Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Pappy Yokum
Member
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:03 pm

Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby Pappy Yokum » 9 years 4 months ago (Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:18 pm)

Years ago, I heard David Irving talk about the sinking Battleship Auschwitz. He noted in that talk, that there was a summary of radio intercepts of the Auschwitz camp prisoner tally sheets published by a British researcher. The summary of these ciphers indicated prisoners were dying at the camp, and that some small numbers were executed, but no mention of gas chambers appeared in the intercepts and no program of extermination was evident from the prisoner tallies.

The tally sheets contained a daily total of how many prisoners arrived, how many transferred out, how many died, how many were executed, how many escaped, and how many remained at camp.

I wondered what happened to these prisoner tallies, since there has been very little mention of them. This I found odd since finding them would answer so many questions. Since the Auschwitz administration transmitted the numbers to Berlin that would mean there were at least two copies - one in the Auschwitz records and one in the SS records in Berlin. There would be a third copy of some of them in London because the English were intercepting some of the transmissions.

So, what happened to them? Apparently the Soviets microfilmed them and put them into the archives. I just discovered Germar Rudolf published a summary of the numbers based on the Soviet microfilms some years ago, but I have not seen any comment on them.

The totals: roughly 109,000 deaths during the history of the Nazi administration of the camp with 60,421 of those being Jews. The biggest killer at Auschwitz was typhus. With an average of around 100 deaths per day, that agrees with the records for the amount of fuel being delivered to the crematories in 1943 and death books that had been published years ago.

Germar Rudolf's report is here: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rudolf.html

Comments?

Does anyone know if there are similar tallies for Majdanek archived somewhere?

vincentferrer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: Zionist country

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby vincentferrer » 9 years 4 months ago (Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:57 pm)

I guess that answers why Jews are so afraid to debate this matter.

After all, if you are going to promote a scam, you need to set boundaries to keep it afloat. Madoff, for example, would not let any of his clients question his methods, ever. Pay people 12% a year, each year, and few if any will voice complaints. The holocaust is a bit different. Madoff could just fire a noisy client and end the threat. Revisionists are growing in number and it will not be possible to keep them quiet.

Jews have one tactic for now and that is to be silent on the facts and attack any questioner as an anti Semite. That is a weak defense, but unless they can make public holocaust doubt a crime in all nations, it is their only defense.
The very word holocaust is a pejorative to every German citizen. There was no holocaust,
just lies from the abandoned race.

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

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby SevenUp » 9 years 4 months ago (Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:33 am)

Pappy Yokum wrote:
Comments?



The Auschwitz Museum publishes the death books from Auschwitz and they are available from the web site I think. I.e., the data is available online and even hard copy volumes have been published and are available.

Here's a surprise, from the available data (some months are missing from the documents) more Roman Catholics than Jews died at Auschwtiz.

Rudolf's data seems to be more inclusive, but, the facts have been clear for a long time. When the documents did become available the hoaxers reduced the number of deaths at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1.5 million. It didn't affect the 6 million figure for total Jewish deaths or otherwise slow down the hoax.

See, for example ....

http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php? ... 9&Itemid=8

The Majdanek authorities have reduced the number of deaths there to on the order of 78,000 which doesn't differ too much from the revisionist estimate (50,000 ?).

Karl Radl
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:43 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby Karl Radl » 9 years 4 months ago (Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:20 pm)

Here's a surprise, from the available data (some months are missing from the documents) more Roman Catholics than Jews died at Auschwtiz.


That is possible, but not particularly lightly as from the link you gave that is dealing with religious denomination and National Socialism (and in particular the SS) viewed jews as a biological condition, i.e. a sub-race, rather than as a religious denomination [ergo jews according to religious denomination who died would not equate the number of jews who had died according to the SS (as a jew can be an atheist, Christian even an anti-Semite and still be jewish both in racial anti-Semitism and Judaism itself)] . You can be a follower of Judaism for example and not actually be jewish and vice versa. I don't know if anyone has studied the 'Death Books' in detail (I haven't hence my general question), but I would imagine they would actually have different categories for racial origin and religious denomination [as I recall the gestapo files had this distinction, but that might be my memory playing tricks on me], but regardless of whether they did or not: 'followers of Judaism' (i.e. jews in the colloquial religious sense) would not equate the number of jews who may or may not have died [unless the SS started using halakha to classify who was jewish and who was not (and even then you'd run into more issues)]. I won't explain the issues of halakha or NS race theory as that would be would take things way off topic, but I believe that context is very important to understand before making assertions: hence the above.

I quote from your link:

Franciszek Piper, head of the Historical Research Department and author of the book How Many People Died in Auschwitz, estimates that slightly over 900,000 people were exterminated immediately after arrival, without being registered. The majority of them, almost 900,000, were Jews, the majority of whom professed Judaism. Also unregistered were some 10,000 Poles, 2,000 Roma, and 3,000 Soviet POWs; Catholicism was the religion of the majority of these unregistered non-Jews.


I have put the relevant bits in bold as it indirectly points out that a Roman Catholic can also be a jew.

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

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby SevenUp » 9 years 4 months ago (Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:07 pm)

Karl Radl wrote:
Here's a surprise, from the available data (some months are missing from the documents) more Roman Catholics than Jews died at Auschwtiz.


That is possible, but not particularly lightly as from the link you gave that is dealing with religious denomination and National Socialism (and in particular the SS) viewed jews as a biological condition, i.e. a sub-race, rather than as a religious denomination [ergo jews according to religious denomination who died would not equate the number of jews who had died according to the SS (as a jew can be an atheist, Christian even an anti-Semite and still be jewish both in racial anti-Semitism and Judaism itself)] . You can be a follower of Judaism for example and not actually be jewish and vice versa. I don't know if anyone has studied the 'Death Books' in detail (I haven't hence my general question), but I would imagine they would actually have different categories for racial origin and religious denomination [as I recall the gestapo files had this distinction, but that might be my memory playing tricks on me], but regardless of whether they did or not: 'followers of Judaism' (i.e. jews in the colloquial religious sense) would not equate the number of jews who may or may not have died [unless the SS started using halakha to classify who was jewish and who was not (and even then you'd run into more issues)]. I won't explain the issues of halakha or NS race theory as that would be would take things way off topic, but I believe that context is very important to understand before making assertions: hence the above.

I quote from your link:

Franciszek Piper, head of the Historical Research Department and author of the book How Many People Died in Auschwitz, estimates that slightly over 900,000 people were exterminated immediately after arrival, without being registered. The majority of them, almost 900,000, were Jews, the majority of whom professed Judaism. Also unregistered were some 10,000 Poles, 2,000 Roma, and 3,000 Soviet POWs; Catholicism was the religion of the majority of these unregistered non-Jews.


I have put the relevant bits in bold as it indirectly points out that a Roman Catholic can also be a jew.


I'm trying to figure out why you would post such rubbish, especially after you were on the mark with regard to the Red Cross document. If you read the linked page you will see that the Nazis recorded the religious denominations of prisoners that died, and if you spend a few minutes with the numbers you'll see that the number of Roman Catholics who died is greater than the number of Jews.

As for Piper's comment about the Jews who were exterminated immediately after arrival, that is complete idiocy and not supported by a shred of data, and has nothing at all to do with the Nazi records. I.e., that is the holocaust hoax and is based on nothing but lies.

Karl Radl
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:43 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby Karl Radl » 9 years 4 months ago (Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:13 am)

Ah I missed the sentence:

The Books also record the deaths of about 30 thousand adherents of Judaism.


Ergo what you said is actually comparable as opposed to comparing Roman Catholics with jews, which I thought [having read the source but missing that passage] you were doing as opposed to the accurate 'followers of Judaism' and Roman Catholics (as that is a fairly common mistake to make). You should have just quoted that rather than going ad hominem, which was utterly pointless.

User avatar
Moderator3
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby Moderator3 » 9 years 4 months ago (Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:34 pm)

Seven Up said:
I'm trying to figure out why you would post such rubbish ...

Relax, no need to use such language. Thanks.

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

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby nickterry » 9 years 4 months ago (Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:17 pm)

Pappy Yokum wrote:Years ago, I heard David Irving talk about the sinking Battleship Auschwitz. He noted in that talk, that there was a summary of radio intercepts of the Auschwitz camp prisoner tally sheets published by a British researcher. The summary of these ciphers indicated prisoners were dying at the camp, and that some small numbers were executed, but no mention of gas chambers appeared in the intercepts and no program of extermination was evident from the prisoner tallies.

The tally sheets contained a daily total of how many prisoners arrived, how many transferred out, how many died, how many were executed, how many escaped, and how many remained at camp.

I wondered what happened to these prisoner tallies, since there has been very little mention of them. This I found odd since finding them would answer so many questions. Since the Auschwitz administration transmitted the numbers to Berlin that would mean there were at least two copies - one in the Auschwitz records and one in the SS records in Berlin. There would be a third copy of some of them in London because the English were intercepting some of the transmissions.

So, what happened to them? Apparently the Soviets microfilmed them and put them into the archives. I just discovered Germar Rudolf published a summary of the numbers based on the Soviet microfilms some years ago, but I have not seen any comment on them.

The totals: roughly 109,000 deaths during the history of the Nazi administration of the camp with 60,421 of those being Jews. The biggest killer at Auschwitz was typhus. With an average of around 100 deaths per day, that agrees with the records for the amount of fuel being delivered to the crematories in 1943 and death books that had been published years ago.

Germar Rudolf's report is here: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/rudolf.html

Comments?

Does anyone know if there are similar tallies for Majdanek archived somewhere?



I am sorry to say that the statistics reproduced on heretical.com are fraudulent. They are also reproduced on The Barnes Review's website and were published in a book entitled 'The Final Reckoning' by Harold Kreig, a short brochure of 84pp (google it and you can download it from some file website). Whether Germar Rudolf himself actually endorsed these figures is unknown, since they appeared when he was on the move shortly before his deportation in 2005 from the US to Germany.

The figures are fakes because the archive named, "Russian Central Archives, Central State Archives", does not exist and never did through the 1990s or 2000s. The Russian archives were renamed the State Archive of the Russian Federation after the collapse of the USSR, Gosudarstvennoi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii or GARF. It houses the records of the Extraordinary State Commission, whose fond number is 7021, and some files from this collection have been used by revisionist researchers such as Carlo Mattogno. The other major archive holding captured German records is the so called special archive, or Osobyi Arkhiv. This was renamed the Russian State Military Archive or Rossiiskoi Gosudarstvennoi Voennyi Arkhiv or RGVA. Again, Mattogno and Graf have visited this archive, used the materials, and passed them on to Germar Rudolf who cites them in his own work.

Next: the serial number No. 187603 is simply not a Russian style archival code. Normally these codes are written as fond (collection), opis (finding aid/sub-collection) and delo (file). Beneath that are listy or pages. Researchers abbreviate these either as f. 7021, op. 108, d. 32, ll. 1-2 or write 7021-108-32, pp.1-2. Mattogno uses the latter convention.

Although the Russians have microfilmed some of their files, this would not result in the existence of any of the numbers given such as 'rolls 281-286'.

Further confirmation that the figures are simply made up can be found in the fact that the figures for numbers of prisoners registered by year and by month do not even vaguely match the numbers reconstructed from all other sources by the Auschwitz Museum. Overturning that research effort, which rests on countless transport lists, and the knowledge of registration numbers issued on specific days which can be corroborated from several directions and several sources, is not something that can be done by merely asserting a table of made up figures. Similarly with other tables; the statistics even contradict themselves by having more Jews transferred from Auschwitz in 1941 than the table earlier has registered in the camp!

The work is also sloppy when it claims that "The number of Hungarian Jews claimed sent to Auschwitz during May-October 1944 in Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, New York (1975) is 450,000; in Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, New York (1985) it is 180,000." Hilberg said no such thing; he used the known German reports from Hungary to specify that 437,000 deportees were sent to Auschwitz, the figure of 180,000 relates solely to his calculation of the number of Jews who died from the pre-1939 borders of Hungary, since Hungary annexed substantial parts of Slovakia and Romania during the early years of WWII.

Why the author (presumably Harold Kreig) decided to simply make up these statistics is beyond me. They do not make any sense in relation to all other known sources, sources accepted by the majority of revisionist authors hitherto, and the provenance is nonexistent. Not one leading revisionist author such as Carlo Mattogno or Juergen Graf has cited Kreig's brochure or acknowledged these figures.

As for this

Another avenue for confirmation exists in the wartime radio intercepts which are known to have been made. British wartime intelligence was eavesdropping on the radio traffic as Auschwitz (and other camps) sent regular reports to the relevant government department in Berlin. These messages were either in plain text or a low-level encrypt and consisted of lists of numbers corresponding to the various prisoner categories.


which also matches the query in the OP by Pappy Yokum, the British did indeed intercept so-called No 2 traffic sent by Playfair cipher code which conveyed certain daily statistics regarding the concentration camps, primarily arrivals and 'departures'. When compared with surviving documents from different camps, the category 'departures' lumps in all reductions to the camp strength, including transfers and deaths. There were two sets of signals sent if the camp contained both male and female prisoners.

These intercepts were only made during 1942 and the first month of 1943, after which time the Germans sent the information by another route; either using an Enigma machine with a code that the British did not crack (which was the case for the majority of Enigma codes, contrary to popular preconceptions), or sending them by courier, or simply sending weekly or 10-daily summaries. No order has been found explaining the change, simply that there was a change. Bureaucracies do that, of course.

The intercepts represent in many cases the sole surviving information for certain periods of time for various camps, including Auschwitz. For Auschwitz, we have the strength book of the men's camp from the beginning of January to August 19, 1942. Thus there is a period of overlap with the intercepts, and they match each other. The women's camp is not as well documented in 1942 but the final figures at the end of the year match what then becomes known from labour deployment section (Arbeitseinsatz) reports. The copies of these 'daily returns' that may have existed in Auschwitz or Oranienburg (where the WVHA was located) are in most cases lost.

The Auschwitz death books, mentioned above by SevenUp, are incomplete both chronologically as well as in terms of whose death was registered at all in them. There are only really death books from 1942-1943 with none surviving from 1944, and some gaps. The copies released at the start of the 1990s from the Moscow archives - the RGVA, as it happens - match some few surviving duplicate death books which ended up in the West. That is to say, there are two sets both of which are incomplete, one has about 3 volumes the other considerably more.

From around March 1943, there was an official change in policy so that the 'natural' deaths of registered Jewish inmates were no longer recorded. Some few entries in the death books can be found for Jews after March 1943, but these seem to correspond with categories of prisoners who did not arrive on the RSHA-Sondertransporte or were otherwise privileged. The change in policy was testified to by every surviving prisoner-secretary who worked in the Auschwitz camp registry office, as far back as 1945. The dramatic ceasing of entries for Jewish prisoners in March 1943 means their testimony is confirmed, and would also be hard to otherwise explain, since it is utterly implausible that next to no Jewish prisoners died from 'natural' causes after this time.

'Unnatural' deaths, meaning executions, 'mercy killings' by lethal injections or gassings, were never registered properly in the death books in the first place, even for registered inmates.

Many revisionist researchers rely on extrapolations from the death books to reach a total of 'natural' deaths; Carlo Mattogno calculated 135,000 such deaths, accepting some of the Auschwitz Museum's calculations and rejecting others. The Auschwitz Museum, and thereby mainstream historians, calculated a significantly higher death toll among registered inmates, overall 202,000 versus 135,000. The missing 57,000 registered prisoners were mostly gassed in selections.

This can be confirmed indirectly by the intercepts, which show significant drops in camp strength on and around the same dates as selections inside the camp during late 1942, known from witness testimonies. The Staerkebuch proves that the SS spread out larger numbers of deaths in executions and selections over several days to avoid a one time major bulge showing up, but the overall drop could not be hidden.

There is no evidence of transfers to match these drops. For the women's camp, moreover, there were only two other KZs at this time that accepted female prisoners, Ravensbrueck, which was inside Germany and thus not a likely destination for transferred Jewish women prisoners in 1942, and Majdanek. Neither shows any matching increase. Therefore, the prisoners 'left' the concentration camp system. There is of course no evidence that the selectees, who were usually 'Muselmaenner', were released or transferred to a labour camp or ghetto.

Therefore, the intercepts from Auschwitz, contrary to David Irving's claim, provide powerful indirect confirmation of the other evidence for the gassing of inmates already registered inside Auschwitz-Birkenau during 1942.

As for the discrepancy between the number deported from France etc and the number registered at Auschwitz, neither the intercepts nor the death books have anything to say about them nor should they be expected to. Those deportees simply 'vanished'.

Finally, regarding the use of the intercepts by historians, they were written up first in brief form by Richard Breitman, then discussed by myself in a 2004 article, then used extensively by the Majdanek Museum and its chief historian Tomasz Kranz in the middle of the decade, then written up in an article by the German researcher Jan-Erik Schulte (who wrote a book on the WVHA and the camp system) examining all of the figures for all of the camps. No doubt others will use them in the future. They are freely available in the National Archives at Kew, London, for anyone who wants to photograph them with their digital camera, or pay for a photocopy.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby Hannover » 9 years 3 months ago (Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:51 pm)

Nick Terry chases his own tail and then resorts to 'garbage in, garbage out'.

The gassing claims are simply impossible as alleged, but that doesn't stop some folks from believing in the laughable and absurd. See:
'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

Plus, there is not a single mass grave as alleged that can be shown. Not one.

This is too easy, Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
jnovitz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:40 pm

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby jnovitz » 9 years 3 months ago (Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:10 pm)

This can be confirmed indirectly by the intercepts, which show significant drops in camp strength on and around the same dates as selections inside the camp during late 1942, known from witness testimonies. The Staerkebuch proves that the SS spread out larger numbers of deaths in executions and selections over several days to avoid a one time major bulge showing up, but the overall drop could not be hidden.

There is no evidence of transfers to match these drops. For the women's camp, moreover, there were only two other KZs at this time that accepted female prisoners, Ravensbrueck, which was inside Germany and thus not a likely destination for transferred Jewish women prisoners in 1942, and Majdanek. Neither shows any matching increase. Therefore, the prisoners 'left' the concentration camp system. There is of course no evidence that the selectees, who were usually 'Muselmaenner', were released or transferred to a labour camp or ghetto.

Therefore, the intercepts from Auschwitz, contrary to David Irving's claim, provide powerful indirect confirmation of the other evidence for the gassing of inmates already registered inside Auschwitz-Birkenau during 1942.


In terms of Chutzpah, Dr Terry has scaled new heights.

As Dr Terry is well aware the intercepts of German radio traffic detailing Auschwitz prisoners numbers and deaths has been destroyed by MI5 and not released to the archives. I am guessing this is deliberate, but it may have been the accidental or through oversight.

What has been released to the archives is about 20 sheets of tabulated figures showing the camp strength, but the decodes this data was derived from has either kept hidden in MI5 or destroyed.

In fact, when the Germans sent their camp strength reports in they always gave a breakdown of "Departures" in releases, transfers and deaths, the fact that this information has been destroyed and we only have the departure totals suggests very strongly dishonesty by the British Intelligence Agencies, even 50 years after the end of the war.

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

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby nickterry » 9 years 3 months ago (Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:39 am)

Hannover wrote:Nick Terry chases his own tail and then resorts to 'garbage in, garbage out'.

The gassing claims are simply impossible as alleged, but that doesn't stop some folks from believing in the laughable and absurd. See:
'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

Plus, there is not a single mass grave as alleged that can be shown. Not one.

This is too easy, Hannover


Both statements might be relevant if this were a thread about cyanide chemistry or mass graves, but the OP asked questions about Auschwitz statistics and sources. If all that matters are cyanide chemistry and mass graves, then threads like this are irrelevant, as would be most of the content of this forum.

The OP evidently thought otherwise, and asked about statistics purporting to relate to Auschwitz produced by a nominally revisionist author. These statistics are not evidently endorsed by the respected revisionist authors and are peddled on sites of little credibility, like heretical.com. Evidently revisionists are liable to read such things and think, maybe that is a good argument to take to the outside world. It does the revisionist argument no favours whatsoever if they rely on claims that can be shown to be wrong and fabricated data.

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

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby nickterry » 9 years 3 months ago (Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:01 am)

jnovitz wrote:
This can be confirmed indirectly by the intercepts, which show significant drops in camp strength on and around the same dates as selections inside the camp during late 1942, known from witness testimonies. The Staerkebuch proves that the SS spread out larger numbers of deaths in executions and selections over several days to avoid a one time major bulge showing up, but the overall drop could not be hidden.

There is no evidence of transfers to match these drops. For the women's camp, moreover, there were only two other KZs at this time that accepted female prisoners, Ravensbrueck, which was inside Germany and thus not a likely destination for transferred Jewish women prisoners in 1942, and Majdanek. Neither shows any matching increase. Therefore, the prisoners 'left' the concentration camp system. There is of course no evidence that the selectees, who were usually 'Muselmaenner', were released or transferred to a labour camp or ghetto.

Therefore, the intercepts from Auschwitz, contrary to David Irving's claim, provide powerful indirect confirmation of the other evidence for the gassing of inmates already registered inside Auschwitz-Birkenau during 1942.


In terms of Chutzpah, Dr Terry has scaled new heights.

As Dr Terry is well aware the intercepts of German radio traffic detailing Auschwitz prisoners numbers and deaths has been destroyed by MI5 and not released to the archives. I am guessing this is deliberate, but it may have been the accidental or through oversight.

What has been released to the archives is about 20 sheets of tabulated figures showing the camp strength, but the decodes this data was derived from has either kept hidden in MI5 or destroyed.

In fact, when the Germans sent their camp strength reports in they always gave a breakdown of "Departures" in releases, transfers and deaths, the fact that this information has been destroyed and we only have the departure totals suggests very strongly dishonesty by the British Intelligence Agencies, even 50 years after the end of the war.


So on the one hand we have some obviously fraudulent data which cannot be corroborated, fabricated by a revisionist (Krieg), and on the other hand we have data which can be corroborated by other sources, which revisionist jnovitz alleges is fabricated.

This allegation of fabrication is premised firstly on the totally unsupported assumption that there were actually largescale transfers from Auschwitz in 1942 that have gone otherwise wholly unrecorded and unnoticed by any source, documentary, witness, you name it.

The second premise is that the 1942 reporting requirements via radio were the same as for later written KZ strength reports. This seems incredibly dubious to begin with and beggars belief when applied to all camps whose 1942 reports were intercepted. The overwhelming majority of KZs did not carry out mass selections or mass executions of registered inmates, and for some of these camps there are fairly comprehensive records, eg Buchenwald. So the "dishonesty" which is unproven would be required, in jnovitz's scenario, purely to cover up the sudden drops in camp strength in essentially one camp, Auschwitz, since only there would substantial drops be created.

The third premise is that the monthly sheets with their daily breakdowns are the sole surviving data, which is untrue since GCHQ also wrote up monthly summary reports which repeated some of the same data, a separate source. That is quite aside from the corroborating information in German sources that survived.

In any case, it doesn't matter whether jnovitz or any other revisionist thinks that the Bletchley intercepts were tampered with. David Irving's claim that the intercepts somehow disprove gassings is false; the fact that jnovitz has to shift to an allegation of fabrication shows this.

Thus the essential conclusions of this thread are twofold
1) the Kreig data cannot be relied on by revisionists and they are well advised not to cite it
2) the magical intercepts turn out not to be so magical for revisionist purposes after all.

User avatar
jnovitz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:40 pm

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby jnovitz » 9 years 3 months ago (Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:26 am)

You can tell when Nick Terry is under pressure as he throws up the most absurd strawmen in panic.

corroborated by other sources, which revisionist jnovitz alleges is fabricated.


At no point did I declare anything fabricated. I said that the MI5 or relevant intelligence agency had destroyed or hidden a large portion of the decode traffic. But that is incontestable, it is a simple fact whatever their motivation that the portion of the original decodes that gave daily returns for the camps are missing, vanished or withheld. The Germans did not just radio a series of numbers in table format.

All I am saying is that this destruction or hiding of evidence was deliberate because it would contain breakdowns that showed transfers as being the major component of Abgänge [Departures]. As a rule of thumb, every time a selection for the gas chambers took place, you can be sure what actually happened was a transport.

We have the typhus reports in the decodes and they clearly show deaths, admissions to hospital and releases from hospital of concerning but limited numbers (a peak of 140 deaths of week in the surviving decodes). If the Nazis were undertaking a massive gassing program to control typhus why on earth were they admitting people to hospital or releasing them cured?

We know that sub camps were set up during the 2nd half 1942, we know that Monowitz was set up and that Monowitz sent in its own radio returns - so somehow prisoners have to be magically gassed as well as going over to Monowitz to work! We know Birkenau was established and its prisoner strength built up


The second premise is that the 1942 reporting requirements via radio were the same as for later written KZ strength reports.

Actually its not a premise at all. All I am saying is the daily radio reports have been destroyed (incontestable really), for reasons unknown some of the Stutthof daily reports remain in the existing body of decodes.

and for some of these camps there are fairly comprehensive records, eg Buchenwald.


Actually there is one uncorroborated liberated document giving a year by year breakdown, which was allegedly found by the Communist resistance in Buchenwald and published in the Buchenwald reports. Some of the other KZ strength reports that alleged to have found are completely inexplicable today's historians including one that has a mysterious "E" column which is tentatively suggested to denote "Exekutiert" but has numbers so strange that they can not be corroborated with anything even in the very generous boundaries that Holocaust history provides. But carry on
[quote} So the "dishonesty" which is unproven would be required, in jnovitz's scenario, purely to cover up the sudden drops in camp strength in essentially one camp, Auschwitz, since only there would substantial drops be created.[/quote]

Which surprise surprise was the one camp that was also designated a station of Aktion Reinhardt for transiting Jews to the East as is specified as so in the Korherr report.

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

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby nickterry » 9 years 3 months ago (Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:00 am)

jnovitz wrote:You can tell when Nick Terry is under pressure as he throws up the most absurd strawmen in panic.

corroborated by other sources, which revisionist jnovitz alleges is fabricated.


At no point did I declare anything fabricated. I said that the MI5 or relevant intelligence agency had destroyed or hidden a large portion of the decode traffic. But that is incontestable, it is a simple fact whatever their motivation that the portion of the original decodes that gave daily returns for the camps are missing, vanished or withheld. The Germans did not just radio a series of numbers in table format.


Unfortunately 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.

All I am saying is that this destruction or hiding of evidence was deliberate because it would contain breakdowns that showed transfers as being the major component of Abgänge [Departures].


Unfortunately this is nonsense, since for 1942, the relevant year, in Auschwitz, we have the evidence of the death books and the witnesses from the registry office, which indicates about 48,000 registered inmates dying and leaving a death registry entry, including Jewish inmates since their general exclusion from the death books did not occur until March 1943. This is the figure accepted by Mattogno. That leaves a discrepancy between the camp strengths and arrivals minus known transfers (ones that can actually be documented, unlike your fantasy transfers) of 21,000 missing inmates, since the overall subtraction indicates 69,000 dead prisoners that year. Not all of the 21,000 would have been selected for gas chambers since the SS was also bumping off large numbers through shootings at the death wall as well as phenol injections, most of which killings do not seem to have been entered into the death books.

So transfers could not have been 'the major component of Abgaenge', as two-third of the mortality came from "natural causes", ie starvation and exposure to epidemics.

As a rule of thumb, every time a selection for the gas chambers took place, you can be sure what actually happened was a transport.


Thumb, yes, but you seem to have simply sucked this assertion out of your thumb. You have absolutely no evidence in support of it.

We have the typhus reports in the decodes and they clearly show deaths, admissions to hospital and releases from hospital of concerning but limited numbers (a peak of 140 deaths of week in the surviving decodes). If the Nazis were undertaking a massive gassing program to control typhus why on earth were they admitting people to hospital or releasing them cured?


Gee, 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.

We know that sub camps were set up during the 2nd half 1942, we know that Monowitz was set up and that Monowitz sent in its own radio returns - so somehow prisoners have to be magically gassed as well as going over to Monowitz to work! We know Birkenau was established and its prisoner strength built up


The figures for Monowitz did not become administratively separate until late 1943, when Auschwitz I, II and III were created.

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.

Despite the selections and the epidemics, camp strength overall did increase, as is easily determined by looking at the available data.

jnovitz

The second premise is that the 1942 reporting requirements via radio were the same as for later written KZ strength reports.


Actually its not a premise at all. All I am saying is the daily radio reports have been destroyed (incontestable really), for reasons unknown some of the Stutthof daily reports remain in the existing body of decodes.


So you say, but you should try figuring out possible reasons why there might be an exception to a rule before jumping to conclusions. Stutthof was just one camp within the system, relatively recently part of the IKL, so might not have been reporting correctly. Equally likely is that 'some' daily reports were demanded for a special reason, or were duplicated but gave further information, therefore were kept in the main body of the No 2 traffic while all of the parallel Abgaenge-only reports went to be compiled into the monthly sheets.

I don't really see what the point of all this is anyway, since you know damn well that if the original intercepts had shown large "transfers" on the precise same dates as known selections and no evidence existed that the "transfers" were real (reminder: there is no such evidence), then this would be interpreted as the WVHA or Auschwitz covering up its selections by calling them "transfers". Unless there were actual evidence that the "transfers" were real, this interpetation would always be the most probable one.

jnovitz

and for some of these camps there are fairly comprehensive records, eg Buchenwald.


Actually there is one uncorroborated liberated document giving a year by year breakdown, which was allegedly found by the Communist resistance in Buchenwald and published in the Buchenwald reports.


No, 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.

Some of the other KZ strength reports that alleged to have found are completely inexplicable today's historians including one that has a mysterious "E" column which is tentatively suggested to denote "Exekutiert" but has numbers so strange that they can not be corroborated with anything even in the very generous boundaries that Holocaust history provides. But carry on


????

jnovitz

[quote} So the "dishonesty" which is unproven would be required, in jnovitz's scenario, purely to cover up the sudden drops in camp strength in essentially one camp, Auschwitz, since only there would substantial drops be created.


Which surprise surprise was the one camp that was also designated a station of Aktion Reinhardt for transiting Jews to the East as is specified as so in the Korherr report.[/quote]

Unfortunately the Korherr report specifies no such thing, I believe this was explained to an alter ego of yours previously.


But thanks for pounding these sources even further into the rubble. Evidently they cannot be cited as proof of anything by revisionists.

User avatar
jnovitz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:40 pm

Re: Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

Postby jnovitz » 9 years 3 months ago (Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:46 am)

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 academic
Unfortunately 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.

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.
Agree/Disagree

2. These figures derived from German messages that would have contained each number in that table, plus a description.
Agree/Disagree

3. These decodes are not to found in the British archives suggesting they are either lost, destroyed or withheld
Agree/Disagree


Gee, 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.
I thought there was a men's camp and a women's camp, but its irrelevant to the point.

The 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.
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.


No, 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? Has anyone tried to see if they reconcile with 2171-PS? And has anyone worked out what that E column means yet?
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/2171-ps.asp
You will find it right at the bottom. 30 000 executions in Septemter 1942

Unfortunately 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.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests