"Vittnesmål" om "utrotningsläger och gaskammare"

Förfalskningen är underskriven av SS-Sturmbannführer Jährling som var en civilperson och inte medlem av SS.

Ingenieur M. Gerner, in the article referred to above, has tried to solve the problem by adducing an interpretation which in my judgment cannot be separated from the general formulation because it starts with the assumption that the 28 June 1943 letter is a "Fälschung" (fake), though eventually, as shall be explained shortly, it cannot be anything else but a Verfälschung" (a fraudently altering) of an original document. From the viewpoint of methodology, the presentation in photocopy of documents A-E (pp. 166-168) may have its own justification in History, but not in Criticism, because the only version of the document worth criticizing is the photocopy of the original, i.e. version B-D. I refer to "version" (singular) because documents B and D are two photocopies of the very same document.

Version A is not actually a "Fälschung" as the author believes (p. 168), but a very normal archive "Abschrift" (copy) of a photocopy of the original document made by Archivist Cossens, who certified at the bottom of the copy, the conformity of the transcription with the original ("Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift") (for the correctness of the copy). The Archivist has believed that the handwritten name appearing on the left [side] under "Verteiler" (distributor) - Jährling - was that of the author of the letter, thus wrote it down on the right [side] attributing him at the same time the title of SS-Sturmbannführer, a title that correctly belonged to Bischoff.

The archive number of my copy of this document is:
StA Durnburg, ND 4586.

Version C is a simple transcription of the document shown in a book and is not herein referenced.

Version E is identical to version B-D, but without the page heading.
From the viewpoint of methodological accuracy, we must therefore take into consideration only version B-D.

It is a mistake that up until now no original of the document has been noted (p. 168) : the original document is precisely the one kept in Moscow with the following reference: "502-1-314, p. 14a".
No "delo" (file/dossier) "502-1-314a" exists in the Zentralbauleitung archives (the author of this text has examined them all).

The subject document is not a late one as one seems to believe (p. 166). In Moscow, I have seen a translation in Russian by the Soviet Commission for Investigations at Auschwitz of February 1945, but I am not in a position to indicate its exact archival reference.

The source mentioned by Pressac in the German translation of his last book, 12 "502-1-324" (p. 166) is clearly a typographical error; in the French text the source is correctly indicated as "502-1-314".13

The argumentation relating to the formal authenticity of the document as presented by the author is hindered by the above-mentioned error. In general, how can proof of a "Fälschung" (forgery) be deduced from poorly relevant details such as the missing year in the Brieftagebuchzeile (the reference ID) (p. 169) or the incomplete indication of the grade of Kammler (p. 171) ? These are indications at the most of a "Verfälschung" (fraudently altering) of an original document. And effectively the letter contains so specific references that we cannot but presuppose the presence of an original. This obtains from the following observations on the formal structure of the letter:

* The number of the Brieftagebuch (reference ID) of the letter - 31550 - appears also in the "Aufstellung der bereits übergabenen Bauwerke an die Standortverwaltung" (a list of the already handed over structures to the local administration)14 at the beginning of 1943, hence there cannot be any doubt about its exactness in requirement of "Fertigstellung des Krematoriums III" (completion of Crematory III) .

* The abbreviation "Ja" designates the SS-Untersturmführer (F) Janisch, who was Bauleiter of the Bauleitung des Kriegsgefangenenlagers (construction head of the building administration of the prisoner of war camp) and in that title, his initials show in the Brieftagebuchzeile (reference identification) of the letter under consideration. The abbreviation "Ne" designates, on the other hand, the SS-Sturmann Nestripke, who at that time was surely part of the said Bauleitung.

* The "Verteiler" (distributor) indicated the outside addressees 15 of the copies of a document. In the first line ("Akt-Janisch"), the name "Janisch" is canceled and the hand-written abbreviation "Bauw" is added. This is perfectly understandable: given that the job of Janisch was to write the letter, he could not be at the same time the addressee of the same. For that reason, "Janisch" was canceled. This is therefore an error of the writer. The abbreviation "Bauw." is surely the abbreviation of "Bauwirtschaft" (building industry) as it appears in the "Verteiler" of other documents, for instance the Zentralbauleitung letter of 16 May 1944 16 which is self-explanatory, as the letter has the Fertigstellung of a Bauwerk (Crematorium III) as its subject.

The second line shows Kirschnek who was Bauleiter of the Bauleitung der Waffen SS und Polizei Auschwitz and to whom the copy was addressed for information in his capacity.

The third line of the "Verteiler" indicates the "Registratur K.G.L. BW 30" where normally all actions relating to all the crematoria of Birkenau were registered.

Finally there follows the handwritten name "Jährling". This is not a signature, as the author of the article believes (p. 172) because Jährling signed differently and by rule added the abbreviation "ZA Ing." (Zivilangestellter Ingenieur) to his signature. Jährling, by profession a Heating Systems Technician, was part of the "Technische Abteilung" (technical department) of the Zentralbauleitung which took care, among other things, of all the "Heizungsanlagen" (heating installations) of the camp, including the crematoria; hence it is not surprising that a letter copy would be addressed to him also for information.

The "inhaltliche Fehler" (content errors) mentioned by the author of the article (p. 171) are irrelevant or simply misspellings, therefore how can it be considered a "Falschmeldung" (false report) that Crematorium I had ceased operation on 19 July 1943 as the letter in question is from before that date, being dated 28 June 1943?

The fact that on 28 June 1943, Crematorium II was temporarily out of service has no importance at all regarding the finality of the letter, which refers bureaucratically to the plans, as completed Bauwerke (construction projects), independently of their operating at that particular moment.
On this question, which is more important than may at first appear, I shall return.

Summing up, the Brieftagebuchzeile, and more so the "Verteiler" lead us to think more about a "Verfälschung" (fraudently altered) than a "Fälschung" (fake) document.
However, even this hypothesis has its weak points. Anyway, who could have been the forger? That document certainly existed already in February 1945, but it is difficult to attribute it to the Soviet Commission of Investigation, because this is too contrasting with the data brought out by the Soviet specialists who investigated a Leistung of 300 to 350 corpses per day for Crematorium I; of 3,000 per day for each one of Crematoria II and III, and of 1,500 for each of Crematoria IV and V. If the forger had been a member of that Commission, it seems reasonable to think that he would have introduced this data in his forgery.

The forger may also have been a prisoner employed in the offices of the Zentralbauleitung, who could have been able to carry out the forgery between the time of the escape of the SS and the arrival of the Soviets; this forger would have had the necessary knowledge to create a "Fälschung", but considering the tendency of the prisoners to show hyperbolic exaggeration, in this case, the forgery would certainly contain a much higher Leistung.

Jean-Claude Pressac kallade dokumentet en "intern propagandalögn".

Hur som helst har detta brev blivit falskeligen editerat.

Filip Muller's book is a unique document indeed: it is the testimony of the only man who saw the Jewish people die and lived to tell what he saw. It is not known exactly how many people were murdered in the Auschwitz gas chambers, but the estimates run around three and a half million.(...) He saw a civilization being destroyed by devils in ordinary, human form. He not only saw the martyrs, he spoke to Satan. He tells the story in simple, straightforward language. There is no embellishment, no deviation. This is not a work of art. It is a testimony.
It is a testimony also of a human being who decided, at one point, not to suffer any longer and to choose death. In the same simple, matter-of-fact way he relates the scenes of hell and fire that he witnessed, he tells the story of his attempted suicide and the ultimate cruelty of the SS guard who prevented it; he tells of the beauty of Yana's death in the horror of the mass murder, perhaps the most poignant story of any Holocaust testimony.
Muller is neither a historian nor a psychologist; he does not analyze or dissect. But what he tells is of tremendous importance to both (...)

This is a vital testimony, and it will undoubtedly serve as an element in attempting to approach understanding the dread that was Auschwitz, although none of us that was not there can cross the treshold of knowledge. (...) This unembellished telling is a terrible accusation against God and humanity.

(...) He was moved to write again by the effect of his testimony at the 'Auschwitz trial' at Frankfurt, in 1964. Afterwards he began writing up what he had jotted down, had it translated into German, then looked for a publisher. The result is before us: a shattering, centrally important testimony of the sole survivor of the whole span of the murder operations of the Auschwitz-Birkenau killing centre, of the anus mundi. We must contend with Filip Muller's testimony, if we want our civilization to survive.

Ny ugn till krematorium i Skön

SUNDSVALL 2004-10-08 [03:00]

Sköns församling investerar i en ny ugn med fördubblad kapacitet till sitt krematorium. Trots grannars protester vill församlingen också ha kvar den gamla ugnen som saknar rökgasrening.

Kommentera artikeln


I dag kremeras ungefär 900 kroppar per år vid förbränningsanläggningen intill Sköns kyrka i Sundsbruk. Men utvecklingen anses gå mot att allt fler döda kremeras. Församlingen satsar därför på en ugn med kapacitet att bränna 2000 kroppar per år, och söker tillstånd för den hanteringen hos länsstyrelsen.

I reserv
Krematoriet anser att den gamla ugnen ändå behövs, som reserv om den nya krånglar. Förslaget är att den ska kunna användas efter samråd med tillsynsmyndigheter.
Mot detta har närboende tidigare protesterat. ֶer 200 personer har skrivit under på att kravet att den gamla ugnen ska rivas, om den inte utrustas med rökgasrening.
Grannarna får i vilket fall som helst stå ut med den orenade röken i drygt ett år till. Först i januari 2006 ska den nya anläggningen vara i bruk. Fram till dess gäller övergångsregler eftersom det förut inte krävts tillstånd enligt miljöbalken för krematorier.
Länstyrelsen väntar nu på yttranden från miljönämnden i Sundsvall innan den tar ställning till församlingens ansökan. Ķen allmänheten har möjlighet att komma med synpunkter.