Question about the ICRC report

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Question about the ICRC report

Postby SevenUp » 1 decade 11 months ago (Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:55 am)

jnovitz wrote:

As to using the documents, the ICRC have had plenty of opportunities to publicly declare them forgeries, notably Biedermann on the stand at the Zundel trial. He did not take the opportunity. One could write to the Red Cross at Bad Arolson asking if they were genuine - and I can guarantee they will not reply. After that you are fully justified in using them as authentic with a lengthy footnote detailing the highly unsatisfactory behaviour of the IRCR in such matters.


Yes, I think that's right. I didn't know that the ITS was part of the ICRC, which makes the ICRC full players in the hoax. I can't imagine the ICRC responding to a request from a revisionist, as per nickterry, instead I imagine a David Cole type of operation, as when he put on his yarmulke to get the interview with Piper. That is I guess that the reports was prepared for the usual 'authorities' but somehow got leaked.

So, that leaves the hoaxers a total of 6 million Jews plus 6 million non-Jews minus 300,000 equals 11,700,000 victims to account for.

nickterry
Member
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: Question about the ICRC report

Postby nickterry » 1 decade 11 months ago (Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:35 am)

SevenUp wrote: I can't imagine the ICRC responding to a request from a revisionist, as per nickterry


If you read older German revisionist works from the 1960s and 1970s, you will find a lot of replies from various German institutions such as the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte and Bundesarchiv to enquiries and requests for information by revisionists. Obviously in some cases the query would be presented as if from a member of the public, which I suspect was the case in these instances.

Please also note that Biederman was cross-examined at the Zundel trial about a figure mentioned by an ICRC representative in a public speech in 1976, which conforms to the data in both scans, so it really does not seem as if they have been hiding anything; the problem has been in how one interprets the data.

So, that leaves the hoaxers a total of 6 million Jews plus 6 million non-Jews minus 300,000 equals 11,700,000 victims to account for.


Does it?

Accounting for mass deaths in the 20th Century is a matter of statistics and demographics plus whatever documentary evidence indicating extent can be found. There are no name lists for the Holodomor and they are incomplete for the Gulag as well as all other Soviet crimes. Even field armies who were backed up by massive bureaucracies that were intended to inform relatives of the fate of their loved ones could not account for all of the dead. About a million German soldiers are still recorded as missing from WWII, the overwhelming majority of victims of the expulsions in 1945 have less evidence for their fates than would be the case for many Holocaust victims.

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Question about the ICRC report

Postby SevenUp » 1 decade 11 months ago (Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:24 am)

nickterry wrote:
So, that leaves the hoaxers a total of 6 million Jews plus 6 million non-Jews minus 300,000 equals 11,700,000 victims to account for.


Does it?

Accounting for mass deaths in the 20th Century is a matter of statistics and demographics plus whatever documentary evidence indicating extent can be found. There are no name lists for the Holodomor and they are incomplete for the Gulag as well as all other Soviet crimes. Even field armies who were backed up by massive bureaucracies that were intended to inform relatives of the fate of their loved ones could not account for all of the dead. About a million German soldiers are still recorded as missing from WWII, the overwhelming majority of victims of the expulsions in 1945 have less evidence for their fates than would be the case for many Holocaust victims.


Your gibberish notwithstanding, you still have to account for 11,700,000. Time to get started !

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Question about the ICRC report

Postby SevenUp » 1 decade 11 months ago (Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:27 am)

Faurisson also used the figures 200,000 to 350,000 total deaths for the camps and cited the ITS data in the Zundel trial ... as reported in this recent video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPK4wbGzS10

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Question about the ICRC report

Postby SevenUp » 1 decade 9 months ago (Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:51 pm)

The two ICRC documents shown show the number of deaths at Belsen to be on the order of 6000......

Yet, it is well known that on the order of 35,000 died in the last months alone.

What's up with this. Why are the ICRC numbers so low ?

WS3838
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:32 pm

Re: Question about the ICRC report

Postby WS3838 » 6 years 9 months ago (Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:36 pm)

I made a short background research on the two scanned documents of 1979 and 1984 about the number of deaths in German concentration camps of the International Red Cross and the Sonderstandesamt, concerning the authenticity and evidential meaning of these scans.

I put everything into one single PDF and upload it here, so that you can download it or refer to it with a link in discussions.
Attachments
Number of Certified Deaths in All German Concentration Camps.pdf
Background of two documents about the Number of Certified Deaths in All German Concentration Camps
(400.82 KiB) Downloaded 154 times

astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Re: Question about the ICRC report

Postby astro3 » 6 years 9 months ago (Sun Jul 06, 2014 4:54 pm)

I endorse WS3838 (?)'s view that - as has been said many times on these threads - in 1979 the Arolsen Archive issued a statement with 271k total mortality for 13 camps, then in 1983 issued a second statement with a 282k total for 15 camps, then (he omits this) in 1991 a total of 296k for 15 camps. These are fully coherent and point to real, genuine data-collection.

Why do we not have a more recent estimate? My feeling is that if Nick Terry were to write and ask them on his university-headed notepaper he might get a reply. None of us lot will!

The ITS has announced that its millions of data-items are being released (the ICRC record of mortality at the camps, as archived at Arolsen, has been renamed the International Tracing Service) :
“ In August 2007, the USHMM received the first installment of records and in November 2007, received the Central Name Index. Materials will continue to be received as they are digitized. One institution is designated for each of the 11 countries to receive a copy of the archive.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ng_Service

In the UK it’s the Weiner Library. I spent a while in that Library earlier this year (it claims to have 60,000 Holo-books) and was allowed data-access to this ‘released’ Arolsen-Archive data on a desktop - but, somewhat as I suspected there is NO WAY anyone can get totals out of it. It's carefully designed so no-one can get out the one thing that really matters, viz the total figures. I grilled the lady there in charge of this database – she had been to training courses in Israel and another in Germany – and she likewise could not see any way of getting the totals, any totals.

Eventually they figured out I was H-D or a ‘Denier’ so sent me a letter saying I was not welcome.

IMO Dr Terry’s students need the Arolsen data broken down not only by camp but month by month, and grouped by eg Jews, Poles, Russians and Germans, these being the categories they mostly used. This is perfectly normal data-analysis.

NB Dr T., what is source of “Mauthausen's death books, including those for Gusen, give 68,874 names,” – I thought we only had death-books for Auschwitz?

Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Question about the ICRC report

Postby Reviso » 6 years 9 months ago (Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:06 am)

Could it be that the Germans refused access to camps where there were N.N. prisoners ? There were N.N. women in Birkenau.
R.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3722
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Question about the ICRC report

Postby Hektor » 1 year 2 months ago (Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:16 am)

nickterry wrote:....
Does it?

Accounting for mass deaths in the 20th Century is a matter of statistics and demographics plus whatever documentary evidence indicating extent can be found. There are no name lists for the Holodomor and they are incomplete for the Gulag as well as all other Soviet crimes. Even field armies who were backed up by massive bureaucracies that were intended to inform relatives of the fate of their loved ones could not account for all of the dead. About a million German soldiers are still recorded as missing from WWII, the overwhelming majority of victims of the expulsions in 1945 have less evidence for their fates than would be the case for many Holocaust victims.


But when it's claimed that one can not find certain Jews, they are "not missing", instead they are considered "gassed in Auschwitz". Kind of funny, don't you think?


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests