Most of this seems to come from the spin of well known holocaust deniers. In the case of Marika Frank what holocaust deniers like Mark Weber “forget” to tell his readers is that the Jewish population of her town and she were sent to Auschwitz late in the war, but they were in 3 groups, the first and second groups were sent to Vienna because the train tracks to Auschwitz were bombed; the third transport was with her and her family. And that one did go to Auschwitz, what Marika Frank did remember was that indeed virtually all the ones sent to Austria did eventually return to her city. Almost all of the ones going to Auschwitz did not return.
This is important because it makes a mockery of the holocaust denier’s attempts at what took place in Auschwitz, what holocaust deniers do is to ignore the part were she was told by others at Bergen-Belsen that they thought that they were the selected few by the Nazis that avoided being gassed, shot or let to die.
As it happened, it is clear that the size of the place and the different areas of the camp explains why a few survivors missed how the extermination was done, denying it does not help to remove the fact that the families of those few survivors were wiped out.
Oh, just one more thing: Maria Vanherwaarden was not Jewish, she had indeed better treatment than the Jews. And as she reported “It was a big place”. Easy then to miss how even the bodies of the ones dying naturally of typhus (and as pointed before, dying that way is no reason to take those victims out of the Holocaust count) were disposed of.
Well, if you left-click on the blue text in my question (hint: it’s the word “asked”), you could easily see for yourself…
… ah, never mind, then.
Sorry, but no. Your post was commentary, not a provision of facts.
Well, with that I cannot disagree. The “evidential (sic)” standards for those accused of the crime of industrialized mass murder in your local burg or parish are probably somewhat patchy, what with the paucity of incidents preceding this one.
And, let it show for the record, that in the inimitable style of a certain Ms. K. Conway, up_the_junction has (at length) answered the question without answering the question.
Huh, I was under the impression up_the_junction’s #174 was agreeing with my #173, in the sense that even if some of the claims are questionable, it doesn’t really matter since the greater amount of evidence clearly points to the conventional narrative, and even if the Nuremburg trials had a number of ad hoc procedures and irregularities that would never fly in conventional criminal proceedings, it doesn’t really matter since the greater amount of evidence clearly points to the conventional narrative.
I guess my sensors are not as finely-tuned as some.
What does all this have to do with whether the Holocaust happened?
Yeah, America didn’t come out smelling like roses, what with not taking in Jewish refugees from the murderous Nazis. But there’s a level of moral culpability in not saving someone from their murderous government, and then there’s actually murdering them.
So were millions and millions of Jews exterminated by the Nazis, or not? Nevermind the exact numbers, because of course such exact numbers cannot be provided. But millions of Jews disappeared from Europe somehow during the 40s, so what happened to them?
What happened to them is there was an organized policy by the Nazi government to exterminate them, and such extermination took many forms. Some were simply shot. Some were starved. Some were worked to death. Some were packed into concentration camps where they died of infectious disease. Some were gassed. And so on. But the policy of the German government was to kill them all, and they succeeded in killing millions and millions of them.
That’s not the impression I get. Let’s look at his words:
*"And of course Nurenberg was itself ad hoc, victors theatre justice dressed up with faux gravitas - effectively military tribunals with crimes created after the fact, and with random evidential standards.
Interesting enough, but not to be confused with conventional legal proceedings. "*
It looks to me like he’s saying that they were shoddy show trials rather than proper justice.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood him, in which case I’ll apologise if he clarifies what he meant.
Thing is, they could be both - shoddy show trials that improvise ways to punish enormous crimes that had not been (or had only rarely been) committed and punished before. I could even buy that the supervising countries were of mixed feelings about prosecuting these cases, their leaderships being indifferent to (or even in minor support of) what had happened.
Speaking of hand waving, this is a pretty good example and it closely resembles many efforts of Holocaust denial.
Making a point of the number off German Jews who were murdered is not particularly relevant to a “big data” view of the Holocaust. There were around a half million German Jews to begin with. The vast majority of Jews and others who were murdered were taken from captive countries after the war began.
I know it wasn’t directed to me, but I thought it might be helpful to upthejunction to get a different perspective. Okay if I answer your question, Larry Borgia?
Certainly. For starters, there are considerable doubts that Himmler actually said this. For example, Robert Wolfe, supervisory archivist for captured German records, has commented that the word translated to mean extermination is more precisely translated as “extirpation” or “tearing up by the roots.” Further, in his handwritten notes, Himmler used the term, " Judenevakuierung ," or “evacuation of the Jews.”
In terms of the written notes, incredibly at the point where the alleged incriminating comments begin the type script changes, a page appears to have been inserted by a different typist, the numeration of the pages changes from a typewritten page number at the top to a pencilled page number at the top (see discussion p185-186 of Hayward’s Masters Thesis The Fate of Jews at German Hands.
Given Himmler & co were apparently keeping this all a secret it also seems odd that he would make these admissions to a large audience and for it to be recorded. Small tape recorders that could be smuggled in didn’t exist back then.
The evidence is also consistent with deportation to the East, but not extermination for the various reasons I’ve noted above.
Other directives
Further, on 26 October 1943, twenty-two days after Himmler’s Posen speech, Oswald Pohl, chief of the SS Economics and Administration Main Office (SS-WVHA), stated in a circular letter to the commanders of all concentration camps:[111]
Three days before Himmler’s Posen speech, on 1 October 1943, SS-Obersturmführer Werner Jothann, chief of the Central Construction Office of the Auschwitz concentration camp, drafted a preliminary cost estimate for the enlargement of the prisoners’ hospital of the camp. The enlarged hospital was to comprise 114 hospital barracks, 11 barracks for patients in need of care and 12 barracks for critically ill patients. The combined cost of these 137 barracks was estimated at 5,161,329 Reichsmark (about 50 million Euro at current rates).
A massive expense if sick detainees were soon to be exterminated by gassing?
On 9 December 1943, two months and five days after Himmler’s Posen speech, Richard Glücks, inspector of the concentration camps, sent a circular letter to the commanders of all camps including Auschwitz in which he stated that Jewish prisoners in urgent need of an operation could be treated in the nearest hospital, but the operation had to be performed by a Jewish doctor. Five days later the directive was modified: In case no Jewish doctor was available, a non-Jewish physician could be used as well. (Archiwum Glownej Komisji Badania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, Warsaw, NTN, 94, p. 143.)
**If there were an extermination programme in place why would they be providing operations for jewish prisoners? **
Inmate records
According to the official story, from spring 1942 at Auschwitz all Jews unable to work were gassed upon arrival without previous registration. If this assertion were true, no names of old Jews or Jewish children would figure in the Sterbebücher of Auschwitz. But a study of these documents, which were published in printed form in 1995 (Staatliches Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau (ed.), Die Sterbebücher von Auschwitz, Saur Verlag, Munich 1995), reveals that many old Jews and Jewish children were registered at Auschwitz:
– 2 Jews over 90 years of age;
– 73 Jews from 80 to 90 years of age;
– 482 Jews from 70 to 80 years of age;
– 2,083 Jews from 60 to 70 years of age;
– 2,584 Jews from 0 to 10 years of age.
The documents of the Auschwitz camp administration show that there were 85,298 inmates at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp on 31 December 1943. No fewer than 19,699, i.e. more than 20%, belonged to the category “unfit to work.” (Archiwum Glownej Komisji Badania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, Warsaw, NTN, 134, p. 277 f.)
**On 27 July 1944 the administration of the Auschwitz camp compiled a statistics about the prisoners “temporarily quartered in the camp of the Hungarian Jews.” The document shows that until that date 3,138 Hungarian Jews had received medical treatment at the camp hospital. 1,426 of them had undergone surgical operation. **(Gosudarstevenny Arkhiv Rossiskoj Federatsii, Moscow, 7021-108-32, p. 76.)
Again, this is not what you would expect if there were a programme of exterminating jewish prisoners who were unable to work. Plus, there is also the boring stuff I mentioned above that suggests this atrocity propaganda is no more plausible than the claims that were accepted at Nuremberg about mass extermination programmes in Germany.
Remember similar claims were made in WWI. The difference was that following WWI there were no Nuremberg style trials and confessions extracted by torture and imprisonment for those who later disputed the claims.
Completely and utterly false, from my incomplete knowledge of German and my German (Jewish) grandmother’s fluent native knowledge of German (her immediate family escaped in the 30s, by the way – the ones who stayed disappeared). This claim from deniers has been debunked time and time again and is only used with non-native German speakers… native German speakers laugh out loud at this ridiculous argument. In the context of living things, like people, ausrotten means to destroy such that it cannot return.
Further, he explicitly refers to killing Jewish women and children.
This is a frankly laughable assertion, and that you would use it demonstrates that you either have no serious understanding of German or of these speeches, or no interest in being honest.
The “reasons” above are totally ridiculous and come from either pathetic ignorance or deception. It shows the fatuousness of the denier community that they ignore phrases about killing Jewish women and children and pretend German words don’t mean what they mean.
Snipping the rest of your ridiculous nitpicking.
There is a mountain of evidence: we have the architect of the Holocaust trying to steel his men for the task of killing Jewish women and children, we have thousands of eyewitnesses, we have mountains of other documents (like the Hofle Telegram and the Korherr Report, and many others), mountains of physical evidence (including mass human remains), and countless photographs of the atrocities and their aftermath.
On the other hand we have some false understanding of German words, and a few cases in which Nazis might not have immediately killed or otherwise mistreated large numbers of Jews, and a few cases of doubtful witness testimony. Whether or not all Nazis were always 100% of the time engaged in killing Jews, or whether every single witness was 100% accurate, doesn’t affect the undeniable mass evidence that Nazis were at many times engaged in killing Jewish men, women, and children.
Every assertion of yours in this thread has shown to be either irrelevant or false.
Meh, as if the counter to that embarrassing dumb holocaust denier point had not been made, or your point discredited, the debunking of it is old already.
Over and over again it’s proven that the deniers aren’t actually interested in evidence, since there’s oodles that they ignore or sidestep. They’re no more interesting than birthers, truthers, moon-landing hoaxers, or flat-Earthers – everything contrary must be conspiracy or lies to the point that challenging them just reaffirms their belief.
I just want to hammer this nail in, as it’s clear to anyone knowledgable that it represents the quality of Chen019’s evidence. Here’s “ausrotten” in the most used German dictionary:
Translation:
weak verb - 1. completely, to the last exemplar, annihilate
2. kill, remove from the world
