Germans destroyed evidence?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Iggy
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby Iggy » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat May 14, 2005 3:46 pm)

I still don't see how this is proof of any choice, and Night is still a novel, like it or not.

theTRUTH
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 pm

Postby theTRUTH » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat May 14, 2005 6:28 pm)

"...trenches were dug, usually between crematorium 3 and crematorium 4, and the gassed and half gassed people were thrown there and burned. Children, who, as it was "scientifically" established in this camp, burned best, were burned alive after gasoline had been poured on them. While all this went on, a ladies' band kept playing the latest tunes."

http://fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/PWEDoc180545.html

When lying, "survivors" often mix diabolical gruesome scenes with culturally advanced scenes of art or music, so that readers or viewers believe that the culturally advanced Germans could also torture and murder masses of people without remorse. Remember the Schindler's List scene of the liquidation of the Krakow Jewish ghetto when the SS soldier sits down to play a Mozart tune while the residents are being machine gunned?

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat May 14, 2005 7:37 pm)

Iggy wrote:I still don't see how this is proof of any choice, and Night is still a novel, like it or not.

Do you mean that Wiesel made it up?

steve
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby steve » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat May 14, 2005 8:15 pm)

Hotzenplotz:
The Nazis could have shot the survivors, but they wouldn't have had enough time to cremate them thus leaving mass graves as proof. So they preferred leaving them alive.

If the Germans had only 5 minutes to kill, then cremate, etc, then you might have a point. But, surely the Germans knew of the Soviet advance. Now, if the Germans were able to kill and dispose of so many people at Auschwitz during their operation, why could they not do the same in the few months before the Soviets came?

If the camps were found empty by the Russians that would have been an even stronger proof for mass exterminations, wouldn't it?

Hotzenplotz, please do not take offense at my reply here. I understand why you would say that; it shows that subconsciously, you think it is almost a given there was a mass extermination. But just think a second about what you are saying! A camp empty of live people but full of dead people would indicate something, but, a camp devoid of living and dead indicates, well, a camp void of living and dead!

So perhaps the Führer simply decided it's enough now or for some other reason we don't know stopped the gassings, not bothering about the survivors because he knew he couldn't conceal what he'd done anyway.

He could not conceal so many murders, so decided not to even try. And since he did not kill ALL the jews, he decided to stop. Believe it or not, while I personaly find that unlikely, it actually does seem plausable. It is not as outrageous as other things I hear. However, if there were any killing of jews AFTER that date, that would go against what you are saying. And, I admit, maybe there was not (according to the story, remember), since it was pretty late in the war.

Richard:
I see no reason to kill the remaining inmates when there would be other inmates alive that were evacuated west.
Yeah, but goes against the belief that the Germans were killing those in their possession. (But I think I might be missing your point here, Richard.)

Does anyone know how far the evacuated inmates had to walk?
I remember reading in Wiesel's Night, that they marched 42 miles. Actually, Wiesel wrote that they ran much of the way! And he actually ran in his sleep! So, from that, who the hell really knows how far it was. And, instead of just shooting them, they try to 'march them to death'. I guess that is no less believable that having the prisoners climb trees and then having trees cut down!

TRUTH:
The Germans obviously felt the remaining Auschwitz and Birkenau inmates would describe humane camp conditions and no mass-murders, ...
If the remaining camp inmates were aware of any mass killing, surely the Germans would know they would tell the world of such. I think the naive Germans, such easy prey for the jews, really had no idea what a huge lie was about to be created.

Iggy:
I've seen this alleged often, this "choice" to go with the SS or stay. Where's the evidence for this? Granted, many Jews were afraid of the Soviets, but that doesn't mean they were given a choice.

Please note that Night by Elie Wiesel is a novel and can't be used as evidence here.

I believe Primo Levy also talked about them being given a choice. Also, I do not know of anyone who questions the claim that they were indeed given a choice. However, even if they were not given a choice, so what? In other words, let's assume the Germans 'forced' them to stay there. Surely that would not go against the point of this thread I started.
Of course, they could have cleverly avoided the march, and went back to the camp, against the Germans' knowledge. But, I have never seen anybody make that claim.

Iggy, you are saying we can't use Wiesel as evidence here. I agree that Wiesel is a lying shyster. But, we have to use some judgement here. First, while Night may very well be a novel, it surely seems as if Wiesel is trying to present what really happened. (I know that sounds outrageous if you actually read his crap, but true nonetheless.) While I could see why Wiesel would lie about some things, why would he lie about given a choice? Jesus, that only seems to dispute the claim of mass exterminations. So, I cannot see why he would make something like that up.

They only left behind the people in the hospital. Did they think those people would survive?
Well, I am under the impression that the time between evacuation and 'liberation' was not all that large. (Actually, I just read the post by the TRUTH. It implies the time was about 10 days.) If it was, say, for a few days, then sure, why not assume the Germans would think those in the camp hospital would survive? If we assume Wiesel is telling the truth about his stay in the hospital, and that he was indeed given a choice, surely the Germans had no reason to believe he would die very soon. And again, if the Germans were the murdering butchers described by so many, why would they take a chance and assume those left behind would die on their own?

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2466
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat May 14, 2005 9:22 pm)

Hotzenplotz wrote:
-If the camps were found empty by the Russians that would have been an even stronger proof for mass exterminations, wouldn't it?

But they left a 7 ton pile of human hair, piles of glasses and piles of shoes, including, of course, kids' shoes. So they clearly weren't too concerned with proof were they?

I might add that I've posted the passage from Hilberg on another thread that describes the Germans leaving Auschwitz. It was very orderly. There was no "emergency! run for your lives" situation.

Iggy wrote:
I still don't see how this is proof of any choice, and Night is still a novel, like it or not.

I've never read it, but is it clear from the text that it's a novel? I mean novels are written in the first person but usually the writer knows to make it clear. Take Moby Dick by Herman Melville. The first sentence "Call Me Ishmael." Notice that that is not "Call me Herman." Did Wiesel make that clear, or like so many books is the assertion that "it's a novel" a trump card when the revisionists finally present too much evidence?

I wonder if in Japan, there were people that survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that were right there. Then they wrote an account in the first person, but it was actually a novel. Their real experience was actually quite different. And they never made that clear if it was their real experience or if it was a novel. Guess what? I doubt it. If it's ever on record that Night is a novel, that's just going to be further support that the holocaust is a hoax.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat May 14, 2005 10:45 pm)

Hotzenplotz said:
If the camps were found empty by the Russians that would have been an even stronger proof for mass exterminations, wouldn't it?

in which Carto's CS said:
But they left a 7 ton pile of human hair, piles of glasses and piles of shoes, including, of course, kids' shoes. So they clearly weren't too concerned with proof were they?

And according to the 'holocau$t' Industry, they left behind plans of the alleged 'gas chambers', 'gas chamber doors with peep holes', incriminating documents galore, etc.

Therefore, by Hotzenplotz's logic and the Industry's own assertions, the Germans left behind all those thousands of Jews who would never tell the Soviets anything they supposedly saw, shoes, hair, glasses, plans, doors, and documents to cover the alleged 'systematic extermination of Jews'. Right. 'holocau$t' logic 101.

and Iggy said:
I still don't see how this is proof of any choice, and Night is still a novel, like it or not.

he really should see:
'Did inmates of Auschwitz choose to be evacuated?'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1372

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

kk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun May 15, 2005 12:16 am)

What is more interesting was Hitler's reaction;

"Auschwitz is captured"
Hitler: "Jawohl"

Was he informed that every sign of the 'holocau$t " was obliterated?

I think that he was informed that a concentration camp was overrun and
nothing more.
What would you infer from such an answer?

User avatar
Hotzenplotz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:09 pm

Postby Hotzenplotz » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun May 15, 2005 9:09 am)

I herewith withdraw explanation 1 (that there might not have been enough time to cremate everybody). Considering the alleged capacity of, what do they say, 10,000? per day, there would have been enough time (remember the Nazis put 6 of those undernourished corpses at once in a muffle ;-). After all, the Nazis allegedly burned to ashed 10,000 per day in Treblinka without any crematoria.

Steve, you said an empty camp wouldn't have prooved anthing, but consider what the Russians made out of Treblinka etc.! The "liberators" would have had the same preconceptions about what was going on that you say that I have, so my reasoning is valid. But admittedly I don't really believe the explanation is correct.

Remains explanation 3 (it's somewhat in contradiction to that the Nazis tried to camouflage their doings in case of the Reinhardt-camps, but maybe they changed their minds). That Hitler changed the policy concerning the Jewish question is clear by the fact that he tried to evacuate them at first to the east (which is the only explanation we have for documents like the Korherr report if we don't accept extermination), but then had them deported/marched back into the Reich which he had declared "judenfrei" (free of Jews) earlier. So I think the hypothesis that he changed his mind about extermination is not implausible as such.

But it remains strange that they didn't at least bother to destroy the glasses, hair etc. to conceal the mass murders.

Hotzenplotz
"Repetition reinforces the primary messages of the religion in participants’ minds."
-Michael C. Howard, Contemporary Cultural Anthropology

steve
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland

Postby steve » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun May 15, 2005 6:20 pm)

Hotzenplotz:
Steve, you said an empty camp wouldn't have prooved anthing, but consider what the Russians made out of Treblinka etc.!

Remember, we are asking why the Germans offred the inmates a choice to remain. If the Germans were not guilty of exterminating many inmates, then why on earth would they feel that an EMPTY camp would be evidence of such? That an empty camp at Treblinka was used as 'evidence' of exterminaitons only proves that ANYTHING would be used as 'evidence' against the Germans. Just ask yourself a question. If you were indeed exterminating people, would you leave witnesses around?

But it remains strange that they didn't at least bother to destroy the glasses, hair etc. to conceal the mass murders.

Of course, because it is only evidence of murder, if other real evidence already established murder. By itself, glasses, hair, etc. does not mean mass murder.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2466
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun May 15, 2005 7:03 pm)

But it remains strange that they didn't at least bother to destroy the glasses, hair etc. to conceal the mass murders.


The hair, the glasses, the shoes, it's all proof it didn't happen. They just simply would not have been that stupid to leave it.

Why would they go to the trouble to dig up a million rotting corpses at Treblinka, Sobibor, and then leave all that obvious evidence at Auschwitz? And digging up a million corpses is not a little tiny task. That is the population of a big city.

The digging that was going on was the liars digging themselves into a hole with a story that doesn't make sense.

The piles of stuff make sense if there was no systematic killing. Either they were recycling, trying to convert the hair into L-Cysteine protein which is done even today, or the Soviet secret police, the NKVD, placed that stuff there.

The guards had no idea they were going to be accused of this stuff. The allies probably apprehended Irma Grese right at her home because she didn't attempt to hide--I'm guessing. The Red Cross was at the camp after all.

kk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun May 15, 2005 9:03 pm)

In reality , bullets are very cheap.
If the Nazis wanted to leave no living witnesses in the camps, that would have been
a simple story.

They left Elie behind to make a few books out of the shamples and win the
Nobel price.

What makes me laugh is that Elie was attending his father in the Extermination
camp's Hospital.

However, we must not regard Elie's writings as facts, since his books are
only "fiction".

I wonder, what else is fiction too.

Iggy
Member
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby Iggy » 1 decade 5 years ago (Mon May 16, 2005 3:04 pm)

I don't think dynamiting buildings is proof of any wrongdoing on the Nazis' part. Rather, I think they were simply trying to destroy any buildings that could have been used by the Russians to set up bases. This is good sense in wartime and it apparently worked. The Russians did not set up a base at Auschwitz.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests