A Dog named Barry

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

A Dog named Barry

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:56 am)

I'm glad that I experienced friends who lied when I was 10 years old, and dabbled in that myself too. It was an invaluable lesson because the lies one sees as an adult are so similar such as in holocaust lies. What I remember as a kid were weird little things to the story that didn't make sense. So in reading Hilberg today, I see that with what he wrote on Treblinka and Belzec:

* nearly identical layout camps
* a nearly identical breakout happened at both camps
* a dog named Barry was present at both camps.

It's easy, you just ditto your story, "oh yes, this happened at both places."

But now for the dog named Barry. He was a dog at the camp that had been trained to maul inmates with the command "man grab that dog!" The joke here, is the dog is being called a man; and the man is being called a dog. (Hilberg, Destruction... 1985 page 898)

So I look up "Barry" in Yankel Wernik and sure enough Yankel mentions the dog Barry, but in no particular context. Only that Stangl had a dog named Barry.

Are you ready for what really got me about this? Barry is a Saint Bernard! That is the most docile human friendly dog around. Bred by monks in Switzerland to save strangers in the cold. Yiddish culture in Poland was so clueless about this sort of thing that in their mind the biggest dog must be the baddest and meanest! Thus they choose as the fiercest dog they can think of: a Saint Bernard. (Hilberg, Ibid)

And get this. Wiernik never mentions that Barry is a Saint Bernard. Usually people will mention that about a Saint Bernard. It's clear that Wernik had heard the Barry rumour from others, but as lies go, wasn't going to be specific enough to mention what kind of dog it was. See

www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm
and do a keyword search on "Barry"

And like a camp guard would have a Saint Bernard!

TMoran
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:00 pm

Postby TMoran » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:05 am)

Carto's Cutlass:
I'm glad that I experienced friends who lied when I was 10 years old, and dabbled in that myself too. It was an invaluable lesson because the lies one sees as an adult are so similar such as in holocaust lies. What I remember as a kid were weird little things to the story that didn't make sense. So in reading Hilberg today, I see that with what he wrote on Treblinka and Belzec:

* nearly identical layout camps
* a nearly identical breakout happened at both camps
* a dog named Barry was present at both camps.

It's easy, you just ditto your story, "oh yes, this happened at both places."

But now for the dog named Barry. ...

Are you ready for what really got me about this? Barry is a Saint Bernard! That is the most docile human friendly dog around. ...


Actually the Saint Bernard can be one of most dangerous dogs responsible for attacks on humans. At one time I read they were the most dangerous dogs but a check in Google found them to be the safest in the top 15 responsible breeds with, not surprisingly, Pit Bulls being way ahead of all the rest. But, that doesn't do anything to take the suspicion off the clone accounts we get about what happened at various camps. There can be no doubt that 'eyewitness' tales borrow from other prototypes. For every single camp, aside from Majdanek maybe, we are told the first and subsequent reports on what took place originated with Jews who are said to have escaped from the camps. Then we could have those accounts given by those original 'witnesses' such as Tauber, Bendel, Nyiszli, Muller and such who all gave the exact same figures for the number of Jews cremated in ovens per day at Auschwitz, "10,000 to 12,000". Then there is a "tube" through which Jews were herded to the gas chambers in order to cover up the process. That we can get for Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor. Then all those clone accounts about the fences around the various camps or compounds all being made of wire with branches intertwined. Then, of course, all those tales about the chimneys of Auschwitz belching smoke and spewing flames.

For the advanced revisionist they would recognize any or all tales about exhaust or Zyklon B would follow from some original account. One monkey invented then more chattered.

User avatar
Ajax
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:27 pm
Location: The Real World

Postby Ajax » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:41 am)

I've heard through reading many sources that Barry (or Bari, Barri, Beri, Bary) was Kurt Franz's dog; of course Franz never served at Belzec, but at both Treblinka and Sobibor. Unsurprisingly therefore, Barry turns up at Sobibor too - all of which probably makes him to the only creature to visit all of the so-called Reinhard Camps and survive.

As to who owned the dog at Sobibor, it's a matter of cross-checking the 'witnesses' - while some sources have fingered Franz, others have suggested that the dog - which was 'about the size of a small pony' (or calf, take your pick) belonged to Sobibor guard Paul Groth (source: http://www.holocaust-info.dk/sobibor/so ... sonnel.htm). This source states Groth was transferred to Belzec; maybe he took Barry the pony-sized Sankt Bernard with him. And maybe after that he gave the dog to Franz who then took it back to Sobibor and then onto Treblinka. All of which makes our Barry a very well-travelled dog.

On the name Barry, Lubomyr Prytulak has made some interesting finds; on the less that simple matter of Sankt Bernards being dangerous, wasn't Cujo one? ;)
Scour the surface throughly until it is glistening...

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 (Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:30 pm)

Ajax: you're supplying good information to this board. Welcome!

It wouldn't be the first time I saw that Lubomyr Prytulak was way ahead of me! That was fascinating reading that link you provided to UKAR.

The witnesses all have to mention that the guard was handsome. I can understand that if you're explaining his nickname, but here's Oskar Strawczynski:

"The SS Unterscharführer Franz was looking man, tall and young." (from UKAR link in Ajax's post)

I mean I knew a guy where I grew up, who became a male model and ended up being all over magazines, and not a lot of other guys would comment on his looks. The idea that all these escapees do that, just shows that they're parrotting all the elements of the story, to make it appear valid!

To TMoran: Could you please provide a link to where you got your information about dogs? I find it hard to believe that the pit bull came in as the number 1 safest breed, way ahead of all the rest. Frankly that's ridiculous. I don't doubt you saw a website that said that, but I doubt the website's credibility.

Pit bull: bred to fight dogs and attack bulls in a pit

Saint Bernard: bred to save strangers who have fallen in the snow or who have been hit by a snow avalanche in the Swiss alps.

Also, guards at camps in Germany would have a dog bred to help them in that dangerous situation of being a guard. That would be a German Shepherd or a Rottweiler. They wouldn't take a chance of having a dog not bred as a guard dog in a jail situation for Pete's sake. Having the right dog could save one's life. The camp administration wouldn't have allowed the guards to pick a Saint Bernard. It is Yiddish culture in Poland (not familar with European dog breeding) mistaking the biggest dog known, for being the most vicious dog known. I think when I was 5 years old, I thought the same thing. Really.

On yiddish culture in Poland: most didn't even consider Polish their native language. I read that in Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique on page 55. Many didn't speak Polish. They weren't that familar with European ways, of which dog-breeding is a part. Had Europeans written stories about the Yiddish, the stories would have been just as absurd.

User avatar
Ajax
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:27 pm
Location: The Real World

Postby Ajax » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:42 pm)

Hi Cutlass!

I've been a serious 'holocaust' sceptic for years now, and lurked on here for a while. I hadn't signed up as I rather enjoy arguing with the proponents of the accepted version, and never thought I'd encounter any of those types on here! However I recently got involved in a rather draining bang-head-against-wall 'debate', and felt the need to be around those who would be able to discuss things rationally - so there we go! :)

The story of Barry the Sankt Bernard is fascinating, and I am sure a paper can be written on this amazing canine character. As for Kurt Franz, I too have noticed that many of the (male) inmates have commented on his looks. I agree with you that not many people, males especially, would comment on this sort of thing - but you have to remember that many Jews are very influential in the fashion industry - take Ron Lauder for example, who who also heads the World Jewish Congress's art recovery commission. You wouldn't put it past them - some of these inmates did amazing things. Maybe those Treblinka inmates who described Franz as "Lalka" ('the doll') were simply on the hunt for new male catwalk talent...
Scour the surface throughly until it is glistening...

antirev1956
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:15 am
Location: Europe

Postby antirev1956 » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:27 pm)

Cutlass, I don't see how you can prove that this is a lie. :o

I mean, of course you can put forward arguments that gas chambers are a lie etc., and THEN obviously there would be no reason to trust witnesses about any of these details.

But you can't prove that witnesses are lying BECAUSE they describe Barry at different camps. Because it can be plausibly argued that Barry changed his owners, who also were at different camps at different times.

I mean, even if we accept that all of it is a lie and Barry never existed :lol: even then the story is not self-contradictory in this particular respect.
Ready for debate.

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 (Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:30 pm)

I was hoping you were going to be a better debater. "Cutlass, I don't see how you can prove that this is a lie." is hardly refuting anything.

You're other points were covered by a link provided by Ajax which I'll post again:
http://www.ukar.org/rosenb02.html

UKar.org addresses the possibility of the dog being at different camps in great detail.

There wouldn't have been a Saint Bernard in a prison camp setting. Guards were killed at these camps by the inmates supposedly. They would use the best dog possible, because their life might depend on it. They wouldn't bring their family dog from their house. They'd use a dog bred for being a "guard dog" like a German Shepherd. When was the last time you saw a policeman with a St. Bernard in the back of his car and "Canine Unit' written on the side of the car? Maybe you don't have that in Europe, but in America, this is common, and guess what? The dogs are German shepherds.

Trojan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:53 am

Postby Trojan » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:42 pm)

Regarding St Bernards

"Around 1050 AD, Saint Bernard of Montjou founded a monastery high in the Swiss Alps, with the Saint Bernard Pass in the valley below. The pass was a popular route for travelers and pilgrims as well as many traders. These traders were the first to bring dogs to the Saint Bernard Monastery until 1125. For the next four hundred years the pass was largely abandoned and few travelers passed the monastery. No new dogs entered the Saint Bernard Monastery, and it was during this time that the Saint Bernard breed arose.

C. Keller, a scientist, first bred the Saint Bernard from the Roman “Molossian” dog. The Molossian is said to have came from the Tibetan Mastiff. The first Saint Bernards were kept at the monastery as guard dogs. The first written account of a Saint Bernard, however, was not made until 1703 by Prior Balalu. In his writing, he spoke of the cook inventing an exercise wheel for the dog to run on, which in turn would turn the cooking spit. The Saint Bernard Pass had become popular again by then, and the dogs helped feed the 20,000 travelers that passed through each year. There are other mentioning of the Saint Bernards in later passages, including that a dog was lost in a blizzard and a bill for the repair of a dog collar. "

Have you ever seen the movie Cujo? :wink:

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 (Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:21 pm)

Hi Trojan,

Please include links to your sources of info.

Cujo is a movie. Based on a Stephen King novel, about a dog that contracts rabies. Is that the best you can do to refute what I'm saying?

That Saint Bernards were originally guard dogs at a monastery 300 years ago, (assuming that your unnamed source is valid,) is hardly a justification that they would therefore be the dog of choice for a prison inmate setting.

Trojan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:53 am

Postby Trojan » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:25 am)

http://ncnc.essortment.com/stbernardsdog_rfmt.htm

Remember, my best is not always what you see, only what the moderator allows you to see.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1650
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:44 am)

Utter nonsense, Trojan. Your posts usually lack any substance and you generally appear afraid to really debate. We delete your empty posts, your personal attacks; we do not delete your on topic posts.

If those are what you call your "best", then you truly belong at a lower end site. If you don't like it here then take off.

- Moderator
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

antirev1956
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:15 am
Location: Europe

Postby antirev1956 » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:54 am)

Cutlass, you haven't addressed my point

Your initial point was that placing Barry in two different camps proves something. It proves nothing because it is equally or more plausible that it is the same dog Barry.

Now to your point about St. Bernard. You haven't proven that "There wouldn't have been a Saint Bernard in a prison camp setting". According to Kurt Franz's album they even had a zoo there.

Assuming that the story is true, it was simply a pet, first of Paul Groth, then of Kurt Franz. No analogy with policemen at all, sorry.

As for the link you provided, the author got himself into a vicious cricle. He assumed that the witnesses lied about Barry being in Sobibor and Treblinka, and that therefore their testimonies are discredited. But he didn't care to prove that they lied about Barry. He simply wrote:
Although it is possible to imagine that two almost-identical dogs existed, one at Sobibor and one at Treblinka, or that a single dog Barry spent some of his time at Sobibor and some at Treblinka, perhaps the most plausible explanation is that a story of Barry the Terrible was floating around among prosecution witnesses, and the two Sobibor witnesses Dov Freiberg and Moshe Bahir became confused as to which camp the dog was supposed to have been at, and appropriated him to bolster their stories of Sobibor.


Oh gee, it looks "most plausible" to him. Well, not to me! So that's hardly a proof. And this you call addressing "in great detail"?

Interestingly, in your original post you incorrectly stated that Wiernik states that " that Stangl had a dog named Barry". Obviously you haven't read Wiernik attentively, because he talks about Kurt Franz rather than about Franz Stangl.

As for Barry's viciousness, you would better argue not with me, but with Nobel laureate Konrad Lorenz, an expert on animal behavior and aggresiveness, who testified in Treblinka trial. In any case, I haven't yet seen you proving that Barry couldn't be vicious.
Ready for debate.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9864
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:05 am)

1956 said:
As for Barry's viciousness, you would better argue not with me, but with Nobel laureate Konrad Lorenz, an expert on animal behavior and aggresiveness, who testified in Treblinka trial. In any case, I haven't yet seen you proving that Barry couldn't be vicious.

Perhaps 1956 could give us the exact text of this Lorenz's testimony on Treblinka, could be fun. Cross examination text would be helpful as well.

We haven't seen anyone prove that there were 875,000 - 2,000,000 Jews murdered at Treblinka. No mass grave as alleged, no comensurate remains, zippo.

Will 1956 take the challenge to present his best shot for Treblinka? A separate thread would be helpful.

Welcome to the Revisionist Forum.

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

antirev1956
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:15 am
Location: Europe

Postby antirev1956 » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:19 am)

Hannover, I will address the issue of Treblinka victims at a later date, but I promise to return to it. I will start a separate thread later, OK?

About Konrad Lorenz's testimony I know only from what is written in the Treblinka trial verdict at http://www.idgr.de/texte/dokumente/just ... urteil.php

I have no crosss-examination, sorry.
Ready for debate.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9864
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:39 am)

1956 mentions alleged testimony from a Mr. Lorenz but cannot show us exactly what was said, hardly credible. We see an alleged verdict summary but nothing to confirm the veracity of the verdict. No cross examination either, most revealing. That's a sham trial by any standard.

I await 1956's thread on Treblinka.

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


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests