[WW2] - Auschwitz

En tråd ägnad Auschwitz-Birkenau, så finns det trådar för alla former av naziläger.

Germar Rudolf har skrivit en analys i hittills sex delar av Auschwitzrättegången i Frankfurt i mitten av 60-talet, som kan läsas här:

http://vho.org/tr/2003/1/Rudolf115-118.html

http://vho.org/tr/2003/2/Rudolf235-238.html

http://vho.org/tr/2003/3/Rudolf352-358.html

http://vho.org/tr/2003/4/Rudolf468-472.html

http://vho.org/tr/2004/2/Rudolf219-223.html

http://vho.org/tr/2004/3/Rudolf327-330.html

Lite information om några av de mest uppmärksammade, och milt sagt föga trovärdiga, "ögonvittnen till gaskammare i Auschwitz" som gjort sina stämmor hörda:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n1p20_Provan.html

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p--5_Mattogno.html

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p25_Okeefe.html

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p103_Faurisson.html

En givande essänekrolog av Jürgen Graf om Jean-Claude Pressac, som dog häromåret. Läs, och sluta fantisera om de ondskefulla och farliga revisionisterna! Pressac hade gjort en unik hobbykarriär, i det att han på nära håll lärt känna den franska "revisionismens" ledande namn:

http://vho.org/tr/2003/4/Graf426-432.html

"When Jean-Claude Pressac suddenly died at the early age of 59 on the 23rd of July 2003, I was deeply moved. I had never met him personally; however, on account of his important role in the 'Holocaust' controversy, I had been involved with him since 1991, when I began my own research into the subject. Like other revisionists, I was challenged by his ideas. Of all the champions of tales of Jewish exterminations and homicidal gas chambers, Pressac, together with the long dead Jewish-English historian Gerald Reitlinger, was the only one whom I could regard with any degree of respect.

Pressac was a pharmacist by profession, and like nearly all writers who support the 'Holocaust' tale he had no formal training as a historian. This is true of most of those who subscribe to the official version of the fate of the Jews during the Second World War, as well as most revisionists. Pressac was not Jewish and he stood on the right politically.

In his youth, Pressac read a novel by the French author Robert Merle entitled La mort est mon métier (Death is My Profession). This was a gruesome tale about Rudolf Höß, the first commandant of Auschwitz, and had strong emotional impact on the impressionable child. For the rest of his life, Pressac was haunted by the thought of Auschwitz. At some point in his adult life he began to have doubts about the accuracy of official horror stories concerning 'extermination camps,' however, and so began to investigate revisionism.

He made the acquaintance of Robert Faurisson, Pierre Guillaume and other French revisionists, whom he assisted for some time. The collaboration with Faurisson ended in personal animosity, which characterized all their subsequent relations. Pressac then rejected revisionism and set out to disprove its arguments. His willingness to engage revisionists in open debate distinguished him from orthodox 'Holocaust' historians such as Raul Hilberg, Leon Poliakov or Lucy Dawidowicz, who categorically refused to consider scientific objections to the official version of 'Holocaust.' Thanks to his earlier collaborations, Pressac was intimately familiar with revisionist arguments, which he realized could be refuted only by proving the technical feasibility of alleged exterminations of Jews in homicidal gas chambers. This became the precise goal that he set for himself.---"


Även Mattogno har skrivit en dödsruna:

http://vho.org/tr/2003/4/Mattogno432-435.html

Och här är vittnesmål om Auswitz

Ett intressant dokument från Nurnberg:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-15-46.htm

I den låsta tråden nämnde jag Fritjof Meyers Auschwitzstudie i tidskriften "Osteuropa", en "icke-revisionistisk" analys som tilldragit sig mitt intresse, liksom Pressacs försök att som den förste bemöta "revisionisternas" sakliga argument med annat än smädelser, hot och förebrående moraliserande.

http://vho.org/tr/2004/2/Graf127-130.html

"Holocaust-related current events in Germany provide an occasion for cautious optimism. Two articles by a leading journalist for Der Spiegel, Fritjof Meyer, the first of which appeared in May 2002 and the second in November 2003, may have unforeseen consequences for the Auschwitz "gas chamber myth," although only an extremely small minority of the German general public appear even aware of them. The two articles are the result of the immense pressure exerted upon the keepers of the Holocaust "Holy Grail" by the revisionists and their research findings, although unnoticed by the general public.

The first article appeared in the May 2002 issue of Osteuropa magazine under the title "The Number of Victims of Auschwitz: New Findings in the Light of Newly-Discovered Documents," in which the official version of events at Auschwitz was revised in regards to two central points.[1] First, Meyer estimated the total number of camp victims at 510,000 (including 356,000 "gassing" victims). This is less than half the 1.1 million victims alleged by Franciszek Piper, Historical Research Department at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum,[2] and 120,000 lower than that estimated by Jean-Claude Pressac in his book The Crematoria of Auschwitz, published in 1994, i.e., at least 630,000 deaths.[3]

Meyer's basis of computation was exceptionally eccentric: he began with the maximum capacity of the crematoria, and simultaneously assumed that the crematoria were operated at full capacity, at all times, for as long as they remained in operation. A similar argument, somewhat more banal, might run as follows: Mr. Meyer's automobile has a top speed of 200 km an hour. Mr. Meyer drives 200 km per hour from the moment he puts the key in the ignition until the time he stops, even on winding forest roads at night or in the midst of city traffic jams. These - and other - nonsensical features of Meyer's method of calculation have been remarked upon by Carlo Mattogno.[4] This does not, of course, alter the fact that Meyer's estimate - which is still more than triple the actual figure of 136,000 deaths at Auschwitz according to the documents[5] - is by far the lowest total ever served up so far by any representative of the official dogma of the "Extermination of the Jews" in "Gas Chambers."

Meyer's second revision was even more important in terms of consequences. Meyer concluded that the Birkenau crematoria were only used for "test gassings," which supposedly failed, due, among other things, to the insufficient ventilation. The mass gassings, therefore, took place "largely" - in plain English, almost exclusively - in the two Birkenau farmhouses usually referred to, in the relevant literature, as the "Red House" and the "White House," or combined as the "Bunkers of Birkenau."[6] This argument turns the whole traditional version of history upside down. In The Case for Auschwitz, Robert Jan van Pelt, who has for several years now been the best-known defender of the official version of events at Auschwitz, writes as follows in relation to the (alleged) gas chamber in Crematorium II at Birkenau:[7]

"These 2,500 square feet, in which the Germans perhaps produced no fewer than 500,000 corpses, are for the modern age what the Acropolis was for Greece and the Cathedral of Chartres was for Christianity."

Let us not detain ourselves for the moment with the question of the psychological makeup of anyone who would make such a warped comparison; let us content ourselves with noting that, according to the leading representative of the official Auschwitz story, approximately one half million people were killed in the "gas chamber" of Auschwitz II. But since mass murders are supposed to have occurred on a mass-production basis in the Crematoria of I, III, IV and V as well, this means that the overwhelming majority of the victims must have been gassed in the five crematoria - and not in the farmhouses.

The German mass media hardly reacted to the Meyer articles: Die Welt raised a howl of indignation on August 28, 2002, followed by two columns in the nationalist Nationalzeitung, published by Dr. Gerhard Frey, which praised Meyer's findings as "the truth," thus expressly recognizing the alleged "homicidal gassings" as an historical reality. Apart from this, the discomfiting articles were met with awkward silence - a silence only too understandable. According to prevailing legal custom in Germany, Meyer should have been hauled into court for his articles, along with the entire editorial staff of Osteuropa - which is published under the patronage of former President of the German Parliament Rita Süßmuth - for permitting Meyer to publish his arguments, thereby committing the crime of "aiding and abetting."---"

Att massgasningar skedde i "bunkrarna" som Meyer skriver om vittnar SS-läkaren Johann Paul Kremer vid Auschwitz-rättegången i Krakow 1947:
"Dessa massmord ägde rum i små stugor i skogen utanför Birkenaulägret. Stugorna kallades 'bunkrar' på SS-slang. Alla SS-läkare i tjänst turades om att deltaga vid gasningarna, som kallades Sonderauktion (specialauktion)."
Kremer skrev även dagbok under sin tid i Auschwitz. Den 2 september 1942 skriver han:
"För första gången närvarande vid en specialauktion kl 3 på morgonen. I jämförelse är Dantes Inferno rena komedin. Det är med rätta Auschwitz kallas utrotningsläger!"

Källa: D.D. Guttenplan Förintelsen inför rätta s. 188

Faurissons analys av Kremers dagboksanteckningar och vittnesmål är mycket läsvärda: inget i dagboken talar om någon gasning, däremot förekom arkebuseringar, där SS-läkare var förpliktade att närvara:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n3p40_Faurisson.html

"---The Diary of physician Johann Paul Kremer must be cited correctly. It will thus be seen that, if he speaks of the horrors of Auschwitz, it is in allusion to the horrors of the typhus epidemic of September-October 1942. On October 3 he wrote: "At Auschwitz, whole streets have been annihilated by typhus." He himself would contract what is called "the Auschwitz disease." Germans died of it. The sorting of the sick and the well was the "selection," or one of the forms of "special action," carried out by physicians. This sorting was done either inside the buildings or outdoors. Never did Kremer write that Auschwitz was a Vernichtungslager, that is, in the terminology invented by the Allies after the war, an "extermination camp" (by which is to be understood: a camp equipped with a "gas chamber"). In reality, he wrote: "It is not for nothing that Auschwitz is called the annihilation camp (das Lager der Vernichtung)." In the etymological sense of the word, typhus annihilates those whom it strikes. Another serious translation error: under the date of September 2, 1942, Kremer's manuscript reads: "At three a.m. today I was, for the first time, present at a special action outdoors." Historians and judges traditionally suppress the word "outdoors" (draussen) to have Kremer appear to say that the action in question took place in a "gas chamber." Finally, the horrid scenes before the "last Bunker" (that is, in the yard of Bunker 11) are executions of the condemned, executions that the physician was obliged to attend.---"


http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p103_Faurisson.html

"---I will therefore speak to you at some length of the testimony of Johann Paul Kremer. You will see how, at first sight, it is troubling, and then how, if you analyze it with a little care, it constitutes a terrible fiasco for the Exterminationists. I prize the Kremer case very much. It shows how fragile are the proofs that people offer to us, to what extent they allow themselves to be easily deceived by appearances, how much the official historians have misused the texts and how it is necessary to work if you wish, in the study of texts, to distinguish between the true and the false, between the real meaning and the misinterpretation. This is what is called text and document criticism. It happens that it is my professional specialty. I am therefore going to inflict upon you, to my great regret, a course in "text and document criticism." I ask you to pardon me for the strictness of the demonstration that I am going to try to carry out in front of you.---"


Att mängder av människor dog i Auschwitz är det ingen som bestrider, frågan är bara hur och i vilken omfattning och av vilka orsaker. Och därför är det också märkligt att ingen här på forumet tycks vilja befatta sig med de faktiska bevis på dödsfall som efter mer än 40 år upptäcktes i Moskvaarkiv form av delar av Auschwitz "dödsfallsregister":

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p265_Weber.html

"---Over the years, Holocaust historians and standard Holocaust studies have consistently maintained that Jewish prisoners who arrived at Auschwitz between the spring of 1942 and the fall of 1944, and who were not able to work, were immediately put to death. Consistent with the alleged German program to exterminate Europe's Jews, only able-bodied Jews who could be "worked to death" were temporarily spared from the gas chambers. Holocaust historians also agree that no records were kept of the deaths of the Jews who were summarily killed in the camp's gas chambers because they were too old, too young or otherwise unable to work. [1]

However, Auschwitz camp death records — which were hidden away for more than 40 years in the Soviet Union — cast grave doubt on these widely accepted claims.

Inmate deaths at Auschwitz were carefully recorded by the camp authorities on certificates that were bound in dozens of death registry volumes. Each "death book" (Sterbebuch) contains hundreds of death certificates. Each certificate meticulously records numerous revealing details, including the deceased person's full name, profession and religion, date and place of birth, pre-Auschwitz residence, parents' names, time of death, and cause of death as determined by a camp physician.---"


Ett urval artiklar om dödsstatistiken från Irvings sajt:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/...ies/deathroll/

En förteckning över Auschwitz "satellitläger", dvs. smärre kontingenter övervakade fångar sysselsatta med arbete utanför de två centrala komplexen:

http://simplethinking.com/home/subcamp.stm

Och en recension av en studie om SS och slavarbetskraften i lägren:

http://vho.org/tr/2003/3/Smith340-342.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/...schau1948.html

Märklig tysk journalfilm från 1948 om Auschwitzrättegången i Krakow.
Offersiffran 300.000 döda är den som redovisas (jämför med Höss av hans tortyrmästare fastslagna fantasisiffra 3 miljoner...)


Om Auschwitz "dödsfallsregister" och ett försök att räkna fram de totala förlustsiffrorna bland de fångar som registrerades i lägret:

http://www.corax.org/revisionism/misc/deathbooks.html


Auschwitzmuseets före detta chef Franciscek Piper dryftar dödssiffror med Fritjof Meyer:

http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng...big.php?id=563

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Osteu...r_replies.html

Det har i en annan, felaktig tråd, diskuterats huruvida Simon Wiesenthal Center har förfalskat ett fotografi från Auschwitz, föreställande nyanlända ungerska judar, genom att lägga in rök från skorstenarna i bakgrunden. Saken har debatterats flitigt på amerikanska revisionistforum vilket också fått till följd att somliga helt enkelt tillskrivit SWC och bett dom redogöra för händelsen. Svaret man fick var, jag kommer inte ihåg ordagrant, men något väldigt "luddigt", typ att scannern helt enkelt inte var ordentligt rengjord, vilket nog skulle göra vilken kriminalkommisarie som helst misstänksam.

Jag vet också att bägge bilderna fanns på en dansk revisionistsida som jag inte hittar just nu och därför har jag laddat upp bilderna hos en "host" så kan var och en dra sin egen slutsats. Bilden är numera borttagen från SWC bildarkiv.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...nalNoSmoke.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...zFakeSmoke.jpg

Ja, Wiesenthal är ju en överbevisad lögnare och en osannolikt osympatisk figur, så jag tror han är kapabel till de klumpigaste försök att vilseleda genom exempelvis en lätt genomskådad retuschering. Bruno Kreisky, den före detta österrikiske socialdemokratiske presidenten (av judisk börd), var ju inte nådig i sitt omdöme om Wiesenthal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Kreisky

"---Kreisky opposed Zionism as a solution to the problems faced by the Jewish people. He cultivated friendly relations with Arab leaders such as Anwar Sadat and Muamar Gaddafi, and in 1980 Austria established relations with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. He tried to use his position as a European Jewish Socialist to act as a mediator between Israel and the Arabs, but many Jews and Israelis regarded him as a traitor. He had a stormy relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. He once said that he was "the only politician in Europe Golda Meir can't blackmail." In the long run his efforts at mediation achieved little.

Kreisky also had a tense relationship with another prominent Austrian Jew, the Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal. When Wiesenthal claimed that four members of Kreisky's 1970 cabinet had "Nazi backgrounds," Kreisky said that Wiesenthal was "living from telling the world that Austria is anti-Semitic. What else can he do?" Wiesenthal retorted that "Kreisky has a disturbed relationship to Nazism and Judaism." Despite Kreisky's ambiguous attitude to Jewish issues, throughout the 1970s Austria was a transit point for Jews leaving the Soviet Union for Israel and the West.---"

Utdrag från två revisionistiska recensioner av den exterminationistiske Robert Jan van Pelts bok om Auschwitz:

http://vho.org/tr/2003/1/Countess99-104.html

"---Van Pelt's book rests more than on any other type of evidence, the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses and their "confessions."[1] And it is Professor Van Pelt's "will-to-believe" certain alleged eyewitnesses that makes his book so powerfully convincing to the general readership, the media, politicians, judges, attorneys and academicians, and the masses who comprise today's social consensus. His drawings are excellent and, again, impressively convincing to those listed above. I suggest that in the coming decade that this book will become the most quoted Holocaust volume and most discussions will tend to be settled with an "...as Van Pelt says..." assertion.---

But he has played the game strongly, worked hard, read widely in the Negationists' writings, even personally met one or two, conducted enormous research and travels on his own, thoughtfully weighed opposition arguments, and applied his best talents to refuting them--all done, of course, for a handsome payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars or Euros and receiving enormous favorable publicity from the Holocaust Industry that created the social consensus and keeps it thriving.

I conclude that Van Pelt shows himself a worthy opponent, ably prepared for most confrontations as Irving found in the London trial, but Van Pelt will only find himself fully tested if and when he agrees to a full and open debate on his Auschwitz obsession--what I abbreviate as his "A™" (Auschwitz Trade Mark)[2] --with prominent Revisionist scholars at a conference or similarly open gathering "with no holds barred."---

His second chapter, "Marshalling the Evidence for Auschwitz," is key to his personal mystical Jewish value system and how it colors the rest of the book. In fact, the early pages of this chapter may well be the most important content of The Case for Auschwitz since they demonstrate, I hold, that both his personal and professional life is inextricably bound to his religious philosophy of good and evil, with Auschwitz and 'Nazis' as absolute evil and Jews representing ultimate goodness.---

Van Pelt's obsession with "evil"--and having given no method by which readers or judges or architects might arrive at what Van Pelt's "evil" is--I assessed to be a crippling defect against his ability to research and analyze and write in the modern World characterized by physical proofs and mathematical calculations. Plus, the modern scientific, economic, academic and political World does NOT overtly concern itself with a specialist's religious orientation, especially if he/she inserts a metaphysical principle of "evil" that is clearly beyond the practical observance of, for example, the evil caused by a flood or fire or earthquake or crime.[6]

How bizarre that he labeled Krema 2 Leichenkeller I "the holy of holies" at the London trial, thereby transforming a corpse cellar into a religious sanctuary on the level of the Mosaic Tabernacle wherein the God of all Creation dwelled in some symbolic fashion!

When he asserts that "evil denies meaning", he also lacks the epistemological self-consciousness of an expert philosopher who would at least inform his readers l.) what "evil" means; and 2.) what "meaning" is in his own Weltanschauung. Van Pelt does neither and, thereby, renders his writing here to be Cabbalistic.[7]

Also, if Van Pelt had only studied his fellow Dutchman's, Herman Dooyeweerd's, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought,[8] he would have learned that meaning is highly controversial and is a grand Voraussetzung (presupposition) of theoretical thought. What we find with Van Pelt is, rather, a feeble effort to smuggle a Jewish mystical understanding of religion into both the fields of History and of Architecture.

Van Pelt then writes that

"My proposal to include Crematorium 2 among the key buildings of architectural history was based on the assumption that its construction was an event of crucial significance in the history of architecture. The gas chambers changed the whole meaning of architecture. [emph. added...] Even before I finished my dissertation, I felt that temple and crematorium were united in a diptych, and that having studied one panel, I should not avert my gaze from the other." (p. 67)

We can now view Van Pelt's mental framework: the two-tablet (diptych) unity here of temple and crematorium comprise his fundamental grasp of Architecture as a science and thus the very place name "Auschwitz" now has this evilly hissing sound and the four holes must exist and the four triple-mesh gassing contraptions must have been realities and the eyewitnesses Henryk Tauber and Michael Kula and Shlomo Dragon and Stanislaw Jankowski must have told the truth and the Polish Communist Judge Jan Sehn must have been careful and fair and the Pery Broad and Johann Paul Kremer and Rudolf Höß confessions must have been true confessions of reality.

Van Pelt's A™ is not fundamentally a place in Poland or Upper Silesia but rather a metaphysical concept wherein the evil of non-Jews (= anti-Semitism) wars eternally against "the Chosen People" who are good and decent and loving and creative.---

Van Pelt makes even more clear his accurate assessment of the social consensus of the sacred "Six Million" in homicidal gassing chambers when he wrote:

"[...] because neither judge nor jury would be able to separate themselves from our own culture and judge the inherited account of Auschwitz on the basis of documentary evidence." (p. 104)

The definite article "the" of "the inherited account" is not an accidental choice of a linguistic particle. Van Pelt's "our own culture" bespeaks the Jewish contextualized nature of WW2 history as a War that centered on Jews and that it was a War Against the Jews.[11] Van Pelt and Dawidowicz and Hilberg and Wiesel and Lipstadt and Berenbaum and all the stellar luminaries of the Holo-Industry, I submit, really do believe what they write. And, they have marvelously succeeded in creating the "social consensus" that influenced Judge Gray at the Irving versus Lipstadt trial of 2000. I have no doubt in my mind that Judge Gray really believed that he ruled correctly and that he was not giving himself over simplistically to a decision that would enhance his future in the British judiciary system.

By analogy, when the Roman Catholic Church insisted that the sun revolved around planet Earth, that Church really believed its best scholars of that era. People, more often than not, act sincerely and base their actions on sincerely held beliefs of their culture at the time.

Hence, as a baby develops within the amniotic fluid of the womb and knows nothing else but that particular physical context, Van Pelt is powerfully accurate about what I call the Holocaustian amniotic fluid of post-WW2 social consensus.---

Revisionists, of course, agree with "convergence of evidence" as a method, but Revisionists also must insist upon divergence of evidence as the other side of the coin. When "confessions" are found to have been tampered with, edited, revised, created, and coerced, such "confessions" diverge from the pursuit of exactitude and must not be accepted, as Van Pelt does, as supporting his A™. I found that what Van Pelt includes in his large book--that is, "confessions"--is quite helpful, but more so, I found that what he omitted by ignorance or nescience or intentionally, to be even more important. This is especially true for Dr. Johann Paul Kremer, the physician who spent September to November 1942.

Van Pelt omitted that Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich placed a footnote revealing that Dr. Kremer had "retracted the statements he made in Poland."[13] Now, if I had not searched the Stäglich book--and Van Pelt is unrelenting in his vicious attack on Judge Stäglich's scholarship--I might have taken the Kremer "confession" as a powerful brick in the A™ Holocaust edifice's "convergence of evidence." Kremer may well prove that Van Pelt is grossly dishonest.

Conclusion

Revisionists may well want to focus some effort on listing Van Pelt's gaffes, a list I have begun. Examples are his naïve (or, dishonest?) acceptance of "confessions" of Rudolf Höß, Pery Broad, Kremer , Filip Mueller, and other notables.---

As a Revisionist, I can embrace in good conscience that Germans and Jews and Russians and Arabs and Americans and Blacks could bring about the deaths of millions of people caught up in the maelstrom of a vast war, but whereas the destruction of Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Darmstadt and Hamburg is clear from the convergence of evidence, the purposeful physical extermination of some Six Million Jews (and, as martyrs!) at the hands of Germans--whether SS or Wehrmacht or Einsatzgruppen or civilians--lacks the convergence of evidence that I must require from my historiographic perspective."