Auschwitz contradictions.

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
TRUTHATLAST
Member
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:05 pm
Location: LOST IN SPACE

Auschwitz contradictions.

Postby TRUTHATLAST » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:41 am)

I came across an article called The Kingdom Of Auschwitz by Otto Friedrich. I actually have the article that appeared in the 1981 Alantic Monthly Magazine about the book it's 30 pages in length. I can send it to any of you as a PDF file if any of you are interested, I will be happy to email it to you. The article sure is confusing and contradictory, because it shows on one hand that Auschwitz was set up in the beginning as a hard labor work camp and then on the other hand it says people were sent there to be gassed right off the trains.

Now I will quote what it says P.37 Alantic Monthly 1981 "Auschwitz was a society of extradionary complexity. It had its own soccer stadium, its own library, its own photographic lab, and its own orchestra. It had its own Polish nationalist underground, not to mentioned seperate Russian, Slovakian, French, and Austrian resistance groups, whose members fought and sometimes killed each other. It had its own underground religious services, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish.There was no reason that a death camp should have a hospital at all, and yet the one at Auschwitz grew to considerable size with about sixty doctors and more than 300 nurses. It had a surgical department and an operating theater, and special sections for infectious diseases, and internal injuries, and dentistry. Auschwitz even had its own brothel, known as the "puff", which favored prisoners could enter by earning chits for good behaviour. Crafty veterans of the camp would gather at the office where the chits were handed out, and if any model prisoner failed to claim his due, one of the old timers would quickly step forward to claim it for him"


If Auschwitz was a camp set as an extermination camp then why put tatoos on people, cut their hair, delouse them and their clothing and feed and house them if they were just going to be "gassed" and burned in the ovens. Provide top notch hospital care?? This makes no sense to me.

This makes sense

The article says that the majority of the "prisoners" in the camp worked for the I.G. Farben Company that invested $250 million dollars to the main project of making sythentic rubber which never really went online. The prisoners in the camp served as the huge labor force and the SS charged 4 marks a day (1.00) for each skilled worker, 3 marks for unskilled. Child labor was 1.5 marks. So to me the Germans had a vested interest in keeping people alive not killing them, they made some good money in this slave trade. The article said that the prisoners didn't get paid a cent yet another article I read said they were paid a small stipen and I've seen the camp money they were issued and they got to spend the money in the camp commissary?? A commissary in the camp???

In another article I read it said Auschwitz also had a swimming pool, and all things that a city would have to keep a town running, and even several sports teams. Why such an effort to keep people alive and happy if they were sent there to be executed?? Hospitals Doctors, nurses,etc etc !!

On page 48 of the article it says that "there is much testimony to confirm that the conditions in Auschwitz did get somewhat better during 1943 and early 1944. Now for the doozie "Life got better for the camp inmates because about three quarters of the inmates were GENTILES, and after 1943 the Nazi's stopped gassing gentiles. On the same page it says there were about 800,000 jews in the camp. That makes no sense! 800,000 were jews and that number was only 25 % of the total population????? That would make the total population of the camp many millions, which there is no way the camp could house that many. Am I right here?

I was under the impression the camp could house no more than a 100,000 or there abouts. Even 100,000 people is a huge amount of people to care for. I mean look at the aerial pictures there is no way that camp could house millions of people. A million people!!! No Way! There are many contradictions on what happened at Auschwitz according to this article, that it really make you wonder who's telling the truth.

No wonder the Revisionist are having a field day here and most of the information on the internet is against the main line thinking of the Holocaust. The more I research the more I see that what has been presented as fact, by the Pro-Holocaust folks is full of contradictions by the same articles they use to prove their points. Do they realy read the whole article through to see the contradictions. It's either the camps were set up as "extermination camps" or they were "work camps" set up to supply the labor force for the several different industries that were operating in the area. They couldn't be both. If they were both then how do you hide the goings on there from everyone else and keep everyone happy. Then it concludes saying 30,000 survived the camp. Yet we see that way more collected reparations. Millions of people in the camp Hmmm!

Too many questions not enough good answers.

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:44 am)

It's either the camps were set up as "extermination camps" or they were "work camps" set up to supply the labor force for the several different industries that were operating in the area. They couldn't be both.


The very fact that Auschwitz was situated alongside the huge Monowitz industrial complex, should answer that question for you.

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:14 pm)

If Auschwitz was a camp set as an extermination camp then why put tatoos on people


Yes, all very intriguing. When I think of the word 'tattoo' I think of something permanent, something that you want too last. In other words indelibly stamped, or eternal. So why would you give someone a tattoo who was going to be gassed tomorrow?

Why just not give them a number stitched on their jackets, like the armies, or why not a dog-tag? Something that was temporary?

Why give them something that's essentially pemanent, when they won't even exist after tomorrow?

There is simply no logic to it.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:48 pm)

I think what the exterminationists would say is that they didn't put tattoos on the people deemed unfit to work, and those people were gassed immediately. They only put tattoos on the people that would work for awhile and then be gassed afterwards.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9839
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:01 pm)

I think what the exterminationists would say is that they didn't put tattoos on the people deemed unfit to work, and those people were gassed immediately. They only put tattoos on the people that would work for awhile and then be gassed afterwards.

The problem with that is there is no evidence to support the 'gassed upon arrival' lie. Notice that no Believer here or anywhere else can show any.

How dumb the storyline is .... 'transporting Jews thousands of miles, then gassing them'.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:37 pm)

They only put tattoos on the people that would work for awhile and then be gassed afterwards.


So they did not put tattoo's on those that were gassed immediately, but they put tattoo's on those that would be worked to death in a month?

Still makes no logic!

Why do you try to give permanent individual identifications to a herd of people whom you class as a whole, and are going to treat as worthless trash for a month, before they keel over and die, and you bulldoze them into a pit?

Just what purpose did that tattoo serve?


I think what the exterminationists would say


Oh I know what they are going to say! They always have an answer to everything. The trouble is though, is that out of every three answers they ever give, at least two will be contradictory.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 02, 2005 6:31 pm)

I think the tattoos would make sense. Even if you were going to keep the inmates a month. You have to identify people. You have to be able to count people. Probably would take 6 minutes to put a tattoo on. "Order" would be the only way to run a big camp.

TRUTHATLAST
Member
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:05 pm
Location: LOST IN SPACE

Postby TRUTHATLAST » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:13 pm)

You tatoo people if they were slaves working for the business entreprises in the surrounding area, and you had to keep tract of them.
No different than having a SS number today.
Think about it, each worker was worth x amount of money to the guards, so why in God's name would they want to exterminate them all.
Thats not to say some weren't killed, exterminated whatever, that goes with the territory. Some people in the camps were criminals, and some were a serious threat to Germany war efforts, and these are the ones we probably hear the horrible stories about being kiled.
But the real reason for the Germans to transport all these people to the camps was to use them as slave labor pure and simple.
Think of the expense it cost Germany to do that, they had to be compensated somewhere down the line, and they were from the industrial complexes operating nearby.
Thats why the survivors can collect reparations, they were deprived wages as SLAVE LABOR DUH!
You can't collect reparations for war related issues, if that was the case everyone in the world would be collecting reparations who were in some way effected by war.
Can you collect on an issurance policy for acts of war, Don't think so!
Interesting that more people are collecting reparations than those who survived. Whats up with that?
If so many died during the war how can so many people be collection reparations.
Maybe not as many people died. Or many are pulling a fast one here.
Either way we have some people who have a lot of xplaining to do.


TAL

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9839
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:40 pm)

By putting people in labor camps ('slave labor'), the Germans did nothing that the Allies didn't do. Let's keep that in mind.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jan 03, 2005 11:55 am)

TRUTHATLAST wrote:Too many questions not enough good answers.


The question is whether people were MURDERED FOR THE EXPRESS
PURPOSE OF RENDERING THE JEWS EXTINCT AS A RACE.

According to Stephen Spielberg, there were 300,000 Holocaust "survivors" still alive in Los Angeles alone in 1995, so apparently... if there are so many survivors there wasn't much of anything to survive. You might as well say I'm a survivor of appendicitis or measles, because years ago people would have died of it. I think it quite possible that there were more Holocaust survivors still alive in 1945 than there were Jews in German-controlled Europe during the war. The numbers are certainly about equal. Some people claim 4 million survivors, even 5 million, only about 10 years ago.

-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

gasto
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:40 am
Location: Argentina

Postby gasto » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jan 03, 2005 1:45 pm)

You just need to review the wannsee conference papers (especially, the part where it lists the numbers of jews in german occupied territories) to see how the "holocaust" story tumbles...
If Human Soap rumour was fake, why can´t all the other absurd claims be too??

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:09 pm)

I think what the exterminationists would say is that they didn't put tattoos on the people deemed unfit to work


Well they would wouldn’t they, because they have no records or physical proof to validate their existence. The legion of spectres and all very convenient one might add.

According to the book London, Reports by Auschwitz Escapees it has the following information:

Auschwitz was the only camp in which prisoners were tattooed. This was first done in the autumn of 1941, to Soviet prisoners of war, and later in March 1942 in Birkenau to the most emaciated prisoners. The numbers were tattooed on the left side of the chest. Later the place for the tattoos was switched to the outer left forearm. Jews were tattooed that way in Birkenau from 1942. All the other prisoners, both new and already registered ones (except for Germans and prisoners confined there for a set period of re-education), were tattooed in this way beginning in the spring of 1943.

Why would they tattoo the most emaciated prisoners? Surely they would fall into the simplistic ‘unfit to work’ bracket wouldn’t they?


I think the tattoos would make sense. Even if you were going to keep the inmates a month, you have to identify people. You have to be able to count people. Probably would take 6 minutes to put a tattoo on. "Order" would be the only way to run a big camp



Oh I see! One can only marvel at the way they managed to memorize the inmates at all the other camps, considering Auschwitz was the only camp that tattooed inmates.


The industry has to have millions of phantoms with no tattoo or records at Auschwitz, because without it, all they have are millions of survivors with a tattoo!

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:05 pm)

I just reread this thread and I'm not sure what the assertion is. Here's some guesses:

1) why would they bother to tattoo people if they were going to kill them?

2) They didn't tattoo people at other camps. Thus the tattoo story at Auschwitz is one of many Auschwitz lies.

3) They have to say they didn't tattoo the people that were gassed immediately, because otherwise they'd have a record of that person corresponding to the tattoo number, and they can't have this since they made up the huge death count, originally 4 million.

Is it one of these or something else?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9839
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:06 am)

Oh yawn with the tattoos already.

major contradictions:

- Jews placed in hospitals ... the story says they were gassed if they couldn't work

- inmates released from Auschwitz .... but wouldn't they tell the world about the alleged 'extermination' of Jews? if it was all true

- Jews were given a choice of retreating with the Germans or awaiting the communists ... thousands chose to retreat with the nasty Germans, those that stayed were allowed to stay by the Germans ... but wouldn't the Germans worry that they would talk?

- tons of photos of healthy Jews, (old, middle aged, & young) upon 'liberation'

- Jews were actually born in Auschwitz

- there is no physical evidence at Auschwitz to support the allegations

There's plenty more.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Free Minded
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:47 am

Postby Free Minded » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Jan 16, 2005 4:16 am)

Hannover, you didn't mention that the Concentration Camp was invented (?) developed (?) by the British during the Boer War. Is this why the Brit Gov't today keep on with the anti-German in WW11 propaganda at every turn? Guilt? Or because there are too many "holocaust survivor" families within the corridors of power all wanting their share of the loot?


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests