr report (Kempe & Klein, Die Wannsee-Konferenz am 20. Januar 1942; Christian Eckl, Richard Korherrs "Bericht über die Endlösung der europäischen Judenfrage").

As early as June 1945, the Institute of Jewish Affairs compiled an estimation of the number of Jews in pre-war Europe. Adding those countries that have not been included, one ends up with about 9.1 million people. In 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry determined that there had been about 9.6 million Jewsin Europe before the war.

In 1991, Benz et al. published with "Dimension des Völkermords" a multi-author study on the number of Jewish victims. The 1941 figures add up to 9.23 million Jews in Europe. Adding another about 40,000 in countries not considered in the study, it can be concluded that there had been almost 9.3 million Jews in continental Europe before the Holocaust (see Table 1).

How was the situation after the war?

At first, a look again on what contemporaries had determined early on: Philip Bernstein, adviser on Jewish Affairs to Commander of US Forces in Europe, estimated the number of the Jews in post-war Europe on 20 June 1947 in the United States House of Representatives' Committee on the Judiciary. He stated that "apart from the 2 1/4 million Jews in the Soviet Union who are pretty much cut off from the general Jewish population, there are about a million and a quarter Jews surviving in Europe", therefore estimating that in total 3.5 million Jews were left in Europe. The Institute of Jewish Affair obtained a figure of 3.4 million Jewish people in Europe after the war (incl. those countries missing in the data). The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry published a figure of about 3.88 million Jews left in continental Europe. 

With the figures provided in the multi-author study by Benz et al., one obtains 3.66 millionJews in post-war Europe (3.72 million with those countries not considered in the study) (see Table 2).

Now it's easy to do the math: with about 9.27 million and 3.72 million Jews before the Holocaust and after the war respectively in continental Europe and Russia, the Jewish losses amount to about 5.55 million people.

This figure describes all Jewish losses captured by the demographic data, including war losses and excess natural mortality. For the Soviet Union, it is estimated that as much as 280,000 Jewish deaths resulted from the war and excess mortality (Mark Kupovetsky in: Kokh, Denial of Denial, 2012 p. 166). Thus, the death toll from anti-Jewish policy amounts to about 5.3 million people according to this approach.

In his classic work The Destruction of the Europea Jews (1961), Raul Hilberg published the result of 5.1 million Jewish victims. Dieter Pohl arrived at a Jewish death toll in the range of 5.3 to 5.9 million (in: Kokh, Denial of Denial, 2012 p. 143, Pohl's article was originally published in German in 2005).  HC blog's Nick Terry computed a figure of 5.36 million here but informs that he would nowadays further refine this result with more recent literature (see Table 3).


How significant are these Jewish losses in front of the fact that a bloody war was going on in Europe?

Let's put these figures into perspective. About 2 million Soviet Jews did not come under German occupation (Benz, Dimension des Völkermords, p. 509). Thus, more than 70% of the Jews in the range of the Nazis or its Allies died between 1941 to 1945. For comparison, about 6% of the ethnic Poles died during German occupation (Political Migrations on Polish Territories (1939–1950), p. 179). This huge difference in the mortality of one order of magnitude corresponds to the effect of the extreme hatred towards a minority, destroying their livelihood and the systematic mass killing of the Jewish people in Europe.



Table 1: Pre-Holocaust Jewish population in Europe
RegionReichs-
vereinigung
Juden
[R1]
Wannsee
Protocol
[W1]
Korherr
Report 
[K1]
Benz
Pre-Holocaust
[B1]
IJA
Pre-Holocaust

[I1]
Anglo-American
Pre-Holocaust  
[A1]
Finland 1,8002,3002,000N/AN/A2,000
Norway1,5001,300N/A1,8001,8002,000
Denmark7,0005,600N/A6,0006,0007,000
Netherlands135,000160,800135,000140,00095,000150,000
Belgium80,00034,00080,00052,00055,00090,000
Luxemburg900N/AN/A1,7001,7503,500
France280,000335,000[W2]280,000310,000230,000320,000
Italy52,00058,00052,00046,65645,00050,000
Yugoslavia



75,00080,00071,00075,000
    Croatia 29,00040,000



    Serbia39,00010,000



Greece90,00069,60090,00070,00072,00075,000
Bulgaria50,00048,00050,00051,00048,00050,000
Romania275,000 342,000302,000315,293840,000850,000
Hungary750,000742,800750,000759,442390,000400,000
Slovakia89,00088,00089,00088,951319,000315,000
Protektorat75,00074,20085,227[K2]92,199

Austria52,54943,70061,657[K3]74,61988,00060,000
Germany167,245131,800165,159 [K4]168,972228,000215,000
Poland


3,200,0003,446,0003,280,0003,351,000
    Ostgebiete
420,000



    Ost-OS115,000




    Warthegau360,000




    GG1,500,0002,284,000



    Poland (Sov.)1,200,000
-1,200,000


    Bialystok
400,000



Soviet Union3,520,000[R2]
4,600,0003,277,120 [B3]3,050,0003,560,000
    RSFSR
1,558,832



    Ukraine
2,210,684 [W3]



    Weissruth.
446,484



    Estonia4,5002,000 [W4]N/A4,000
5,000

    Latvia96,00070,000 [W5]96,00094,000
95,000

    Lithuania300,000170,421 [W6]175,000150,000150,000
Portugal2,5003,000N/AN/AN/A3,600
Spain4,5006,000N/AN/AN/A4,500
Sweden8,0008,000N/AN/AN/A7,600
Switzerland18,00018,000N/AN/AN/A26,000
Total9,303,4949,784,5219,088,0439,229,7529,070,5509,617,200

[R1]: BArch R 58/7218, also BArch R 8150/25; figures for 1939 - 1941.
[R2]: incl. Bessarabia & Bukovina (500,000; exaggerated by 200k)

[K1]: BArch NS 19/1570, scans, text in German/English; figures for 1937 - 1941.
[K2]: 15,550 (31.12.1942) + 69,677 (evacuated) (not taking into account excess mortality 1941-1942)
[K3]: 8,102 (31.12.1942) + 47,555 (evacuated) + estimated 6,000 excess mortality 1941-1942
[K4]: 51,327 (31.12.1942) + 100,516 (evacuated) + 13,316 excess mortality 1941-1942

[W1]: Wannsee protocol; figures for 1941.
[W2]: 165,000 (occupied) + 170,000 (unoccupied, not 700,000)
[W3]: 2,994,684 - 784,000 (Galicia); note that the figure for Bessarabia & Bukovina has been likely exaggerated by 200k, see [R2]
[W4]: according to 2nd Stahlecker report (replacing zero as of January 1942)  
[W5]: according to 2nd Stahlecker report (replacing 3,500 as of January 1942)   
[W6]: according to 2nd Stahlecker report (replacing 34,000 as of January 1942)   

[B1]: Benz, Dimension des Völkermords, 1991; figures for 1941
[B2]: added 257,949 for Bessarabia & Bukovina

[I1]: Report"Statistics on Jewish Casualties During Axis Domination", Institute of Jewish Affairs, World Jewish Congress, June 1945. 

[A1]: Report of Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine (1946), Appendix III.


Table 2: Post-war Jewish population in Europe
RegionBenz
Post-war
IJA
Post-war
Anglo-American
Post-war
Finland N/AN/A1,800
Norway1,042800 [I2]1,000 [A2]
Denmark6,0005,0005,500
Netherlands38,00030,000 [I3]30,000 [A3]
Belgium23,48225,000 [I4]33,000 [A4]
Luxemburg500400 [I5]500
France233,866150,000 [I6]180,000 [A5]
Italy40,14333,000 [I7]46,000 [A6]
Yugoslavia15,80010,500 [I8]11,000
Greece10,81112,500 [I9]10,000
Bulgaria49,172 [B3]40,00046,000
Romania297,972[B4]425,000 [I10]335,000 [A7]
Hungary293,000280,000 [I11]200,000
Slovakia21,00030,000 [I12]66,600 [A8]
Protektorat14,000

Austria14,0002,000 [I13]15,000 [A9]
Germany28,6778,000 [I14]94,000 [A10]
Poland300,000480,000 [I15]80,000
Soviet Union2,268,0001,800,000 [I16]2,665,000 [A11]
    Estonia

2,200 [I17]

    Latvia

5,500 [I18]

    Lithuania

7,000 [I19]

PortugalN/AN/A4,200 [A12]
SpainN/AN/A4,600 [A13]
SwedenN/AN/A19,600 [A14]
SwitzerlandN/AN/A28,500 [A15]
Total3,655,4653,346,9003,877,300

[B3]: Shapiro, Recent Population Data regarding the Jews in Europe, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1946), p. 319-321
[B4]: 355,972 in 1945 minus 58,000 from Nordsiebenbürgen/Northern Transylvania (Benz, p. 407 & Maniula, Regional development of the Jewish population in Romania; see also Kokh, Denial of Denial, p. 140 for a lower figure of survivors from Northern Transylvania)

[I2]: unkown number of DPs
[I3]: incl. 10,000 DPs
[I4]: incl. 5,000 DPs
[I5]: unkown number of DPs
[I6]: unkown number of DPs
[I7]: incl. 3,000 DPs
[I8]: incl. 3,500 DPs
[I9]: incl. 2,500 DPs
[I10]: incl. 75,500 DPs (thereof 55,000 from Bessarabia and Bukovina in SU)
[I11]: incl.80,000 DPs
[I12]: incl.10,000 DPs
[I13]: unkown number of DPs
[I14]: unkown number of DPs
[I15]: incl. 375,000 DPs
[I16]: "There are no reliable figures on the exact number of surviving or murdered Jews."
[I17]: incl. 2,000 DPs
[I18]: incl. 5,000 DPs
[I19]: incl. 5,000 DPs

[A2]: incl. 250 Jewish refugees/DP
[A3]: incl. 6,000 Jewish refugees/DP ("over 80% German & Austrian")
[A4]: incl. 8,000 Jewish refugees/DP ("mainly German, Austrian & Polish")
[A5]: incl. 30,000 Jewish refugees/DP ("mainly German, Austrian & Polish")
[A6]: incl. 16,000 Jewish refugees/DP ("75% Polish; 7% Rumanian; 5% Czech; 5% Hungarian")
[A7]: incl. 15,000 Jewish refugees/DP ("mainly Polish")
[A8]: incl. 6,600 Jewish refugees/DP ("mainly Polish; some Hungarian")
[A9]: incl. 8,000 Jewish refugees/DP ("73% Polish; 11% Hungarian; 6% Czech and 6% Rumanian")
[A10]: incl. 74,000 Jewish refugees/DP ("85% Polish; 5% Hungarian; 4% Lithuanian, 3% Rumanian")
[A11]: incl. 165,000 Jewish refugees/DP ("150,000 Polish; 15,000 Hungarian")
[A12]: incl. 600 Jewish refugees/DP
[A13]: incl. 600 Jewish refugees/DP
[A14]: incl. 12,000 Jewish refugees/DP ("mainly Polish, German & Austrian")
[A15]: incl. 10,500 Jewish refugees/DP ("mainly Polish, German & Austrian")


Table 3: Summary of selected figures on Jewish losses.
RegionThis posting  
[1]
D. Pohl  
[P1]
N. Terry 
[T1]
R. Hilberg  
[H1]
Norway7587587581,000
Denmark116116116
Netherlands102,000102,000100,000100,000
Belgium28,51825,00023,484 24,000
Luxemburg1,2001,2007201,000
France76,13475,00076,134 75,000
Italy6,5137,0006,5139,000 [H2]
Yugoslavia64,20065,00065,00060,000
Greece59,18959,00059,18560,000
Bulgaria1,223 [2]N/AN/A
Romania17,321 [3]175,000120,919270,000
Hungary466,442 [4]475,000410,000+180,000
Slovakia67,951 [5]90,00066,000260,000 [H3]
Protektorat78,19978,00077,297
Austria60,619 [6]65,00048,76750,000
Germany140,295 [7]165,000150,000 121,000
Poland3,146,000 [8]3,000,0002,890,0003,000,000
Soviet Union1,257,120 [9]1,000,0001,050,000700,000
Estonia
1,0001,0001,000
Latvia
69,00077,00070,000
Lithuania
145,000140,000130,000
Total
5,574,403
5,598,0745,362,893+5,112,000

[1]: demographic balance for eastern and central European countries and Soviet Union from Table 1 (last two columns), difference to Benz's own death toll indicated in references.
[2]: according to Central Jewish Consistory (instead of 11,393)
[3]: according to 1941 census and data on survivors  (instead of 211,214)
[4]: according to 1941 census and data on survivors (instead of 550,000)
[5]: according to 1940 census and data on survivors (instead of 65,703)
[6]: according to 1939 census and data on survivors (instead of 65,459)
[7]: according to May 1941 report of Reichsvereinigung der Juden and data on survivors (instead of 165,000)
[8]: according to 1931 census, extrapolated to 1939, and 300,000 survivors (instead of 2,700,000 - 3,000,000)
[9]: according to 1939 and 1959 census, extrapolated to 1945 (instead of 2,100,000)

[P1]: in: Kokh, Denial of Denial (2012), p. 143; death toll broken down to local administrative areas for eastern European countries and Soviet Union, updating figures in Benz.

[N1]: Number of Victims of the Holocaust - Reference Thread(2006); removing double counting in Benz and updating Eastern Europe figures. According to information from N. Terry, the Soviet Union figure needs to be further refined based on more recent literature.

[H1]: Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der euopäischen Juden, p. 1300; in the borders of 1937.
[H2]: incl. Rhodos
[H3]: Czechoslovakia

Irregular Musings on the Unicellular Denial. #3. Chris Crookes and Mike Peinovich.

$
0
0
Let's continue our sporadic review of the Holocaust denial flora and fauna.

So there is this guy named Chris Crookes - the disgraced Holocaust denier kicked out of the Labour party. He was kicked out for this article. Let's take a look at it.

He begins by discussing Viktor Frankl's deception in his book. Well, duh, this was exposed basically by Frankl himself, and later in this peer-reviewed article (the author of which published an in-depth critique already after Crookes'"article" appeared). It's a big "so what" that has zero to do with the historicity of the Holocaust.

Then Crooks shows his utter pig-like ignorance by being "surprised" about Jews treated in hospitals as if it contradicted the Holocaust (hint: it obviously doesn't, they needed the labor force, especially at the end of the war, so they took minimal care of their actual and potential slave workers, that's basic history, duh).

Then comes this part:
I soon discovered that the SS German Judge Konrad Morgan, who was tortured by the allies at Nuremberg but who refused to perjure himself and who instead gave testimony about how he had been visiting the concentration camps investigating and charging German officers and staff for corruption, cruelty and murder. Even some kamp kommandants were convicted on murder charges (of a few inmates) and were executed for it. Really! That was surprise to me and I recommend people check this out for themselves if they doubt me.
Indeed, if we check Morgen's Nuremberg testimony, we see him testifying at length about the genocide of the Jews, including mass gassings at Aktion Reinhard camps and in the Auschwitz camp complex (something he would later repeat in the German court or courts in the 1960s). Interestingly, the other deniers usually carp on this testimony since Morgen momentarily confused the names Birkenau and Monowitz (something he was asked about later and said he was simply mistaken). Yet the one-cell-megabrain Chris Crookes doesn't even know about this.

Morgen also explained as follows about his investigations in the camps:
MORGEN: The answer is already entailed in the question. The circumstances prevailing in Germany during the war were no longer. normal in the sense of State legal guarantees. Besides, the following must be considered: I was not simply a judge, but I was a judge of military penal justice. No court-martial in the world could bring the Supreme Commander, let alone the head of the State, to court.
HERR PELCKMANN: Please do not discuss problems of law, but tell us why you did not do what you realized you should have done?
MORGEN: I beg your pardon; I was saying that it was not possible for me as Obersturmbannfuehrer to arrest Hitler, who, as I saw it, was the instigator of these orders.
HERR PELCKMANN: Then what did you do?
MORGEN: On the basis of this insight, I realized that something had to be done immediately to put an end to this action. Hitler had to be induced to withdraw his orders. Under the circumstances, this could be done only by Himmler as Minister of the Interior and Minister of the Police. I thought at that time that I must endeavor to approach Himmler through the heads of the departments and make it clear to him, by explaining the effects of this system, that through these methods the State was being led straight into an abyss. Therefore I approached my immediate superior, the chief of the Criminal Police, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Nebe; then I turned to the chief of the Main Office SS Courts, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Breithaupt. I also approached Kaltenbrunner and the chief of the Gestapo, Gruppenfuehrer Muller, and Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl of the Economic and Administrative Main Office, and the Reichsarzt, Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz. But aside from taking these necessary steps, I saw a practical way open to me by way of justice; that is, by removing from this system of destruction the leaders and important elements through the means offered by the system itself., I could not do this with regard to the killings ordered by the head of the State, but I could do it for killings outside of this order, or against this order, or for other serious crimes. For that reason, I deliberately started proceedings against these men, and this would have led to a shake-up of this system and its final collapse. But these activities had another far-reaching effect in the near future, for through the big concentration camp trials against Commander Koch, of whom I spoke earlier, and against the head of the political section at Auschwitz-Kriminalsekretur Untersturmfuehrer Grabner, whom I charged with murder in 2,000 cases outside of this extermination action-the whole affair of these killings had to be brought to trial. It was to be expected that the perpetrators would refer to higher orders also for these individual crimes. This occurred; thereupon the SS jurisdiction, on the basis of the material which I supplied, approached the highest government chiefs and officially asked, "Did you order these killings? Is the legal fact of murder no longer valid for you? What general orders are there concerning these killings?" Then the supreme State leadership would either have to admit its mistakes and thereby bring the culprits definitely under our jurisdiction also with regard to the mass exterminations, or else an open break would have to result through the abrogation of the entire judicial system. If I may anticipate, on account of the trial in Weimar against Koch and Grabner, this problem became acute as I had foreseen; the proceedings were suspended and the SS jurisdiction put these questions, which I mentioned before, publicly and officially to the Reich Security Main Office. For this very purpose a judge was sent there, who had the task of investigating all sections of the Reich Security Main Office, to see whether such orders were in existence. As I heard, the result was negative.
IOW, Chris Crookes simply lied by claiming that Morgen testified about this instead of testifying about the genocide of the Jews. As we see, he testified in addition to his claims about the Auschwitz camp complex and the Aktion Reinhard camps, and in fact as a part of his testimony about the Jewish genocide.

He then claims about the dead in the concentration camps is that "the cause for that want and disease was not German, but was directly related to our own Allied war crime of intentionally targeting civilian populations and supply routes via aerial bombardment" - without providing a shred of evidence for this claim, so we can assume it's just another lie.

Then we come to this part:
To get back to the currently widespread and accepted mythology that demonizes the Germans unfairly, here was a shocker: I discovered that Auschwitz had a swimming pool for the inmates.
Did you know that? I myself was doubtful at first, but when I investigated to check out if that was accurate I discovered not only that but that the camp also had a cinema. It even had a brothel for the inmates (prostitutes had also been sent to concentration camps). And a canteen with beer and food (ice cream and cake). Plus the workers were originally paid money for their labor (but later in vouchers) to be used in the canteen, stores and brothel.
Looking into it further I discovered that it also had dental facilities, sick barracks, a camp kitchen which had the caloric content of the diet carefully monitored by camp and Red Cross delegates. (This only deteriorated in Auschwitz and other camps towards the end of the war when the entire German transport system collapsed under constant aerial bombardment.)
Obviously, none of the "leisure facilities" are in any way shocking, as explained at length here. But worse, obviously the Red Cross never inspected Auschwitz, so that part is just another outright lie.

Then:
Auschwitz had up to 16 camp orchestras (with instruments available), a camp theatre (where live plays were performed by camp inmate actors), camp sculpture classes (conducted for interested inmates by professional sculptors), camp art classes for inmates, a camp university (with lectures on topics from health, the arts, philosophy, science, economic issues, etc.). Marriages took place (worker inmates fell in love and were allowed to marry their inmate partners there). It had its own Auschwitz maternity ward (over 3,000 live births were registered there, with not a single infant death while Auschwitz was in operation under German rule). The women sections of the camp had female guards. It had a camp post office (with twice weekly pick-ups and deliveries).
Note how the liar doesn't bother citing any sources for his claims (we'll come back to this in a second).

It will suffice to point out (linking to the article I've already presented) that there was a single wedding in the whole history of Auschwitz, which was a huge exception approved by Himmler (and obviously it concerned a non-Jewish couple).

As for the claim about births, considering that according the Auschwitz Museum the current records only establish up to 700 births (including those born in exceptional circumstances, like the "Gypsy camp" - which was later liquidated anyway), the claim of 3000 registered live births is probably a distorted denier meme about 3000 births testified to by Stanislawa Leszczynska, whose story is dealt with at length here and obviously doesn't help the deniers in any way possible, as it describes mass murder of Jewish babies (so much for the clearly pathological individual's "not a single infant death while Auschwitz was in operation under German rule").

Now, Chris Crookes' source is the extremely primitive site "judicial inc". The author of the site outright confessed to putting random unrelated images on the site alongside the ridiculous texts just for propaganda. The site was known for extremely deceptive, unsourced content even by the denier standards (so much so that even some deniers began complaining).

As pointed out here, judicial-inc took the Nazi propaganda videos from Theresienstadt and Westerbork and simply lied about them being from Auschwitz. This, then, is the source of Chris Crookes' claim about "sculpture classes", "16 orchestras" and other nonsense.

So what happened? The low-IQ dudebro Chris Crookes came upon a random Holocaust denial site that made patently ridiculous and false claims without, of course, citing sources for them, and simply plagiarized the claims from that site for his "article" without bothering to perform even a basic fact-check, as an actual skeptic would. What a loser. So much for this sad case.

Speaking of sad cases and low-IQ dudebros, we've been alerted to Mike Peinovich's (aka Enoch's) "critique" of some things we wrote here, particularly in regard to the Franke-Gricksch report which we confirmed to be authentic.

First someone alerted Peinovich to the existence of the Franke-Gricksch report. Some furious googling later Peinovich emerged with a response:
The Franke-Gricksch report literally only exists as an "excerpt" typed up by an American Eric Lipmann.
This went on for a while, with Peinovich satisfiedly linking to the obsolete denier stuff on the Lipman excerpt. Then, exposing his poor Google-Fu, someone pointed Peinovich to our article on the actual wartime carbon-copy of the document (thus showing Mikey's basic incompetence as a researcher).

The core of the confirmation was the typewriter analysis, objective evidence. How does Peinovich deal with it?
The typewriter analysis is a bunch of mumbo jumbo meant to wow you.
Oh wow. (See, I was wowed by that counterargument). You can almost imagine all the rusty mini-gears in Peinovich's head turning trying to deal with the simple typewriter analysis, failing at it and emitting this squeak of desperation.

Will somebody please explain to poor Mikey how arguments actually work?

He adds this master stroke:
There is no signature and no date on the document.
Wowed for the second time in a row! Well, of course an attachment to a larger document (which this report obviously is) doesn't have to have a date (check out some of the attachments to Globocnik's report to Himmler on the Aktion Reinhard), and a carbon-copy of that attachment is not supposed to have a signature. And it's not like we haven't mentioned the nature of the document in our analysis or didn't provide examples of similar (Holocaust-unrelated) documents coming from Franke-Gricksch and not containing a date or a signature.

Clearly, in Peinovich's world repetition of stillborn arguments counts as a win. And he keeps beating that dead horse of his by mentioning the "absurdities" of the FG report - carefully analyzed and explained in our analysis (including the explicity debunking of the deniers' attempts at refutations in the Appendix D).

In another tweet Peinovich recommends a CODOH thread as a counterargument. (Really?)
Everyone should read this thread, the new HC doc is analyzed at the bottom, but the whole thread contains some spicy red pills.
It's not for nothing that Peinovich's informer told him to look at the bottom of the thread. Indeed, most of the thread is spent regurgitating the "arguments" made absolutely obsolete by our discovery of the original wartime carbon copy of the document. It seems like the snow of yesteryear is Mikey's favorite kind of snow.

Anyway, at the bottom of the thread we find this:
What is more likely is that some German speaking individual was given a German typewriter and told to type up this fake report by the Americans, with no name or date or anything. Then, this fake document was handed off to Lipmann who was instructed to sort through a bunch of documents until he could find someone to pin it on. Eventually, Lipmann found the longer report where Franke-Gricksch discussed visiting Poland (including Auschwitz) in May 1943 and figured Franke-Gricksch and the [longer] report was a perfect scapegoat. So he took the "Carbon copy" made after the war for the purpose of incriminating the Germans, got a typewriter, typed the "Part of a report by Franke-Gricksch on a trip to Poland in May 1943" title and proceed to copy the rest of the document, word-for-word (with a few spelling mistakes), and then signed the bottom of the second page, affirming it was a true copy.
Notice anything missing? Like, the actual argument and evidence? Let's dispose of this in a few words: there is no evidence of any forgery or that anyone would have even thought of employing such a hare-brained procedure to make one; the typewriter analysis ties the document to Franke-Gricksch, shows the wartime nature of the document, and is objective evidence; the author knew the relevant details and the Nazi lingo confirmed by numerous disparate documents, so had to possess an impressive knowledge of the issue (and yet still be able to make mistakes that could be expected from a remembering witness but not from a post-war expert); despite having been originally discovered during a hunt for incriminating documents, the report was never used in any of the trials; the typed copy by Lipman was discovered decades after the trials, one original wartime carbon copy was rediscovered decades after the typed copy, another copy may (or may not) still be gathering dust somewhere among the Nuremberg documents. So all this elaborate "hoaxing" was for nothing?

This Rube Goldberg school of forgery thesis is as inane as it is superficial, so of course it can only appeal to inane and superficial minds. This doesn't make it in any way plausible or supported by any evidence, not to mention common sense.

And that's basically all CODOH has on the issue.

In yet another tweet Peinovich links to his comments on the FG report, which however are nothing but yawning emptiness. He lies about the lack of evidence that the carbon copy comes from FG, even though the typewriter analysis and the Lipman attribution combined together firmly establish its origin, which is further amply confirmed by the historical context (including the fact of FG's and von Herff's trip and FG's post-war note about Himmler ordering the trip and explaining the extermination of the Jews). Like all other muppets before him, he proceeds to carp on the inaccuracies in the report, which do not in any way prove its inauthenticity, as we have explained at length in our analysis (some of them actually show that it's unlikely to be a propagandistic forgery: e. g. FG's exaggerated estimate of about 500,000 murdered Jews up to May 1943 was plainly incompatible with the 3-4,000,000 overall death toll estimate extremely popular during the trials as it meant that in the remaining ~17 months of the extermination the disproportional 2,5-3,5 million still had to be murdered).

To cap off this tragic story of a wasted mind we will turn to one last exchange:
[some denier muppet about Pressac's book:] The book is hard to find. It was financed by the Beaten Klarsfeld foundation. Only 1000 copies were sold. 
[Mikey:] Odd how hard to find it is
So odd, indeed. If only someone had scanned it and put it online where it would be available for the whole world to see... Wait a minute!

Kids, Holocaust denial is a very dull exercise for very dull folks. That is all.

"#ProvenAtNuremberg" - #DebunkedAtHC

On the 'Holocaust Handbooks': An Occasional Review Series

$
0
0
At the end of last month, the flagship denier ‘Holocaust Handbooks’ series welcomed a new author, the pseudonymous Ernst Böhm, into the fold. With this publication, the series reached 40 titles. The bigger news that will likely go unmentioned by his publisher Germar Rudolf is that Böhm is the first new contributor to the series since the equally pseudonymous Warren B. Rutledge, a whole five years ago. Still, reaching the milestone of 40 books is worthy of some celebration (by the deniers) and criticism (by anti-deniers), and thus we at Holocaust Controversies announce a new occasional series of reviews of the ‘Holocaust Handbooks’ series.


The reviews will be just that – short reviews, not point-by-point rebuttals of every undotted i or uncrossed t in these books, tackling the essential argument(s) in the respective volumes. Some will likely be grouped together, where there are several ‘Handbooks’ on the same essential topic, such as the Leuchter and Rudolf reports (vols 16 and 2 respectively), to avoid repeating ourselves too much. Others may be split over several posts, if the topic is bigger than the share of the series the deniers have accorded it. For example, conventional understanding would place the extermination of the Jews in the Soviet Union at around 40% of the Holocaust, but hitherto the deniers have only managed one volume on the theme - Carlo Mattogno’s vol.39 on ‘The Einsatzgruppen’ (and note how the title is already a misrepresentation of the subject). Although the reviewer of this volume will undoubtedly try hard to keep things short, since it was published originally as two volumes in Italian, it’s sure to get more wordage than some other screeds.

We will likely add separate reflections not tied directly to a specific volume in the series as well. Eventually, we’d like to compile the reviews together into a short introductory critique of what currently passes for ‘serious revisionism’. Blog contributors will continue to post on other topics while the series unfolds, or they might expand on points arising from the review series in separate posts.

Why start a review series of the ‘Holocaust Handbooks’ now? Simply put, the medium-term future of ‘serious revisionism’ is in grave doubt. The lack of new contributors to the series means that the ‘Handbooks’ are currently really just The Mattogno Show, and one cannot realistically speak of ‘serious revisionism’ as a collective entity if it is in essence a one man enterprise. Other contributors to the series are one-and-dones (Heddesheimer, Rutledge, Alvarez) or might as well be (Kollerstrom), have vanished or gone silent (Ball, Butz, Leuchter, Sanning, Kues, Weckert), or are quasi-retired from writing (Graf). The majority of contributors to vol.1 Dissecting the Holocaust have simply died of old age, as did Pierre Marais, the original author of the underlying text of vol. 26 (The Gas Vans), last autumn. This leaves series publisher and editor Germar Rudolf, who has taken more and more credit for the ‘revised editions’ published in the past five years as a formal co-author, and Thomas Dalton, neither of whom have undertaken anything like proper research in physical or digital archives. With Mattogno publishing first in Italian, a conspicuous bottleneck has emerged in the production line at the stage of translation and editing, and the lack of fellow 'revisionist' researchers writing first in English has only worsened since Hans Metzner criticised the series for this in 2016.

Yet ‘serious revisionism’ also faces another problem: as their numbers shrink, the pile of material they ought to be dealing with continues to grow. Many of the volumes in the ‘Holocaust Handbooks’ series are now formally obsolete – there have been more recent conventional publications than the ones addressed in the equivalent volume; or new sources have been identified; or old ones digitised and made accessible. All of these must eventually be dealt with by the deniers, lest they sound even more out of touch than they already do. Many of the books also repeat hoary claims from the 1980s and 1990s that are 25-40 years out of date. Simply continuing with the current practice of issuing a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even 5th edition of a book whose foundations are crumbling won’t keep ‘revisionism’ relevant into the 2020s and 2030s. Yes, that is a concern troll, but it’s a serious criticism no matter how one puts it.

So with these thoughts in mind, we begin HC’s occasional series of reviews of the ‘Holocaust Handbooks’.


On Heddesheimer's 'The First Holocaust'

$
0
0
If one thing becomes abundantly clear when one looks at the list of Holocaust Handbooks published by Castle Hill and CODOH, it is that they are overwhelmingly concerned with the Holocaust itself and, within that topic, the part of the Holocaust occurring within the concentration camp system. Where the handbooks are comparatively lighter is in any sense of the history of the Third Reich or of Jews – to say nothing of the intersection of the two in terms of Nazi Jewish policy – before the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. If Hilberg dedicated the first sixth of Destruction of the European Jews to the events leading up to Barbarossa, we might perhaps expect that seven of the 42 HH books similarly address topics from medieval and early modern European antisemitism through the invasion and occupation of Poland by Nazi Germany; instead, we have essentially two -- The First Holocaust by Don Heddesheimer and Jewish Emigration from the Third Reichby Ingrid Weckert -- or 4.8%.[1]

Regarding Heddesheimer himself, little is known. No publications other than The First Holocaust appear in Worldcat under his name. Before the release of the book’s first edition in 2003, a single article by Heddesheimer appeared in the January-February 2002 issue of the Journal of Historical Review[2]; he also apparently authored a letter published in The Barnes Review in 1999. He has evidently been on the “revisionist” scene for some time as a subscriber to Willis Carto’s far-right “journal” and a contributor to Holocaust denial publications.

Both the first and second editions of The First Holocaustfeature a preface by Germar Rudolf. The main thing to point out about this preface is that, like most of his writing, it is either profoundly dishonest or immensely ignorant of history. An illustrative example emerges if we compare the prefaces between editions. In the initial preface, musing on rumors of violence committed against Jews in Eastern Europe in the early 1920s, Rudolf writes that the New York Times“reported that there were some hostilities toward Jews in the Ukraine, but that this was stamped out violently with the help of a Jewish army of allegedly 500,000 soldiers -- an army that could have been formed and operated only with the consent of the new Soviet authorities.”[3] He goes on to characterize the Red Terror perpetrated by this “Jewish Volunteer Army” and to note the sympathies of Zionist Jews with the USSR as a “Jewish dominated and controlled experiment of a Jewish led country free of anti-Judaism.”[4]

Totally missing from Rudolf’s commentary is that Russia was engaged in a brutal civil war, and while terror was used by both sides, the Jews in the traditional Pale of Settlement were subjected to some of the most horrendous incidents of mass violence, which dwarfed the earlier periods of pogroms in 1881-82 and 1904-06. Historians of the period estimate that 50,000 Jews were murdered in Ukraine alone, overwhelmingly by anti-Bolshevik forces (a small percentage were also committed by the Red Army). And while it is true that this anti-Jewish violence drove many Jews into the arms of the Red Army, the Zionists were not among them. With the exception of the left wing of the Zionist Workers Party Poalei Tsion, which fused with the Bolsheviks, all of the Zionist parties opposed the Bolshevik seizure of power.

In the most recent edition of the book, this material has been drastically revised. An entire page of new material has been inserted into the preface to now acknowledge that the civil war was going on but now also pointing a more direct finger at the “Jewish Volunteer Army,” before ending the section with precisely the same erroneous conclusion about Zionist support for the Soviet Union, still depicted as “a Jewish dominated and controlled experiment.”[5]

In addition, Rudolf sees fit in the preface to quote the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz as “proudly proclaim[ing]: The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”[6]Calling up the actual article reveals that the text is a subheadline (called by journalists a “deck”), which itself is a paraphrase of something said by the subject of the interview in the article -- New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman. Notably, the article subsequently states, “Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It's not some fantasy the neoconservatives invented. It's not that 25 people hijacked America. You don't take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standardand another five or six influential columnists.”[7]Rudolf, of course, leaves all of that out.

To his credit, Heddesheimer is not nearly as sloppy or dishonest as his publisher, although he does provide some of antisemitism’s “greatest hits” in his book. For instance, in his discussion of mass repression in the Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin, he writes at length about L.M. Kaganovich, the long-time Soviet-Jewish apparatchik who served two terms as first secretary of the Bolsheviks in Ukraine and later as minister for transportation and deputy premier. Kaganovich, Heddesheimer writes, “was the Soviet official most responsible for the Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933. Some have even argued that Kaganovich was the real master at the Kremlin and Stalin a mere puppet.”[8] On this point, he cites Walter Laqueur’s Stalin: The Glasnost Revelations. The problem is that, in the page cited from Laqueur’s book, he is discussing the rhetoric used by the late Soviet era Russian far right; in fact, the exact point cited by Heddesheimer is one that Laqueur writes “first appeared in the Nazi literature fifty years before Kozhinov and his friends [figures on the contemporary Russian far right].”[9]Notably, on the very same page, Laqueur notes that, despite rumors to the contrary, Stalin did not have a Jewish wife, but Heddesheimer nevertheless repeats the baseless claim that, after Stalin’s second wife’s suicide, “Kaganovich introduced Stalin to his younger sister Rosa who was a medical doctor at a clinic in Moscow and within a year Rosa Kaganovich became Stalin’s third and last wife.”[10]Most laughably, Heddesheimer’s source for much of this material is Stuart Kahan’s long debunked Wolf of the Kremlin.[11]

Finally we come to Heddesheimer’s argument itself, which he builds bit by bit. It can be briefly summarized as follows. Heddesheimer argues that American Jews began organizing in support of Eastern European Jews in the 1880s, with the pace picking up during World War I and continuing into the interwar period. It was during these periods that use of the word “holocaust” began, along with the repeated evocation of the image of millions of Jews subjected to harm and suffering. Enormous sums of money were raised for Eastern European Jewry, but corruption consumed a fair amount. The money that was not siphoned off by corrupt people ended up assisting in the twin goals of funding communism and supporting Zionism.

If this material sounds fairly far afield from the well-trod Internet meme of “the Jews” having originated their six million hoax twenty (or fifty or even a hundred) years before the actual Holocaust, that’s because it is. In so far as the book addresses the point of six million Jews being a repeated trope or the term “Holocaust” having been used in the past, it is often either simply wrong – e.g., Heddesheimer’s assertion that the word “Holocaust” is a “World War One word,”[12]although it actually appears in Wycliffe’s Bible (the first to be published in England, 125 years before the Reformation) – or actually concessions that there were in all likelihood six million Jews living in Eastern Europe at the time the news reports that he cites were written.

If we accept the latter point regarding the actual size of Eastern Europe’s Jewish population between the world wars, then the argument is essentially over. If the trope of “six million Jews” is repeated in American mass media during the period, then it is thoroughly understandable that it would be. We should bear in mind that Russia had in fact conducted a rather thorough census of its empire in 1897, and while this census did not include “Jewish” as an ethnic group, it did include the enumeration of populations by religion and language spoken at home. With Judaism included in the former category and Yiddish in the latter, the number of Jews living in Russian Empire (which included most of what would become the Republic of Poland and the Baltic States following World War I) was approximated at five million.[13]Notably, this census was conducted after the mass migration of Russian Jews to North and South America, South Africa, Australia, and Palestine following the wave of pogroms in 1881-82. Moreover, since no small number of Russian Jews already no longer spoke Yiddish at home (Leon Trotsky’s family, for instance, spoke Russian at home), and many Jews had abandoned the Jewish faith, the census figure likely underestimated the number of Jews living in Russia.[14]

However, we should consider whether mentions of “six million Jews” in Eastern Europe actually appeared at a higher rate as claimed by Heddesheimer. It turns out that they did not. Searching the databases for the New York Times for the entire period from January 1, 1857, to August 31, 1939, returned the data shown in the table below.

MillionsEarlyPer YearLatePer Year
1350.53120.64
2380.58170.91
3350.53150.80
4310.4770.37
5110.17150.80
6200.30100.53
7150.2370.37
8140.2190.48
95 0.0830.16
10250.38160.85

In this table, “Early” refers to one database covering articles published between 1857 and 1922, and “Late” refers to a second database covering 1923 to August 31, 1939. The search was conducted such that both the numeral 6 and word “six” were investigated, as well as both “million” and “millions,” in keeping with usage over the past 175 years. The data clearly show that mention of six million Jews was generally less common than references to fewer Jews and generally more common than references to more Jews. The most commonly cited number of Jews in Eastern Europe was, in fact, two million.

In short, as noted by Andrew E. Mathis and Roberto Muehlenkamp in their debate with “Thomas Dalton” on Kevin Barrett’s “Truth Jihad” radio show in 2010, the whole trope of a “first Holocaust” amounts to an exercise in cherry picking. (Sergey Romanov has also responded to Heddesheimer's claims as repeated as Internet meme, expanding his newspaper searches beyond the Times and investigating uses of the term "holocaust.") Rather than a “dry run” for the later hoax perpetrated against the world by influential Jews to obtain funds for Jewish causes, the trope of six million Jews in newspaper reports before World War II was not even particularly common, especially given how often other figures were used. In the end, Heddesheimer’s book is less revelatory than it is warmed-over antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish media and monetary control.



[1]This consideration leaves aside the six “overview” volumes written and/or edited by “Dalton,” Kollerstrom, Butz, Graf, and Rudolf (2); removing these volumes from the total, we are left with 36 volumes, two of which treat topics before Barbarossa, for a slightly better proportion of 5.6%.
[2]Don Heddesheimer, “’Nothing Has Been Invented’: The War Journalism of Boris Polevoy,” Journal of Historical Review, 21, no. 1 (2002): 23-28.
[3]Germar Rudolf, “Preface,” The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns With Holocaust Claims During and After World War One, 1st ed. (Chicago: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), 13.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Rudolf, “Preface,” First Holocaust, 2nd ed., p. 26.
[6]Ibid, pp. 28-29.
[7]Quoted in Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Ha’aretz, April 3, 2003, https://www.haaretz.com/1.4764706, accessed May 3, 2020.
[8]Heddesheimer, First Holocaust, 2nd ed., 96.
[9]Walter Laqueur, Stalin: The Glasnost Revelations (New York: Scribner, 1990), 251.
[10]Heddesheimer, First Holocaust, 2nd ed., 97.
[11] Paul Heineman’s review of the book Wolf of the Kremlin  in Slavic Review (vol. 48, no. 1, 1989) is particularly pointed, noting that “The errors, combined with the total absence of reference to prevailing western interpretations of major events, cause the reader to treat with great circumspection the 'new' information promised by the book's cover” (p. 113). At the time of its publication, the Kaganovich family itself responded with a firm denunciation and denial that Kahan was, as he claimed, a family member. Kaganovich had denounced  Kahan as an impostor years before the book came out; see his May 31, 1982, letter to Gromyko in L. Kaganovich, Pamyatnyye zapiski (Moscow: Vagrius, 2003), 644-645. As can be seen from his memoirs (op cit) and talks with Feliks Chuyev in Tak govoril Kaganovich: Ispoved' stalinskogo apostola (Moscow: Otechevstvo, 1992), he remained a fanatical Stalinist until his death in 1991, which is hardly compatible with an accusation that he murdered Stalin. For the true details of Stalin's family life, interested readers are encouraged to consult Oleg Khlevniuk's 2017 book Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator. A senior research fellow at GARF, Khlevniuk is among the most prominent contemporary Russian historians of the Stalin era.
[12]Heddesheimer, First Holocaust, 2nd ed., 51.
[13]Richard H. Rowland, “Geographical Patterns of the Jewish Population in the Pale of Settlement of Late Nineteenth Century Russia,” Jewish Social Studies, 48, no. 3/4 (1986): 207.
[14]Gennady Estraikh, “On the Acculturation of Jews in Late Imperial Russia,” La Rassegna Mensile di Israel, 62, no. 1/2 (1996): 217.

Holocaust deniers and the Yad Vashem database

$
0
0
[Update 14.05.2020: a quick rejoinder to Denier Muppet's non-response has been added. Also added to the Buchhalter section.]

So, some silly neo-Nazi (to whom we will refer as Denier Muppet) thinks he has a gotcha - allegedly he found some prominent Holocaust survivors listed in the Yad Vashem database and the neo-Nazi muppets have been all agog about this. Let's take a quick look, but before that, what is the Yad Vashem database?

It's a database that intends to list the names of the Holocaust victims. According to the FAQ, currently it contains 6.5 million records and it is estimated that those refer to about 4.8 million individuals (i. e. YV tries to account for duplicate records).

What are the sources of the database? The FAQ explains: a huge chunk comes from the pages of testimony (basically, forms filled out by survivors or relatives about the presumed victims), archival documentation and local commemoration projects.

Now comes the important part, so I will directly quote from the FAQ:
Does every name in the Names Database relate to a victim murdered beyond any doubt? 
No. The Database is based on thousands of different sources. Yad Vashem experts have analyzed each source and have distinguished between sources that attest to murder, sources that point to a very high probability of murder (presumably murdered) and sources that lack a direct reference to murder.
It is probable that part of the individuals whose names appear only in sources of the third category, that is, lacking a direct reference to murder, were murdered at a later stage, but this cannot be determined on the basis of the documentation available as of now.    
Why is it that on the personal records based on lists of Jews in some of the ghettos (Lodz for example), it is stated "presumably murdered"? I know that the person was murdered! 
Yad Vashem experts have analyzed each source in the Database and have distinguished between sources that attest to murder, sources that point to a very high probability of murder and sources that lack a direct reference to murder.
For example: The list prepared by the Organization of Former Residents of Lodz in Israel contains some 240,000 personal records. It is known that the vast majority of the Jews imprisoned in the Lodz ghetto were ultimately murdered, but the editors of the list did not make a distinction between those who were murdered and those who survived. Due to the limitations of the list itself, there is no way of knowing with any measure of exactitude which of the individuals on the list was not murdered, and therefore we stated next to each name on the list "presumably murdered." The names of those for whom we have documentation attesting that they did indeed survive do not appear at this stage on the Database.
If you find the name of a ghetto prisoner and you know that she or he survived, please fill out a Shoah Survivor Registration form. In this way you can help us distinguish between the names of the murdered and the survivors on the list. In the future, we intend to give online access to the names of the survivors as well.
[...]

Are there survivors in the Names Database? 
There may be some, but inadvertently. Part of the information in the Database comes from archival documentation such as deportation lists, lists of camp inmates, and so on. These documents attest to Jews persecuted by the Nazis during the Shoah. Most of them were murdered. A tiny minority managed to survive. They were victims of the Nazis, in that they suffered horribly and were persecuted nearly till death, but fortunately they survived. Names of known survivors are not listed in the Database at this stage. If you identify someone who survived, please fill out a Shoah Survivor Registration Form and send us a postwar document for verification, and we will remove his or her record from the Names Database. 
So we see that YV explicitly says that the database is not perfect. And we cannot expect it to be.

Now, let us list the possible sources of errors in the database.

Cause of error #1: when it is a page of testimony, the wrong assumption of death might be entered in the database. In fact, the database site even has stories of relatives who thought some other realtives to be dead and even submitted pages of testimony and then got reunited.

Cause of error #2: as the FAQ points out, the database includes some sources, like certain deportation reports or ghetto lists, for which it is known that most of the people on the list are dead but it's hard to sort out the few survivors and this has to happen with time.

With this in mind let's go through Denier Muppet's list.

1. Dario Gabbai. He was a member of the Auschwitz Sonderkommando (and obviously wasn't exposed by anyone as fraud - rather it's the low-IQ "Denier Bud" who got so exposed). Denier Muppet writes that Gabbai "is listed in the Yad Vashem archives as having been “murdered” at Auschwitz three times" - a lie, since even his own screenshot shows one record's status as "not stated" and not "murdered".

That said, there are indeed two mistaken entries (not counted as two deaths, see above), with one source unclear and another being a general list with names on which most people are dead (Gabbai's exact date of birth is listed). So here we have the cause of error #2.

2. Benjamin Lesser, the founder of the Zachor Holocaust Memorial Foundation. Denier Muppet claims that "he too is listed as “murdered in the Shoah.” The source used by the database is the testimony of another well-known “survivor” named Rachel Verderber, who herself appears in the archive!".

If we go to Verderber's page of testimony, we see that Lesser's mother is listed as "Chaya Sarah Verderber" and his father as "Chaim".


If we go to the other pages of testimony submitted by Rachel Verderber we will also find the page of Chaim Lesser, the husband of Chaya.

So this Benjamin Lesser was a son of Chaim Lesser and Chaya Lesser nee Verderber.

It doesn't take long to find out the fact that Benjamin Lesser who is the founder of the Zachor Holocaust Memorial Foundation was a son of Lazar Leser and Shaindel (Shari) Leser. I. e. an entirely different individual.

So here we see an important source of confusion: even if the name, the year and the town/city/village match, it's not a guarantee that we are talking about the same person.

Sometimes the coincidence will be by pure chance, oftentimes it will be a member of the often large extended family (e. g. a cousin) bearing the same or similar surname and also, by chance (or sometimes not, when e. g. named after a common grandparent), the first name.

Notably, Denier Muppet has stated that Rachel Verderber herself appears in the archive. While this may be the same person, she is not listed as murdered (her fate is explicitly listed as "not stated"). As Yad Vashem explains:
We have expanded the Database to include an additional 1.5 million personal records containing information regarding the ordeals of Jews during the Shoah: as prisoners in ghettos or camps, in hiding and under occupation, etc. We have included these new personal records even though the final fate of the Jews that they document cannot be determined on the basis of the specific source.
Another denier fail.

3. Josef Salomonovic/Salomonowicz, an Auschwitz survivor. Denier Muppet about him:
"In his biography, he says he was born 1938 and resided in the Lodz ghetto in Poland. He too is listed as having been “presumably murdered” — twice. There are multiple additional entries for a Josef Salomonowicz in the Lodz ghetto born around the same time, which may also be him." The source cited? A census of Jews who lived in Lodz provided to the Yad Vashem by a group called “Organization of former residents of Lodz in Israel.”
OK, first of all, the source listed is specifically mentioned in the above-cited FAQ as one of the sources containing mostly victims but also some people who were murdered and could not be sorted out, so even assuming it's the same person, it would be an expected cause of error #2.

However, as we have seen from the example of Benjamin Lesser, we cannot even assume it's the same person.

4. Margit Feldman nee Buchhalter, an Auschwitz survivor. Denier Muppet found an entry for a Margit Buchhalter without any year of birth listed, who used to live in Eger, Hungary.

However, Margit Feldman lived in Tolcsva. Moreover, Margit Buchhalter from Eger was married to Malvin Buchhalter, so "Buchhalter" was (extremely probably) not her maiden name in the first place, whereas for Margit Feldman it was. Not to mention that Margit Feldman was 14-15 at the time and doesn't mention having been married at such an early age, but rather tells a story (here starting at 12:49) of having been promised to a young man, and the young man insisting on the marriage in the ghetto, but the father being against and so the marriage never took place - and this happened in the ghetto of Sátoraljaújhely, not in Eger. So it's an entirely different person.

5. Yitzhak Arad, the famous historian and once the director of Yad Vashem, original name: Yitzhak Rudnitski.

Denier Muppet found 1 entry for an Izak Rudnicki b. 1926 listed in the Vilno Ghetto (and merely "presumed murdered").

Could it be Arad? Yes. Could it be someone else? For a ghetto with 40,000 inhabitants: also yes. Note how many Yitzhak Rudnitskis there are in the database, it wasn't such a rare name/surname combination (we even see one Itzek Rudnitzki born in "Sventsian"/"Swenziany" (Święciany), where Arad was also born - but we know it's not Arad since he was born in 1929 and appears in some lists from the Klooga camp in Estonia). So one cannot prove beyond the reasonable doubt that Izak Rudnicki from the database is the same individual as Arad, but even if he were, this explicitly presumed entry is based on a ghetto list, which would merely make it the cause of error #2.

Wait, that's all?

OK, so in the end, what did Denier Muppet prove? Nothing that the Yad Vashem site hadn't already stated in its FAQ.

PS: the "faulty database" phenomenon is hardly unique. In the case of Katyn we have, for example, a live Pole (Remigiusz Bierzanek) appearing in the German exhumation list, as well as 48 other names of Poles not transferred from the Kozielsk camp and not killed at Katyn as far as we know; Stanisław Kuczyński-Iskander Bej and Włodzimierz Haninczak who appear in numerous modern lists as shot in Kharkov, even though we now know they weren't.

PPS: Denier Muppet has thrown a hissy fit that apparently counts as a "response" in that crowd.
His argument:
"It says "presumably murdered" not murdered!  And in the cases where it decisively says they were murdered at, it could be another person with the exact same name, dob and location. And IF it is the same person, its an honest mistake! HAHAHA YOU STUPID MUPPET"
The argument is that first of all, Yad Vashem is very open about the imperfections in their database and about the fact that survivors may indeed appear there, so there's no gotcha and no hoaxing; second, in at least two cases listed by Denier Muppet those are indeed different persons, which is an illustration that this could also apply to other cases.
The Yad Vashem database lists people who are alive or died this year of coronavirus as having been murdered in the Holocaust. Including the Yad Vashem's own 21-year director!
How are you supposed to use this archive Daniel?
Already explained in the article, as was rightly pointed out to Denier Muppet. And Denier Muppet couldn't point to any people dying from coronavirus in the database.
I can give you the Cliffnotes:
Hoaxer acts like I'm wrong while admitting that I'm probably right. If the Yad Vashem's archive is wrong, the media and Holohoaxers should stop pointing to it and asking "WHERE DID THESE PEOPLE GO THEN?!?!?" when confronted with their lies.
Not "Denier Muppet is right" (he was outright wrong about at least 2 people) but "what he is right about is already known from the very Yad Vashem database site". A marginal amount of mistakes doesn't discredit the database. Suppose the deniers compile a list of 300,000 such mistakes - they would still have 4,5 million names to account for. Denier Muppet has "analyzed" a sample of 5(!) and failed even here, with 2 persons on this list already proven to be different people (and ask yourself how many survivor names he actually had to try before he had his measly amount of alleged hits).

By the way, the "where did they go" argument doesn't need a database.

Denier Muppet is welcome to explain where the Jews deported to Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec and Kulmof in 1942 went: Seriously Now, Where Did The Jews "Evacuated to The East" Go?

We even have a standing challenge with 1000$ for name of a single one such deported Jew, no takers so far: Challenge to Supporters of the Revisionist Transit Camp Theory
"It's technically possible there were multiple 6 year olds named Josef Salomonowicz living at the Lodz Ghetto at the same time, IDIOT. But even if you are right, the Yad Vashem archive is filled with bullshit anyway. OWNED." Reminds me of Destiny/Sargon/Vaush tactical nihilism
The simple fact that the combination of the name, surname, place of residence and year of birth doesn't, by itself, necessarily establish identity is spectacularly demonstrated in the article itself on the example of Benjamin Lesser. Note: in a sample of merely five persons listed in the denier article we had just such a case. It's not a mere "technical possibility".

The Yad Vashem archive is of course not filled with BS even if it's the same person, as limitations are clearly listed on the site. Such marginal mistakes are explicitly expected. What Denier Muppet hasn't shown is that such mistakes - explicitly pointed out in the YV FAQ - constitute a significant percentage of the total.
Imagine if HC was this exacting with his Holocaust science fiction stories. He says Margit Buchhalter of Hungary is not the same person because the archive says because she was deported from a Czech border town 90 minutes away from where her bio says she was residing.
Here Denier Muppet outright falsifies the record. YV clearly says that Eger was her place of residence. Can Denier Muppet make an argument without lying?

The record is most probably taken from the Yizkor book Yehudei Erlau (The Jews of Eger), in which Margit Buchhalter is listed as as Malvin Buchhalter's wife (she is listed as "married to Malvin" by YV), so it (extremely probably) was not this Margit's maiden name, wheras it was Margit Feldman's maiden name. Moreover, Margit Feldman nee Buchhalter was 14-15 at the time and doesn't mention anything about having been married early (I have updated the Buchhalter entry so go there for further details).

USHMM's survivors database shows two more different Hungarian-Jewish women bearing that name (one born in 1879, another in 1885 - surviving due to the more than 100,000 Budapest Jews not having been deported in time), showing that a mere fact of being a Hungarian-Jewish woman bearing this name doesn't establish identity.

Denier Muppet has once again demonstrated that he is organically unable to do proper research.

While we are at it: can Denier Muppet explain where the ~320,000 Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz but not registered there and also unable to work and thus not held in the camp as the so-called "transit Jews" (who were to be transferred to labor camps - there were around 100,000 of those) disappeared to in 1944?

Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans: Material Evidence

$
0
0
Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans
Part IX: The Just Memo
Part XI: Einsatzgruppe D in Simferopol
Part XII: Material Evidence

"Forensic evidence" lacks for the vast majority of people killed during World War Two. Yet, it is not that we do not know what happened during this time: combat deaths, war deaths, bombing deaths, ethnic cleansing, genocide, pogroms etc. Historians have access to a wide range of types of sources to reconstruct the events. Holocaust deniers do not raise their hands that they have issues with this - like when it concerns German casualties. But on the extermination of the European Jews, deniers are suddenly keen to make up new standards to deny the reality of the fate of the Jews. It is a symptom of desperation that they cannot cope with the evidence on Nazi atrocities with "fair play" according to what is reasonable and accepted on other historical events.

Santiago Alvarez, too, thought to make up new rules. He claims that "finding the murder weapon and at least traces of the victim are key issues" and "a pivotal point for any independent scientific investigation" (p.17). Finding the murder weapon and the victim are not even pivotal for a criminal investigation of murder, let aside for historical research on state-sponsored mass violence during a bloody world war decades ago. As if killings - howsoever well-evidenced - could not be established if the murder weapon and corpse are not available. The only "pivotal" point is whether shortage of "material evidence" is explainable within the context.

Alvarez asserts that one would "have to expect that one or several of these vehicles were captured by the Soviets during their counter-offensives" (p.18). The homicidal gas vans were part of the Geheime Reichssache (Secret State Affair) - the highest level of secrecy - assigned to the Nazis mass murder programs (see Becker letter and Just memo, also on Kulmhof and generally on the extermination of the Jews What's There to Hide? Camouflage and Secrecy of Nazi Extermination Sites).

As such, the gas vans were under no circumstances to fall into the enemy's hand. Things had to go terribly wrong, like that a vehicle was overlooked in confusion or was overrun by a sudden enemy attack. But it is prima facie not expected that the killing vehicles would have been left behind as they were. Instead it is reasonable to consider that they were destroyed or dismantled and fitted for non-homicidal use. Upon a sudden Soviet advance, the gas vans were among the first items to evacuate. Given that the Soviets did not capture entire Einsatzgruppen commandos upon their counter-attacks - at most, they got Soviet collaborators or German individuals - it is improbable that they could have get their hands on a gas van.

Indeed, how thoroughgoing the Nazis dealt with this matter is documented for the Soviet’s Operation Saturn in early 1943, which forced a sudden retreat of Einsatzgruppe D from the Caucaus region. A radio message sent by the head of the unit, Walther Bierkamp, to the RSHA of 18 February 1943 informed that one "g[as]-van" arrived at the unit's HQ in Melitopol, while another one was "blown up and burnt on march" (BSTU, ZR 920, A.51, p.60f.). Thus, when the German paramilitary forces could not evacuate the "death vans", they made sure that the Soviets did not get an intact vehicle, which could be identified as gas van. The incident was already described in Andrej Angrick's study of Einsatzgruppe D "Besatzungspolitik und Massenmord (2003), p. 673-674. Just why does Alvarez knows nothing about it...?

Along the same lines, he shows gross ignorance on the subject of body disposal in the East, which included that of the gas van victims. The corresponding "Aktion 1005" overseen by Paul Blobel is only briefly mentioned on p. 23 on Serbia, but not regarding its more significant activity in the occupied Soviet Union. A monograph on this action by Jens Hoffmann, "Das kann man nicht erzählen..." (2008) published 5 years earlier remains unmentioned.

It is really a reflection of the poverty of his research that he did not bother to check the literature on the units that were employing the gas vans and clearing the corpses.

So the Soviet forces did not capture any gas vans during their taking of the Caucasus in early 1943, as these were either evacuated to Melitopol or blown up (see above). However, what the Nazis could not get rid off were the mass graves in Krasnodar. Soviet investigators exhumed the sites and forensically examined the corpses. According to the proceedings of the Krasnodar trial (14 to 17 July 1943), carbon monoxide poisoning was determined as the cause of death for 523 of 623 exhumed victims (The people's verdict. A full report of the proceedings at the Krasnodar and Kharkov German atrocity trials, p. 13).





(photographs of the Soviet exhumations at Krasnodar from Yad Vashem Archives Digital Photo collection)


Here you go, "forensic findings" supporting the use of homicidal gas vans in Krasnodar. Don't believe in Soviet investigations? Then one cannot at the same time demand forensic evidence for gas van victims of the Einsatzgruppen as those were operating in the occupied Soviet Union. If one's point of view always prevents a specific type of evidence to be credible, even if the matter is real, then one cannot insist in its relevance, but has to focus on other evidence (say, contemporary documents or testimonies).

Alvarez argues that the Soviet examination is "very fishy" because "finding carbon monoxide in severely decomposed corpses is impossible with modern spectroscopic methods". Welcome to the perverted logic of denial. Show me gassed corpses and if shown, claim that gassing cannot be shown.
 
For the record: the cold conditions in Winter 1942/43 preserved the corpses buried in Krasnodar. It is plausible and consistent with forensic literature that the Soviet forensic scientists could have determined exogenous levels of carbon monoxide under these conditions (A. Klöppel and G.Weiler, Fäulnisbedingte Konzentrationsänderungen und zeitliche Nachweisbarkeit von Kohlenmonoxid in Leichenblutproben, Z. Rechtsmed. (1986) 97, 105-109; F. Wiethold, Zum Spätnachweis von Kohlenoxyd bei exhumierten Leichen, Deutsche Zeitschrift für die gesamte Gerichtliche Medizin, 1930, 14, 135–138).

The Soviet finding is further plausible in the light of the fact that members of the German paramilitary forces testified towards West-German investigators on the presence and use of a gas van in Krasnodar, e.g.
  • Gregor Hradetzky ("I have seen the gas van in Krasnodar.", in BArch B 162/1228)
  • Walter Salge ("During the time I have seen it once in Krasnodar, the gas van was driven by a Hiwi", in BArch B 162/1228)
  • Werner Spiegelberg ("I know that a so-called gas van was repeatedly used in Krasnodar", in BArch B 162/1230)
  • Georg Vollmer ("At the time I was ordered from Jeissk to Krasnodar, I have for the first time seen there the gas van.", in BArch B 162/1254).

On Weckert's 'Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich'

$
0
0

Unlike Heddesheimer, Ingrid Weckert is a known quantity. She has a long career on Germany’s far-right; of all the HH authors, she has the clearest connections with the neo-Nazi movement in Europe, with Jürgen Graf a close second. Now in her 90s, she has spent the last 40 years writing exculpations of Nazi figures (including Julius Streicher and Josef Goebbels) and crimes (most notably Kristallnacht). Beyond contributions to Holocaust denial, she was closely affiliated with the neo-Nazi leader Michael Kühnen in the 1980s and participated in attempts to form legitimate far-right political parties --  most recently, Kühnen’s Deutsch Alternative, which was banned in 1992. Trained as a librarian, she also studied theology and history, including allegedly studying Jewish history in Israel.

Weckert’s contribution to the HH collection, Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich, is a translation of her Auswanderung der Juden aus dem Dritten Reich, which Castle Hill published in 2004. A slim volume numbering only 70 pages not including frontmatter, backmatter, and appendices, it attempts to strike a more seemingly conciliatory tone than much of Weckert’s previous work. Nevertheless, it repeats the grotesque errors of that work, with the typical lying by omission, whitewashing, and blame shifting found there. It is important to state at the outset that a thorough checking of Weckert’s use of source material is beyond the scope of this short review. That said, an earlier review by Andrew E. Mathis of Weckert’s article on Kristallnacht in the Journal of Historical Review (summer 1985 issue) found that she was a routine abuser and misrepresenter of her cited sources.[1]

After a short introduction in which she assures her reader that Jewish emigration from the Third Reich was an orderly affair undertaken with the utmost decorum by the Nazis, Weckert begins her examination of her topic with a short discussion of the famous “Jewish Declaration of War” against Germany on March 24, 1933. In making a notable concession many deniers do not – i.e., that “the Jews” had no state with which to war wage against Germany – she nevertheless engages in antisemitic stereotyping, writing, “As World Jewry did not have its own state, it used the power at its disposal, namely its influence on the world economy, to impose a world-wide boycott of Germany.”[2]

The “Jewish Declaration of War” is a stock in trade of denier rhetoric, so while it is really beyond the scope of Weckert’s book, it nevertheless requires some discussion. Like many of her colleagues, Weckert expresses outrage at the idea that Jews around the world might boycott Germany in 1933, given the poor economic situation there – apparently not considering the outrage that Jews worldwide might feel that one of the Europe’s great powers had seen fit to elevate to its leadership a rank antisemite and his political party. Nor do most deniers acknowledge what these Jewish communities knew, i.e., that the Nazi regime was already unleashing violence on the German Jewish community. 

The leadup to the March 5, 1933, election was particularly brutal, with the aftermath even worse. Thomas Childers describes it thus:

On March 9, SA squads moved into a Jewish neighborhood in Berlin, rounded up dozens of Eastern European Jews, and packed them off to a concentration camp; four days later Brown Shirts in Mannheim invaded Jewish businesses, roughed up their owners, and shut down the shops; later that same day in a small Hessian town, Storm Troopers, “in search of weapons,” forced their way into the homes of local Jews, ransacked the rooms, and brutalized the terrified inhabitants; in Breslau, SA men stormed brazenly into a courtroom, attacked Jewish lawyers and judges, and drove them out of the building.[3]

Notably, Childers concedes that this violence was not organized or authorized by the regime itself, but he also notes that it was the particularly violent aftermath of the March election that resulted in the call for a Jewish boycott of German goods.[4]

Weckert acknowledges none of these points. She also does not acknowledge the extent to which the idea of a boycott of German goods was controversial even among Jewish communities themselves. For one thing, German Jews themselves had pled with the U.S. Jewish community not to attack the new government. Notable voices of dissent against the boycott were the American Jewish Committee’s Cyrus Adler and the British Board of Deputies’ president Neville Laski. As David Cesarani writes, “close scrutiny of the Jewish response in February and March 1933 would have revealed only division and dissonance. There was no chorus of ‘international Jewry.’”[5]

Weckert’s second chapter describes the organizations representing Germany Jewry in the early years of the Nazi regime. Here, a clear distinction emerges between what we might call “national” Jews and Zionists. Whereas the latter were Jewish nationalists committed to creating a Jewish national home in Palestine, the former considered themselves German citizens of the Jewish faith and identified strongly as German nationalists. Weckert’s description of the Zionists is informative: “The National Socialist attitude corresponded in principle to the Zionist position. They wished to establish a nationalistic Judaism and thus opposed any inner Jewish attachment to anything German. But they approved of National Socialism because they shared its basic tenet: devotion to one’s own people and state.”[6]In short, the Zionists were the Jewish equivalent of the Nazis, so any cooperation or collaboration between the two groups should be considered natural.

In the next couple of chapters, Weckert details the different civil society organizations involved in the promotion of Jewish emigration and then discusses the Ha’avara, or Transfer, Agreement enacted between the Nazi government and the Zionist community in Germany and Palestine. Amusingly, in introducing the topic of Nazi-Jewish collaboration in emigration projects before the war, she admits that Ha’avara has become a standard feature of histories of the Holocaust, but she claims that the Rublee-Wohlthat Agreement “generally falls under the historical blackout.”[7]Similarly, about one source on Ha’avara on which she relies rather strongly – Werner Feilchenfeld, Dolf Michaelis, and Ludwig Pinner’s Haavara: Transfer nach Palästina und Einwanderung Deutscher Juden (1972) – she writes that it “has obviously not been read by most people who write about the Haavara.”[8]To put it plainly, this assertion is false. A Google Scholar search finds that the publication by Feilchenfeld et al is cited by 53 other publications, including ones by Francis Nicosia (cited by Weckert herself) and Avraham Barkai (ditto); the scholars discussing the Rublee-Wohlthat Agreement include Richard Breitman, Christian Gerlach, Hans Mommsen, and Kurt Schleunes – four of the most important historians in the field. For someone claiming to be in possession of secret knowledge, Weckert has sources that have been broadly cited.

In her chapter on Ha’avara, Weckert reiterates many of the errors she made in discussing the topic in her writings on Kristallnacht. For instance, she asserts that Jews emigrating to Palestine under the agreement were exempted from the Reichsfluchtsteuer (Reich flight tax – a tax assessed on all emigrants as a way of not draining too much currency from Germany’s already scarce reserves); they were not.[9]Moreover, in depicting the agreement as beneficial to the Jews who emigrated to Palestine, she omits several key negative aspects of the agreement. For instance, Germany tended to freeze the vast majority of the currency of the emigrant in German accounts; this money could only be ransomed by the emigrant agreeing to accept an unfavorable exchange rate. In his book on Ha’avara, Edwin Black notes that some emigrants found that, by the time their money was fully out of German hands, they had lost more than half due to this exchange rate and the Reichsfluchtsteuer.[10]

Further, Weckert’s understanding of the immigration process to the Yishuv in Palestine is deeply flawed. She writes, “The Haavara was beneficial to those Jews unable to raise the one thousand pounds required in order to go to Palestine.”[11]In fact, not every immigrant was charged a thousand pounds. Rather, Jews intending to immigrate as capitalists (rather than as farmers) were charged this fee by the Yishuv.[12]This fact underscores an important point about the emigration of German Jews to Palestine that Weckert does not address at all: German Jewry was overwhelmingly middle class, with its population largely employed in business and white collar professions. The Yishuv – particularly the left-wing mainstream of the Zionist movement – didn’t want these Jews in Palestine. It wanted Jews who would be willing to work the land and build a Jewish state based in agriculture that would be self-sufficient. Whereas for the largely poor and working class Jews of Eastern Europe, this offer was potentially attractive, for German Jews, it was decidedly not – thus, the comparatively small number of Zionists in Germany compared to the countries to its east. The conclusion that Weckert avoids stating is that German Jews paying this thousand-pound fee were leaving for a country in which they actually had no real desire to settle and in which they knew they were largely unwanted. Although many German-Jewish Zionists would take advantage of the agreement, many other German Jews who did were not Zionists and were instead leaving because they knew the country of their birth was oppressing them.

Weckert’s fifth chapter, “Emigration and the SS,” details the work done by the SS to encourage Jewish emigration in the early years of Nazi rule. In a footnote to that chapter, she writes, “It is surely a paradox for those who have derived their historical knowledge from the media, wherein the SS is depicted as a murderous Third Reich gang, with chief responsibility for the Jewish ‘Holocaust.’”[13]This statement is either catastrophically ignorant or deeply dishonest. No credible historian claims that the extermination of the Jews was a project of the SS in the 1930s. Among Weckert’s more remarkable claims in this chapter is that, after Kristallnacht, “it was the SS that sent a team to clean up and to ensure that the office would be functioning again as soon as possible.”[14]She cites a book by Francis Nicosia on this point, but the single reference to the destruction of the Palästinaamt (Palestine Office) on Kristallnacht that Nicosia offers (on a different page than that cited by Weckert) states only that, at Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, a former Palästinaamt employee testified that “the SS helped to restore the working operation of the Amt immediately after the Kristallnacht pogrom. He further testified that the SS helped the Palästinaamt to recover immigration certificates that had already been granted by British authorities for a group of German Jews to go to Palestine.”[15]Nicosia says nothing about cleaning up, and Weckert does not acknowledge that all Jewish emigration offices were closed permanently in the subsequent weeks and replaced by the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung.

Weckert’s chapter on the Rublee-Wohlthat Plan is bizarre in that a large proportion of the text is concerned with a dispute between State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Ernst Weizsäcker and Reichsbank head Hjalmar Schacht on negotiating a plan for Jewish emigration with Franklin Roosevelt’s friend George Rublee. Ultimately, Weckert alleges, Hitler himself intervened, authorized Schacht to implement the agreement, and after foot dragging by the foreign affairs ministry, “wholeheartedly assented to it.”[16]The vast majority of this information is asserted without citing a single source. As to why the plan, which was part of the aftermath of the failed Evian Conference to address the issue of Jewish refugees, failed, Weckert assures us that any failure of the plan “was not the fault of the agreement or of its German initiators.”[17]Susanne Heim is less rosy in her assessment of the reason for its failure. She writes, “The Germans did not want it to become publicly known that they had negotiated with the IGC [the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees] at all; while the IGC met strong reservations in Jewish circles […] Therefore two different memoranda were signed independent from one another, and each party declared itself willing just to fulfil its part of the verbal agreement.”[18]

The next two chapters of Weckert’s book detail initiatives from the Yishuv to facilitate Jewish immigration: these are Aliya Betand proposals from the Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization) – the Jewish militia in Palestine led by Menachem Begin. Amusingly, her primary source here is the far-left Jewish anti-Zionist author Lenni Brenner -- a favorite author of the far-right on topics regarding Zionism (along with Normal Finkelstein, Alfred Lilienthal, et al). These chapters are perfunctory and don’t really offer anything new. Her conclusion, similarly brief, is notable only because it discusses the total number of Jewish emigrants from Germany in the period under discussion. She writes, “There is only one figure that derives from an official German source that, however, is rejected by all establishment authors because it seems too high.”[19]This source is the Wannsee Protocol, about which she says, “All information in this document is judged credible and convincing, except for its emigration statistics.”[20]She then quotes the Protocol’s figures for the Altreich themselves but is not specific on whether she deems them too high or too low, instead writing, “What is important here is to point out once again the tendency of establishment historiography arbitrarily to designate certain parts of a document as authentic, while rejecting other portions as inauthentic.”[21]This view about how historians work, not to mention the historical consensus on the Wannsee Protocol, is absurd.

A discussion of Jewish Emigration From the Third Reichwould not be complete without briefly considering Weckert’s illustrations. For instance, on page 24, she provides an image of a German passport held by a Jewish emigrant. Her caption reads, “Passport of the German Reich, issued on February 14, 1939, to the German Jew Wilhelm ‘Israel’ Steiner. The Reich preferred to see Jews leave the country – for good.”[22]This is a truly remarkable example of omission of key facts. In all likelihood, Steiner’s passport only bore the name “Israel” as a result of the August 1938 Law on the Alteration of Family and Personal Names, which required all German Jews not having “Jewish” first names to add Israel or Sara as a middle name for men and women, respectively.

Truly baffling is her inclusion on page 42 of the front page from the SS newspaper Das Schwarze Korps of June 30, 1938. Her caption reads, “In the SS newspaper Das Schwarze Korps (The Black Brigade) sentences like the following could be read: ‘The time should not be too far off when Palestine can welcome again the sons it lost more than a thousand years ago. Our wishes accompany them, with governmental sympathy.’ (May 1935, p. 1).”[23]The caption is remarkable for two reasons. First, the date of the quotation does not match the date of the newspaper page that she chose to include. Second and more importantly, the page that she did include features a grotesque character of a Jewish man and woman, below which a caption reads, “The only costume that this type should be allowed is the costume of a beating!”[24]



Weckert seems unable to contain her loathing for Jews even when noting points in passing. For instance, describing the dislike of Germany felt by many Jews in Palestine in the 1930s, she writes, “Palestine was like the animal that bites the hand that feeds it. The hostility of the Jews toward Germany expressed itself on many different levels. For example, during a Purim procession Germany was depicted as a poisonous-green fire-breathing dragon covered with swastikas…”[25]Jews, we are told, should be thankful to Germany for expelling them to Palestine. Weckert’s treatment of her topic would be comical if not so deeply insulting.

Given this level of contempt for Jews, it is perhaps surprising that a “respectable” concern like HH would include Weckert’s book among its other “scholarly” undertakings. Indeed, her work in general is only rarely cited by other deniers. The notable exception – David Irving’s reliance upon her work on Kristallnacht in his Goebbels biography – led Richard Evans to conclude, “A more blatant disregard for the most elementary rules of historical scholarship would be hard to imagine.”[26]It would be difficult to improve upon that statement with regard to Weckert’s work.



[1]Andrew E. Mathis, “Reichskristallnacht: A Response to Ingrid Weckert,” The Holocaust History Project, https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/kristallnacht-weckert/index.html, accessed May 6, 2020.
[2]Ingrid Weckert, Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich, 2nd edition (Uckfield, U.K.: Castle Hill, 2016), 10-11.
[3]Thomas Childers, The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017), 234.
[4]Ibid.
[5]David Cesarani, Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews, 1933-1949 (London: Macmillan, 2016), 74.
[6] Weckert,Emigration, p. 20.
[7]Weckert, Emigration, p. 25.
[8]Ibid.
[9]Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine (Washington, D.C.: Dialog Press, 2009), 171-172.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Weckert, Emigration, p. 31.
[12]Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, translated by Haim Watzman (New York: Henry Holt, 2000), 20.
[13]Weckert, Emigration, p. 41.
[14]Weckert, Emigration, 42.
[15]Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1985), 160.
[16]Weckert, Emigration, 53.
[17]Ibid.
[18]Susanne Heim, “International Refugee Policy and Jewish Immigration under the Shadow of National Socialism,” in Refugees From Nazi Germany and the Liberal European States, edited by Frank Caestecker and Bob Moore (New York: Berghahn, 2010), 35-36.
[19] Weckert, Emigration, 68.
[20]Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22]Weckert, Emigration, 24.
[23]Weckert, Emigration, 42.
[24] Quoted ibid, translation by author.
[25]Weckert, Emigration, 38-39.
[26]Richard Evans, “David Irving, Hitler, and Holocaust Denial,” expert report filed in Irving v Penguin and Lipstadt (2000), EWHC QB 115, https://www.hdot.org/evans/, paragraph K.11, accessed May 6, 2020.

Graf's Russian Source, or How to Accumulate an Asylum of Loons

$
0
0
I recently wrote a blog post for our larger Holocaust Handbooks project on Ingrid Weckert's Jewish Emigration From the Third Reich. In the beginning, I pointed out that Weckert has the closest demonstrable ties to neo-Nazis among the living deniers, with Jürgen Graf a close second. Since writing that post, I had occasion to read Graf's The Giant With Feet of Clay -- his lengthy critique of the work of Raul Hilberg. I wanted to provide this brief post to make a few brief comments on the man generally and one of his sources.

First, Graf is easily the most overtly antisemitic of the Castle Hill/CODOH authors. Given how frequently he has collaborated with Carlo Mattogno -- who has comparatively much cleaner hands in this regard -- it doesn't really say much for Mattogno that he apparently regards Graf's work so highly. Should the accusation arise that this statement amounts to guilt by association -- well, yes, it does.

Second, Graf's writing of history is garbage. He doesn’t understand the basics of source analysis and seems to believe (or at least argues) that eyewitness statements are never reliable. He also shamelessly quote mines, often to suppress information that he must be aware would undermine his own theses. He just plainly doesn't know what he's doing most of the time. Mattogno's writing brings its own set of related -- but distinct -- problems. But compared to Graf's solo work, Mattogno should be shortlisted for the Pulitzer. Graf is really that bad.

We'll be elaborating on these points over the coming weeks. In the meantime, I wanted to describe my pursuit of a source that Graf cites in TGWFOC. Among the more striking claims made by Graf in this opus is buried in a footnote on page 36 of the most recent edition: "Of 531 leading personalities in the Soviet Union in 1920, 447 were Jews, cf. Juri K. Begunov, Tajnye Sily w istorii Rossij, Isdatelstvo Imeni A.S. Syborina, St. Petersburg 1996." 

It took a bit of work, but I did manage to find a copy of the cited book by Yurij Begunov, about whom, it should be noted, enough has been written to firmly cast him into the group of conspiracy loons. Mina Sodman reported in Searchlight (March 2002) that Begunov was among the attendees of a Holocaust denial "conference" held in Moscow in January 2002; Graf was also in attendence.

Regarding the book and its claim about 447 of 531 "leading personalities" of the USSR being Jewish in 1920 (which, it bears mention, isn't 1941 and is, therefore, after the conscious Russification of the Soviet leadership undertaken under Stalin and after the Great Purges, in which many, perhaps most, of these leaders were shot), it seems Begunov cribbed his list at least in part from Robert Wilton. Our own Sergey Romanov has already discussed Wilton's lists in some detail, so I won't belabor his points.

I'll add only that, where Begunov has added individuals, he seems to have followed Wilton's basic rules of both creating people and positions where none previously existed and assuming that any person whose name doesn't end in -sky, -vich, or -ov must be a Jew, regardless of any other evidence. To be clear, both Russia proper and the Baltic States had large, influential German-speaking populations into the early 20th century who kept their German names. The White Army General P.N. Wrangel is just one prominent example. In addition, Begunov counts several people multiple times in multiple lists, so what the true numbers are of Jews and total people listed in his book are anyone's guess.

The bottom line is that Graf is a kook's kook and relied on a real garbage heap of a "study" to make this specific allegation.
Viewing all 610 articles
Browse latest View live