jnovitz wrote:There is nothing more entertaining when Dr Terry goes purple in the face denying the undeniable
Lets try and wring the most basic of concessions out of our friendly academicUnfortunately your allegation that the British destroyed data which was consistently extant in the original intercepts is an allegation of fabrication. You claim somebody covered up the real data, alas for that claim there is no real evidence and plenty to argue against it.
No destroying data is not an allegation of fabrication, fabricating has a root of a Latin word "to make" and destroy has the root of.....um.....well destroy. There is quite a significant difference between these two concepts that a historian educated to a doctoral level ought to be able to grasp.
If you must split hairs, you are alleging that the British manipulated the data.
However lets keep it simple:
1. In the British archives there are some pages of tabulated figures with have some handwritten annotations enabling the reading to understand that these are daily returns over concentration camps.
2. These figures derived from German messages that would have contained each number in that table, plus a description.
3. These decodes are not to found in the British archives suggesting they are either lost, destroyed or withheld
It's the last bit that you seem to be having trouble with.
jnovitzGee, well, that might be because there were two camps, there were Jews and non-Jews, and because there were different phases. Please reconcile your handwaving with the actual evidence.
Its not handwaving. Auschwitz was required to give a weekly reporting of the cases of Typhus. These weekly reports included number of confirmed cases, suspected cases, admissions to hospitals, releases from hospitals and deaths. The maximum number of deaths in a week from typhus that I saw was around 140, but it could be, for the final week of July 1942, as low as 3. These figures would be completely meaningless if the Germans were gassing entire barracks of inmates as a typhus control.
unfortunately you still need to reconcile the evidence for typhus with the timings of known selections and bear in mind there were two big camps incorporated into the overall figures, containing two broad categories of prisoners, Jews and non-Jews. In 1942.
I thought there was a men's camp and a women's camp, but its irrelevant to the point.
On the contrary, selections inside the camp took place either in the mens' or the womens' camps and on specific dates. In 1942.
jnovitzThe figures for Monowitz did not become administratively separate until late 1943, when Auschwitz I, II and III were created.
Whether or not that is true, it is a catagorical fact that it reported its own figures by radio and hence can't be included in the Auschwitz Mens and Womens Appell reporting.
An unproven assumption.
Moreover, Monowitz is entirely irrelevant to the whereabouts or fate of a substantial number of the disappeared, since Monowitz did not employ women and yet the returns for the Frauenlager, located by the autumn of 1942 almost exclusively in Birkenau, show substantial drops.
Substantial drops indeed, but often in multiples of 1000. How freakish that 1000 should be the number that the Germans would send off in a transport.
The pattern of drops doesn't suggest such an even picture, I'm afraid. As you are silent on the non-employment of women at Monowitz I take it we can ignore most of your Monowitz gambit. Monowitz didn't even exist as a separate sub-camp until October 1942, and virtually all the major selections in the last quarter of 1942 were held in the women's camp.
jnovitzNo, that is 2171-PS which is a US Army compilation of German records. There are written daily Staerkemeldungen and other sources surviving for the camp, more than 100,000 pages of original documentation.
OK, I always like to cross check records. Do you have an archive reference for the daily Staekemeldungen?
Archive ref for staerkemeldungen - NS 4/Bu, 138 and 139 for 1942-2, as cited by Harry Stein from the Buchenwald museum in an article. The museum has physical possession of the records but they are probably copied elsewhere.
Has anyone tried to see if they reconcile with 2171-PS? And has anyone worked out what that E column means yet?
You will find it right at the bottom. 30 000 executions in Septemter 1942
Um, no, you're misreading the table. That's the overall total. The figure for executions that month was 144, the bigger leap comes the following month. I would suggest that before you rush to a conclusion that you familiarise yourself with the histories of 14 f 13 (Hartheim was still operational), 14 f 14 (POWs were still being murdered) and also remember that there were quite a lot of camps. Majdanek is also liable to throw a spanner in the works since evidently they recorded things differently there to Auschwitz. The Auschwitz selections, however, basically match the statistical discrepancy left over once you compare this table with overall strengths for all camps.
jnovitzUnfortunately the Korherr report specifies no such thing,
Actually it says this "Not included are the Jews accommodated in the concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin within the scope of the evacuation action. " Although I'll expect you are going to give some tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy explanation for the word "accommodated". And the itinery of Pohl that Sergey Romanov kindly provides confirms Auschwitz's role in Aktion Reinhardt.
Another thing the Korherr report claims is only 4400 Jewish deaths in Auschwitz in 1942. Frankly your documentation is all over the place. The only thing I do believe are the Abgänge column and I don't believe they are exclusively or even mainly deaths
So let's disentangle this gibberish. Firstly, there is no direct reference in the Korherr report to Aktion Reinhard. Secondly, 'accomodated in Auschwitz and Lublin within the scope of the evacuation action' is not the same thing as 'transit'. Thirdly, the known transports 'accomodated' in Auschwitz do not show up in any statistics on a comparable scale - these are the unregistered deportees who are so problematic for revisionism. Clearly, they were not accomodated in Auschwitz. Fourth, Pohl's itinerary simply refers to 'Station 2 der Aktion Reinhardt' with no reference to either transit or accomodation or even evacuation. Pohl's letter to Himmler from around this same time makes reference to Jews fit for work but - as recurs several times in the sources - is utterly silent on the fate of the unfit.
Fifth and last, highlighting the low number of Jewish deaths in Auschwitz in 1942 recorded in the KZ deaths enumeration simply confirms what the Korherr report stated in the portion you quoted, that 'not included are the Jews accomodated in the concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin within the scope of the evacuation action'. The figures for deaths as well as the figures for Jews remaining in the KZs relate solely to Jewish prisoners either transferred from other camps (like the 2000 or so sent from Buchenwald etc, most of whom ended up at Monowitz, like Bernard Kautsky) or sent on routine Gestapo or Sipo transports, such as those arrested in early 1942 in Poland, before anyone was put on a 'Sondertransport'. It is also reasonable to point to 1-2 of the transports from France which were police transports, and signalled as such to Auschwitz in the decodes. Thus the figures in Korherr, as stated, relate to non-Sondertransport prisoners who were not selected on arrival. They do not include prisoners sent on Sondertransporte. I think I have been over this with one of your alter egos before, too.
I will have to leave it there for a week as I am off to a couple of conferences.