Staerkemeldungen / Formal proof of mass murder in Auschwitz?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Germania
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 4:48 am

Staerkemeldungen / Formal proof of mass murder in Auschwitz?

Postby Germania » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:32 am)

i thought this interesting, anyone can refute?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A series of documents from the women's camp at Birkenau, which are called "strength reports" (Staerkemeldungen), allow us to prove that direct mass murder has been committed at Auschwitz.

Typical Staerkemeldung looks like this:

Code: Select all

       
Frauen-Lager, KL. Au. II
Abteilung III/a
BIa-b/B.II b.g.c/B.III                  Birkenau, den 8.10.1944


                       S t ae r k e m e l d u n g


Staerke am 7.10.1944                            38792 Haeftlinge
[Strength on 7 October 1944                     38792 prisoners]

Zugaenge am 7.10.1944
[Arrivals on 7 October 1944]

  Einlieferungen                     7
  [Entries                           7]

  Uberstellungen                     1              8    " 
  [Transfers                         1              8    "]

Abgange am 7.10.1944
[Departures on 7 October 1944]

  Gestorben nat. Todes               7
  [Natural deaths                    7]

  S.B.                             1229

  Entlassungen                       8
  [Releases                          8]

  Ueberstellungen                  1150           2394    "
  [Transfers                       1150           2394    "]

                                  SA.:         36406 Haeftl.
                                  [Total:      36406 prisoners]






The meaning of all entries is clear with one exception. What could S.B. mean? S.B. is a kind of departure.

a) But it cannot cover transfers out of Auschwitz camp complex, because this is covered by "Transfers".

b) Neither can it cover natural deaths, because this is covered by "Natural deaths".

c) Neither can it cover releases, because this is covered by "Releases".

d) Neither can it cover transfers to another Auschwitz sub-camp like Auschwitz I or Monowitz. This is proven by the fact that such transfers were either included in the "Transfers" category, or were mentioned explicitly.

In the 8.11.44 report about the situation in Birkenau Frauenlager on 7.11.44 we read:

gest. nat. Todes 2
S.B. 8
Ueberstellungen 86




According to Danuta Czech's "Auschwitz chronicle" for that date, 30 of these transferred women were deported to other camps and 56 - to Auschwitz I (Czech relies on the strength report of the women's camp in Auschwitz I). This means that transports to Auschwitz I (and, by induction, to other sub-camps) have been included in the general category "Transfers".

In the 29.11.44 report about the situation in Birkenau Frauenlager on 28.11.44 we read:

gestorben nat-Todes 4
S.B. 5
Ueberstellungen 141
Verlegt nach Auschw. 148




This means that sometimes transports to Auschwitz I (and, by induction, to other sub-camps) had their own separate entries.

All this means that S.B. cannot cover these transfers.

e) Neither can it cover internal Birkenau transfers from one section to another.

In the 21.7.44 report about the situation in Birkenau Frauenlager on 20.7.44 we read:

gestorben nat.Todes 6
S.B. 1
Entlassungen 17
verl. n.BII/e 7



Note that the transfer of 7 women to section BII/e (also part of Birkenau) is covered explicitly.

This means that S.B. cannot cover these transfers.

Since all the possibilities have been exhausted, S.B. can only mean an unnatural death. Since along with S.B. there were separate entries for suicides and (legal) executions (see E. Black, "IMB and the Holocaust", p. 365), S.B. can only mean extrajudicial execution.

[...]

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9870
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:45 pm)

Oh yawn. The Revisionist Forum, as usual, has shredded this dishonest BS, or should I say ... S.B.

Here from registrant 'Sailor' (German is his first language) we blow this 'document' away. Read on.

- Hannover

Now we are told that S.B. stands for ‘Sonderbehandlung’ and means ‘extermination with gas’ and that at that date in Birkenau 1229 female inmates were gassed.

This is a mis-interpretation. The abbreviation S.B. stands for ‘SchonBlock’, in Engl.: recuperation or resting barracks. These women were not gassed. They were unable to work and therefore placed into the recuperation block.

There are several documentations that these recuperation blocks or barracks existed in Auschwitz. Please refer also to van Pelt's book: Auschwitz 1270 to Present, Plate 19: Häftlings Lazarett und Quarantäne Abteilung. They had a huge hospitalization and quarantine area which were started in 1943. The defense brought this up during the Frankfurt/Auschwitz trial, but the prosecution objected: Not permissible as evidence.

And the the following (from M.Weber):

Many Jewish inmates unable to work.
For example, it is often claimed that all Jews at Auschwitz who were unable to work were immediately killed. Jews who were too old, young, sick, or weak were supposedly gassed on arrival, and only those who could be worked to death were temporarily kept alive.

But the evidence shows that, in fact, a very high percentage of the Jewish inmates were not able to work, and were nevertheless not killed. For example, an internal German telex message dated Sept. 4, 1943, from the chief of the Labor Allocation department of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), reported that of 25,000 Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work, and that all of the remaining Jewish inmates -- some 21,500, or about 86 percent -- were unable to work.
(See: Archives of the Jewish Historical Institute of Warsaw, German document No. 128, in: H. Eschwege, ed., Kennzeichen J (East Berlin: 1966), p. 264) [ I have the book. It checks out.]

This is also confirmed in a secret report dated April 5, 1944, on "security measures in Auschwitz" by Oswald Pohl, head of the SS concentration camp system, to SS chief Heinrich Himmler. Pohl reported that there was a total of 67,000 inmates in the entire Auschwitz camp complex, of whom 18,000 were hospitalized or disabled. In the Auschwitz II camp (Birkenau), supposedly the main extermination center, there were 36,000 inmates, mostly female, of whom "approximately 15,000 are unable to work." (See: NMT document NO-021 in NMT IV)

These two documents simply cannot be reconciled with the Auschwitz extermination story.

The evidence shows that Auschwitz-Birkenau was established primarily as a camp for Jews who were not able to work, including the sick and elderly, as well as for those who were temporarily awaiting assignment to other camps. That's the considered view of Dr. Arthur Butz of Northwestern University, who also says that this was the reason for the unusually high death rate there.


Once again, knowlege and honesty prevails.

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

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

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:27 pm)

Germania wrote: A series of documents from the women's camp at Birkenau, which are called "strength reports" (Staerkemeldungen), allow us to prove that direct mass murder has been committed at Auschwitz.

I don’t agree with Germania’s proof for mass murder in Birkenau.
S.B. could be the abbreveation for the German “Schonungsblock” (recovery hospital), and that there were such buildings can be seen by the sign above the door of this building:

Image

Germania
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 4:48 am

Postby Germania » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:20 am)

here's the reply of the author [Sergay], comments invited.

-----------------------------------------------------------

S.B. cannot be Schonungsblock for at least three reasons.

1)

a) If Schonungsblock was in the women's section, transfer to it would not qualify as a departure, and thus wouldn't be mentioned in the reports.

b) If it was a transfer to a male Schonungsblock in Birkenau (an improbable situation), it would be explicitly mentioned as a transfer to another section, as in the report quoted above.

c) If it was a transfer to Schonungsblock to Buna or Auschwitz I, it would either be classified as a "Transfer" or the transfer would be explicitly mentioned, like in the above document.

Since the reports have all transfers covered explicitly, S.B. cannot be any type of transfer.

2) The decoding key for Hollerith machine codes (NA RG242/338. T-1021, Reel 5 JAG) explicitly states that SB is Sonderbehandlung, not Schonungsblock.

http://skeptiq.stml.net/misc/ccindex.jpg

3) In Walter Lueftl's article at http://www.vho.org/VffG/2000/3/Rademach ... 0-344.html he tries to prove that S.B. is Schonungsblock on the basis of the following Schwarz report:

http://www.vho.org/VffG/2000/3/Image82.gif

However, this is not allowed by the German grammar: the article indicates that S.B. is feminine. Schonungsblock is masculine, but Sonderbehandlung is feminine. Moreover, comparison with another Schwarz report -

W. V.-Hauptamt
Amt D II
Oranienburg.

Betr. Abtransport von jüdischen Rüstungsarb.

Am 5. und 7. März trafen folgende jüdische Häftlingstransporte ein.
Transport aus Berlin, Eingang 5. März 43, Gesamtstärke 1128 Juden. Zum Arbeitseinsatz gelangten 389 Männer (Buna) und 96 Frauen. Sonderbehandelt wurden 151 Männer und 492 Frauen und Kinder. Transport aus Breslau, Eingang 5.März 43, Gesamtstärke 1405 Juden. Zum Arbeitseinsatz gelangten 406 Männer (Buna) und 190 Frauen. Sonderbehandelt wurden 125 Männer und 684 Frauen und Kinder.

Transport aus Berlin, Eingang 7. März 43, Gesamtstärke 690 einschließlich 25 Schutzhäftlingen. Zum Arbeitseinsatz gelangten 153 Männer und 25 Schutzhäftlinge (Buna) und 65 Frauen. Sonderbehandelt wurden 30 Männer und 417 Frauen und Kinder.

gez. Schwarz
Obersturmführer


In: Wolfgang Scheffler, Judenverfolgung im Dritten Reich, Berlin 1964, S. 80.

Proves once again that S.B. was an abbreviation for Sonderbehandlung.

Thus purely logically it is proven that in Staerkemeldungen S.B. was murder. And on purely documentary basis it is proven that S.B. was an abbreviation for Sonderbehandlung.

Incidentally, the Nazis often used the term "Sonderbehandlung" to refer to extrajudicial executions

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

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:04 am)

I thought this interesting, anyone can refute?


Yes, show us the runs for the ventilation system in the morgue.

Silly little copy of a copy of a re-written scrap of paper with S.B. written on it, worthless pap!

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:02 am)

However, this is not allowed by the German grammar: the article indicates that S.B. is feminine. Schonungsblock is masculine, but Sonderbehandlung is feminine.


It is true that Sonderbehandlung is feminine (die Sonderbehandlung) and Schonungsblock is masculine (der Schonungsblock). But that is not the question. The question is: what does "die S.B." mean?

Look at http://www.vho.org/VffG/2000/3/Image80.gif.
This is a letter about inmates transports. They write:

Von diesen 40 % nicht voll arbeitsfähigen Häftlingen muß ein Teil ins Häftlingsrevier bezw. in die Schonungsblocke gelegt werden.


You read: "die Schonungsblocke". The plural article of masculine words in German is "die" (like the singular article of feminine words). At this point you can see how important it is to understand German if you want to analyse German documents. Sergay made a critical mistake.

The abbreviation could be "die S.B." or "die SB" and mean "die Schonungsblocke.

BTW: the above cited document is proof that people that were unable to work were put into hospitals or similar - and were not gassed automatically.

W. V.-Hauptamt
Amt D II
Oranienburg.

Betr. Abtransport von jüdischen Rüstungsarb.

Am 5. und 7. März trafen folgende jüdische Häftlingstransporte ein.
Transport aus Berlin, Eingang 5. März 43, Gesamtstärke 1128 Juden. Zum Arbeitseinsatz gelangten 389 Männer (Buna) und 96 Frauen. Sonderbehandelt wurden 151 Männer und 492 Frauen und Kinder. Transport aus Breslau, Eingang 5.März 43, Gesamtstärke 1405 Juden. Zum Arbeitseinsatz gelangten 406 Männer (Buna) und 190 Frauen. Sonderbehandelt wurden 125 Männer und 684 Frauen und Kinder.

Transport aus Berlin, Eingang 7. März 43, Gesamtstärke 690 einschließlich 25 Schutzhäftlingen. Zum Arbeitseinsatz gelangten 153 Männer und 25 Schutzhäftlinge (Buna) und 65 Frauen. Sonderbehandelt wurden 30 Männer und 417 Frauen und Kinder.

gez. Schwarz
Obersturmführer


This "document" does not contain any hint to mass murder. Schwarz writes how many Jews would be able to work and how many went through hygienic measures.
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9870
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:58 am)

Good work Claudia.

Another way to look at this claimed 'incriminating' document, is to simply look at the bigger picture.

We have 1229 that are labeled S.B., which we've shown as not murdered, in fact, quite the opposite. Yet dishonest claims such as this is the best they can do for the alleged '6,000,000 Jews' and alleged 5-6,000,000 'others'. That's ca. 12,000,000, and they must resort to absurd claims like "S.B."

Remember, there are innocent people in jail for questioning such nonsense.

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

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:17 pm)

Germania (as secretary for Sergay):
In the 29.11.44 report about the situation in Birkenau Frauenlager on 28.11.44 we read:
gestorben nat-Todes 4
S.B. 5
Ueberstellungen 141
Verlegt nach Auschw. 148


Were there mass gassings on Nov 28, 1944?
Weren't these supposedly stopped in October?

Was there a gas chamber for 5 people?
Are there witnesses that testify that there were (mass) gassings of 5 people?

Curious!
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

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

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:32 pm)

There are no facilities at Birkenau for "gassings".

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:22 pm)

To be fair, when only 5 people were to be killed a shooting or hanging could have taken place.
But the fact that we're discussing 'S.B.' on a document should give cause to believers to question their faith.

Nice one, Claudia.

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

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:38 pm)

Germania’s information is probably from the book: Kogon/Rückerl/Langbein et al: Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen duch Giftgas which is a German anti-revisionist book.

This is basically ok. After all, everybody is entitled to his point of view. It seems that Germania believes in the homicidal gas chambers, and with a little twisting of the meaning of “S.B. 1229” he sees his belief confirmed.

Maybe one day Germania can tell me, how he arrived at his belief in these homicidal gas chambers.

I Have a problem with the existence of such gas chambers, and my non-belief is based on technical, physical and chemical laws. And I cannot adhere to the Holocaust logic of Pierre Vidal–Naquet, Leon Poliakov, et al.: “it was technical possible since it took place”. I therefore have to come to the conclusion that “S.B. 1229” cannot mean that 1229 Jews were gassed, simply because there were no gas chambers.

“S.B.” could also stand for “Sonderbehandlung” (special treatment), which is according to the Holocausters a secrete code word for killing.

Mattogno has shown in his book
“Special Treatment in Auschwitz” http://vho.org/dl/ENG.html, that that term “Sonderbehandlung” was in Auschwitz also used in connection with disinfestation, fumigation and de-lousing. He indicated that there were disinfestation barracks erected inside the camp. And it is possible, that there was a need at the date of the Stärkemeldung (8.10.1944) to fumigate some barracks within the women’s camp, so the women who occupied those barracks had to be transferred temporarily out of the woman camp to the disinfestation barracks for de-lousing. And at the same time their previous barracks could be fumigated, which probably took a couple of days before they could be returned.

I assume that all women inside the women camp were registered, and as I understand it, only non-registered Jews were allegedly gassed, usually right after their arrival and after the selection procedure at the ramp.

This is all very confusing.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9870
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:54 pm)

Another important point here is that we see no original document. Perhaps the actual original contains additional information which judeo-supremacists and True Believers do not want anyone to see.

Also, on 'codewords'; see:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=347

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

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

Postby Hotzenplotz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:29 pm)

A "strategic retreat" thesis for revisionists would, if needed, also be available. Sonderbehandlung could refer to those who were put to death because they were about to die and posed a risk to other inmates because of infectious deseases. Could be interesting to check out whether the numbers of Sonderbehandlungen was higher during the epidemics. That would much better fit with the availabe documentation (about people being treated medically, the (large) capacity of the hospital wing, etc.) than the alleged programme of mass extermination - although so far there seems to be no reason to assume even this.

Come on, believers - tell us why you believe in a mass extermination programme. Is it because Vrba & friends told you so? Or perhaps it's just that you've seen too many bad movies?

Why is it so hard to grasp? It's not near enough for you believers to find some document that fits more or less with the extermination thesis. To believe in it rationally, scientifically, you need a reason that would qualify as such even if you hadn't been told about the big H from earliest childhood. Is there anybody out there seriously trying to tell us that he would have come to believe in mass exterminations on the basis of some documents mentioning people departing via "SB"? Just imagine for a second the Nazis had won and all the propaganda was reverted, all the media and all the "serious" historians telling the opposite from today. I havn't seen anything that would even make me consider or speculate about mass exterminations in such a world. Would you seriously believe some wacko "eye-witnesses" that notoriously contradict each other as well as themselves? Without any physical evidence whatsoever? C'mon...

That's the benchmark for evidence a scientifically minded person should apply: the evidence must be an independent reason to believe in the hypothesis, no matter what you've been believing all the time, no matter what other people are telling you (and how powerful they are). Truth doesn't care about how many people believe in it. Truth stays true even if nobody believes in it.

But I digress...

User avatar
comrade seinfeld
Member
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:27 pm

Postby comrade seinfeld » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:13 pm)

Germania said:
Since all the possibilities have been exhausted, S.B. can only mean an unnatural death. Since along with S.B. there were separate entries for suicides and (legal) executions (see E. Black, "IMB and the Holocaust", p. 365), S.B. can only mean extrajudicial execution.


That is logically absurd, so that you simply can't jump to conclusions. For instance, although I say so half seriously, possibly these women were selected to be prostitutes, as I believe that there were brothels in all the major concentration camps. Moreover it is not necessarily the case that the women concerned were Jews, who may have had religious objections to such a role, but could possibly have involved both, say, Aryans and Slavs who were interned for political reasons.

Ratatosk
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:42 am

Postby Ratatosk » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:15 am)

I'm not familiar with these Stärkemeldung reports.

The meaning of all entries is clear with one exception. What could S.B. mean? S.B. is a kind of departure.


As I see it. S.B. (Schonungsblock) is a kind of departure. But not in a geographical sense (away from the camp). But a departure from the work- force.

After all, that was the main functon of the Auschwitz-camp. To supply workers to the surrounding industries.[/quote]


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests