Any reason given for why Auschwitz needed so many crema?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby Lamprecht » 3 days 54 minutes ago (Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:43 am)

HMSendeavour wrote:
gl0spana wrote:One question that jumps out at me, is if Auschwitz had this drastically higher mortality rate due to typhus, why keep sending prisoners there, its a death trap?

Why does that jump out at you? Where else would you send them? Are you implying that they sent them there because they knew they'd get typhus and die? Are you suggesting the Germans had a new killing method not yet discovered in which they schemed to exterminate the Jews via typhus?

This guy is not thinking very hard.
If soldiers on the frontline had a high mortality rate, why keep conscripting more civilians into this death trap?
Because it's a war and you are trying to win.

The Third Reich forced able-bodied young German men (and eventually older men, women, even some teenagers) to join the military and fight against those trying to invade Germany.
They also forced communist subversives, POWs, criminals, draft-dodgers, Jews, and others into labor camps to help the war effort.

The OP is now trying to push the argument of murder by pure negligence since he refuses to support his goofy "gas chamber" narrative. He must make it out to seem that the Germans just did not care if Jews lived or died and then sent them to places where they were certain to die of disease or starvation, knowing full well that was going to happen, possibly even doing it partly for that reason.

It's bogus. Lack of food for oneself is never "planned" - sure, destroying crops and blockading food shipments are strategies that have been used in wars against enemy countries throughout history; but the Germans wanted all of the food they could get. It's not as if they said
"Well, we have enough to feed our own people, we can't feed the camp prisoners but so what, let's completely forget about trying to acquire food and only focus on other things."

Indeed, they were low on food and people starved because of that, but it's hard to think of a war around that period where it did not happen. It happened outside of actual war to those who were enslaved to the USSR in the Holodomor and elsewhere.
In agricultural powerhouses like the USA, that obviously wasn't going to be an issue. The USA sent food and supplies to the "Allies" before formally entering the war.

As for disease: nobody wants that around at all because it can spread. If the Germans had cheap, mass-produced & widely available typhus vaccines they would have mass vaccinated the prisoners for certain, even those death row inmates who were sent to Auschwitz to do months of labor prior to their execution.

Typhus broke out in Auschwitz in summer 1942, and the Germans quickly responded in order to halt the spread. Commandant Hoess ordered a full quarantine (vollständige Lagersperre) of the camp in July 1942. Zyklon-B was brought in, SS men were prohibited from eating certain foods, various vaccinations were mandated, movement restrictions were imposed, special “louse inspection” units organized. The measures proved inadequate and in early December 1942, camp physician Dr. Wirths attended a meeting for the specific purpose which included government officials, military officers, and important civilian officials. Immediate action was demanded.

The spread of disease was a risk taken very seriously in the camps, period. There was no "Jews in our important labor camp dying of disease? so what!" going on during this time; not simply because it would just result in the disease spreading also to the Germans working there, and the civilians in nearby cities and towns. And obviously the labor camps were vital to the war effort.

Further, the epidemic of typhus at Auschwitz was actually blamed on civilian laborers brought in locally to work in the camp for pay (yes, people some chose to work at Auschwitz for pay). If that is the case (it's impossible to know) then it was not a problem of disinfection for new inmate arrivals. As a result of the outbreak (the crowded conditions made it spread rapidly), the camp was isolated to prevent further the encroachment of the disease into the nearby population.

Who is to blame? The camp commandant? Hoess wasn’t omnipotent. The medical technology back then was primitive by our standards. Hoess didn’t decide which prisoners were coming to the camp and who was leaving. Someone else higher up made those decisions and the workers employed at the camps were just doing their job.

When the disease began spreading, were the Auschwitz workers supposed to take up arms for a coup attempt against Berlin so that they could get the resources needed to do whatever it is OP thinks they were morally obligated to? How much money needed to be spent on preventing the spread of disease among Jewish prisoners for OP to say "Well, they made a good enough effort for me to say it was just an unfortunate war-time situation similar to countless others" - I wonder?

On 28 October 1942, the head of the central construction management of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz, SS-Hauptsturmführer Bischoff, drew up and signed some site plans with cost estimates for Auschwitz. The total cost was 13.76 billion Reichsmarks, which would translate to over $100 million USD in the present day. The plan included installations, improvement in the water supply and drainage system, deinfestation facilities, all sorts of things.

The head of the SS camp administration office sent a 28 December 1942 directive to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. It sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and ordered that:
"camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps."

Furthermore, it ordered:
"The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp commandants . . . The camp doctors are to see to it that the working conditions at the various labor places are improved as much as possible."

Finally, the directive stressed that:
"the Reichsfhrer SS [Heinrich Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced."
(Nuremberg document PS-2171, Annex 2. NC&A red series, Vol. 4, pp. 833-834)
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: Antipodes
Contact:

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 days 22 hours ago (Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:13 am)

Lamprecht wrote:It's bogus. Lack of food for oneself is never "planned" - sure, destroying crops and blockading food shipments are strategies that have been used in wars against enemy countries throughout history; but the Germans wanted all of the food they could get. It's not as if they said "Well, we have enough to feed our own people, we can't feed the camp prisoners but so what, let's completely forget about trying to acquire food and only focus on other things.

Indeed, they were low on food and people starved because of that, but it's hard to think of a war around that period where it did not happen. It happened outside of actual war to those who were enslaved to the USSR in the Holodomor and elsewhere. In agricultural powerhouses like the USA, that obviously wasn't going to be an issue. The USA sent food and supplies to the "Allies" before formally entering the war.


Exactly. It wouldn't make sense to have the food but forcibly starve the people who're essential to ensuring the gears of production keep going to fight the war. Whoever starved, while tragic, did so because of the dire situations and lack of resources that needed to be adequately distributed to the most essential of people, whom undertook the most essential productive jobs. It was war after all.

While, our opponents would agree starvation happened in war, they could then make the stupid claim that "during this war more people starved than in other wars" as if it were some kind of point. The size, scope, men, and way the war, whatever war it be was fought will be the factors most important in determining whether more or less people starve, or potentially starve. If you're fighting a gigantic mechanized war, building thousands of aeroplanes, tanks, guns, bullets, grenades, rubber, fuel, clothing, etc. etc. you will need to employ more people. In the case of the eastern front, Stalin had millions of people disposable to him, thus the sheer amount of people participating in the conflict being that much larger, the scope of the actual war zone, means that more people will be affected, either as soldiers or needing to produce for those soldiers. So, surprise! More people in every metric were going to die than in any other war. It's not comparable, because the essential foundations of that conflict were also unable to be compared to any other war.

This needs to be understood.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3487
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Any reason given for why Aucshwitz needed so many crema?

Postby Hektor » 2 days 17 hours ago (Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:33 pm)

Lamprecht wrote:
HMSendeavour wrote:
gl0spana wrote:One question that jumps out at me, is if Auschwitz had this drastically higher mortality rate due to typhus, why keep sending prisoners there, its a death trap?

Why does that jump out at you? Where else would you send them? Are you implying that they sent them there because they knew they'd get typhus and die? Are you suggesting the Germans had a new killing method not yet discovered in which they schemed to exterminate the Jews via typhus?

This guy is not thinking very hard.
If soldiers on the frontline had a high mortality rate, why keep conscripting more civilians into this death trap?
Because it's a war and you are trying to win.

The Third Reich forced able-bodied young German men (and eventually older men, women, even some teenagers) to join the military and fight against those trying to invade Germany.
They also forced communist subversives, POWs, criminals, draft-dodgers, Jews, and others into labor camps to help the war effort.

The OP is now trying to push the argument of murder by pure negligence since he refuses to support his goofy "gas chamber" narrative. He must make it out to seem that the Germans just did not care if Jews lived or died and then sent them to places where they were certain to die of disease or starvation, knowing full well that was going to happen, possibly even doing it partly for that reason.

Well noted, there. NS-Germany did do what virtually ALL governments do (Otherwise they won't be governments for long): They used compulsion to get people compliant with their polices and goals. In peace time this commonly involves taxation, enforcement of regulations, but also compulsory schooling and of course enforcement of laws and legislation by punishing violators. In war this includes the draft by conscription and enlisting all kinds of citizens for other services. It also includes commanding industries to do certain things, commanding trade to abide by rationing rules etc. Previously contractual labour relations can become compulsory. Occupied territories will be treated in a similar manner and probably much harsher, since occupation essentially doesn't mean 'traditional' control. The attitudes of the local population may also play a role.

Now it's not in dispute that NS-Germany and other Axis countries resettled people - especially Jews. And also put indenture contracts on people they recruited in occupied areas. People that were generally paid for their labour and even had social insurance as well, if possible even vacations.
This was even subject of movie making during that time:
https://archive.org/details/FremdarbeiterImDrittenReich
The concentration camps were partially a different matter of course. They were organised in a socialist/communist manner with free housing, free food, free healthcare, but compulsory labour for the inmates who however got some form of pocket money then - at least until the time Germany was approaching final economic, military and political collapse.

What mainstream media and cultural industry supported by officious historiography and an uncounted number of sycophants did during the last 8 decades was to sketch some sort of diablography about the third Reich. A "look how bad and evil the Nazis are" sensationalism is used to essentially create some sort of Hell on Earth scenario. That's pretty convenient for other governments for sure. Because now their own compulsion, conniving and crimes don't look as bad anymore. So the Third Reich Myth is very useful for them as distraction, but also as negative measure for their political benchmarking. This reminds of scapegoating and projecting as in social psychology. Ironically it transfigures the mythical elements ( Adolf Hitler - National Socialism - Holocaust ) into some sort of moral authority that determines what policies ought to be considered wrong. Initially those were Antisemitism - Militarism - Authoritarianism, but this grew like a cancer starting to include all kinds of "Racism" - which only entered the discussion later as an official word -finally Nationalism, Patriotism, hey even sexism, homophobia, islamophobia etc. need to be entered into that canon. What's observable is the a transvaluation of all (previous) values taking place, which ultimately will lead to rather radical changes in legislation, law enforcement and the administration of justice (which is something already observable as well in my opinion)

Lamprecht wrote:It's bogus. Lack of food for oneself is never "planned" - sure, destroying crops and blockading food shipments are strategies that have been used in wars against enemy countries throughout history; but the Germans wanted all of the food they could get. It's not as if they said
"Well, we have enough to feed our own people, we can't feed the camp prisoners but so what, let's completely forget about trying to acquire food and only focus on other things."

Indeed, they were low on food and people starved because of that, but it's hard to think of a war around that period where it did not happen. It happened outside of actual war to those who were enslaved to the USSR in the Holodomor and elsewhere.
In agricultural powerhouses like the USA, that obviously wasn't going to be an issue. The USA sent food and supplies to the "Allies" before formally entering the war.

As for disease: nobody wants that around at all because it can spread. If the Germans had cheap, mass-produced & widely available typhus vaccines they would have mass vaccinated the prisoners for certain, even those death row inmates who were sent to Auschwitz to do months of labor prior to their execution.

Typhus broke out in Auschwitz in summer 1942, and the Germans quickly responded in order to halt the spread. Commandant Hoess ordered a full quarantine (vollständige Lagersperre) of the camp in July 1942. Zyklon-B was brought in, SS men were prohibited from eating certain foods, various vaccinations were mandated, movement restrictions were imposed, special “louse inspection” units organized. The measures proved inadequate and in early December 1942, camp physician Dr. Wirths attended a meeting for the specific purpose which included government officials, military officers, and important civilian officials. Immediate action was demanded.

The spread of disease was a risk taken very seriously in the camps, period. There was no "Jews in our important labor camp dying of disease? so what!" going on during this time; not simply because it would just result in the disease spreading also to the Germans working there, and the civilians in nearby cities and towns. And obviously the labor camps were vital to the war effort.

Further, the epidemic of typhus at Auschwitz was actually blamed on civilian laborers brought in locally to work in the camp for pay (yes, people some chose to work at Auschwitz for pay). If that is the case (it's impossible to know) then it was not a problem of disinfection for new inmate arrivals. As a result of the outbreak (the crowded conditions made it spread rapidly), the camp was isolated to prevent further the encroachment of the disease into the nearby population.

Who is to blame? The camp commandant? Hoess wasn’t omnipotent. The medical technology back then was primitive by our standards. Hoess didn’t decide which prisoners were coming to the camp and who was leaving. Someone else higher up made those decisions and the workers employed at the camps were just doing their job.

When the disease began spreading, were the Auschwitz workers supposed to take up arms for a coup attempt against Berlin so that they could get the resources needed to do whatever it is OP thinks they were morally obligated to? How much money needed to be spent on preventing the spread of disease among Jewish prisoners for OP to say "Well, they made a good enough effort for me to say it was just an unfortunate war-time situation similar to countless others" - I wonder?

On 28 October 1942, the head of the central construction management of the Waffen-SS and Police Auschwitz, SS-Hauptsturmführer Bischoff, drew up and signed some site plans with cost estimates for Auschwitz. The total cost was 13.76 billion Reichsmarks, which would translate to over $100 million USD in the present day. The plan included installations, improvement in the water supply and drainage system, deinfestation facilities, all sorts of things.

The head of the SS camp administration office sent a 28 December 1942 directive to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. It sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and ordered that:
"camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps."

Furthermore, it ordered:
"The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp commandants . . . The camp doctors are to see to it that the working conditions at the various labor places are improved as much as possible."

Finally, the directive stressed that:
"the Reichsfhrer SS [Heinrich Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced."
(Nuremberg document PS-2171, Annex 2. NC&A red series, Vol. 4, pp. 833-834)


As for the cremation capacity. 1. This is theoretical right from the beginning, you need to discount at least 20% from this over a longer period. 2. This is for peak demand. Meaning the maximum capacity ought to be able to manage top mortality figures, when they are maximum during an epidemic. 3. Is it actually known, WHEN this capacity was available, meaning during what periods cremation could or couldn't take place. Because even if such buildings were build and theoretically available it may be that their type of use was changed afterwards, since demand has change for some reason and other issues like housing, heating, storage may have become more pressing.

Just think about the predicted Covid19 mortality figures in this regard. If that had realized, we'd possibly got a feeling how it was in Auschwitz during the typhus epidemic that actually threatened to become a full blown pandemic - which is something those people spreading infected lice may have had in mind to achieve. https://archive.org/details/ReportFromP ... WarTwo1943

david2923
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:16 am

Re: Any reason given for why Auschwitz needed so many crema?

Postby david2923 » 2 days 10 hours ago (Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:09 pm)

One other thing to consider is the time on line for these 52 muffles
Krema 1 main camp.... July 17-19 went off line so subtract 6 muffles

Krema 2 Birkenau..... went online from mid March 1943 but soon after went down on May 17 1943 until August 31st 1943 and had other down times due to replacing doors

Krema 3 Birkenau.... seemingly the most stable as for staying on line. Remember, if one of the three muffles develops a problem, the other 2 muffles go down since they share the same wall

Krema 4 Birkenau.... was on line for only 50 days from March 22nd to about May 10 and never came back on line. so subtract 8 more muffles ( I get this info straight from Gemar Rudolf in an email.)

Krema 5, which was the same as Krema 4, was in service for 82 days and out of service for 190 days in 1943. In 1944 in service for 144 days and out of service for 160 days

except for spring of 1942 at krema 1 I can not find any info about the fire brick lining being replaced.
Modern units can cremate at a rate of about 1 hour for every 45 kgs
Water came down instead of the gas :drunken:

david2923
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:16 am

Re: Any reason given for why Auschwitz needed so many crema?

Postby david2923 » 2 days 10 hours ago (Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:13 pm)

great info on cremation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS7l_fMliYg&t=477s
pay close attention from about 7:45
Water came down instead of the gas :drunken:


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests