Post-war Polish Christians having Auschwitz tattoos

[Hans]

That may be one reason to question it at Auschwitz.

One reason not to question it at Auschwitz may be that it is mentioned in this report about the escape of Sonderkommando prisoners from Auschwitz-Birkenau:

"auf dem l. Unterarm eintätowierte No"

"number tattooed on the l. lower arm"

[Goethe]

Over ninety per cent of the sources historians have been working with are "eyewitness reports." For the whole ancient history we have nothing but reports, often even not from eyewitnesses, but from "second hand" witnesses, written down, as a rule, much time after the event. Please doubt the Peloponnesian and the Persian-Greek Wars, the wars between the Philistines and Israel, the Battle of the Teutoburger Wald, Julius Cesar's conquest of Gallia, and the mass rapes of German, Polish, Hungarian and Yugoslav women by the Red Army - everything only documented by witness testimonies. But do not expect to be taken seriously by the profession.

None of historical events stated by Joachim Neander are protected from revision by Orwellian Thought Crime laws. None of them involve anti-science claims which are in fact part & parcel of the "Holocaust" canon; i.e.: 'gas chambers' and the mysterious lack of confirming human remains, just to name two.

There were thousands of 'eyewitnesses and confessions' to witchcraft. Testimonies of such were accepted by state administered courts of law.

[Carolyn Yeager]

That may be one reason to question it at Auschwitz.

One reason not to question it at Auschwitz may be that it is mentioned in this report about the escape of Sonderkommando prisoners from Auschwitz-Birkenau:

"auf dem l. Unterarm eintätowierte No"

"number tattooed on the l. lower arm"

Yes, I know about that report. That is what some revisionists point to. But that only tells us that these men were known to have tattoos on their arms. It doesn't tell us that it was a policy instituted by the SS Commandant at Auschwitz-Birkenau, does it? I would want to see more than that.

I am not anxious to find out that tattooing was a "choice" among prisoners, or that it was carried out under some officials, and not under others. That really doesn't sound believable, either. But I do want the truth, whatever it is.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Thanks Carolyn, for telling me that much of Joachim Neander's response was a cut and paste from the USHMM.org. I thought it was Neander's own words when I read it. Though I think Neander was trying to be helpful, I thought that was his own info from his head.

Did Auschwitz inmates get special reparations after the war? With all these lack of records, or records locked for 65 years at Bad Arolsen, I wonder if anyone tattooed their arm for victim status to get reparations.

And did the Red Cross ever mention tattoos? My understanding is that the supposed gassing operation was kept away from their inspection, but they saw the everyday prisoners and thus would have seen tattoos. Tattoos being against Jewish law and also providing a good war propaganda example of a cruel act, one would have thought it would have made the press, but looking at the New York Times Index, there's nothing, till later, and then very little. It wasn't mentioned till all the other Auschwitz propaganda, much of which people no longer believe it today. Searching "Auschwitz" and "tattoo" or "tattoos" at the NYT historical index was quite interesting.

[Mojo]

Over ninety per cent of the sources historians have been working with are "eyewitness reports."

This statement seems closely in line with Van Pelt. In a nutshell, 90% rubbish and the remaining 10% based on a "convergence" of evidence. To me, the uneducated man, a convergence is nothing more than throwing a bucket of shite in the air and hoping some of it sticks together before it lands.

[Ilikerealhistory]

Tattoos being against Jewish law and also providing a good war propaganda example of a cruel act, one would have thought it would have made the press, but looking at the New York Times Index, there's nothing, till later, and then very little. It wasn't mentioned till all the other Auschwitz propaganda, much of which people no longer believe it today. Searching "Auschwitz" and "tattoo" or "tattoos" at the NYT historical index was quite interesting.

My opinion is that the evidence below shows it is not against the law for jews to tattoo themselves

http://tattoohouse.org/

http://hebrewtattoo.net

http://www.rankmytattoos.com/tattoo-shops/Israel/

[joachim neander]

@Ilikerealhistory:

CCS is right, tattooing is against Jewish law, written in the Torah. It was one of the many rules issued about 2,500 to 3,000 years ago by Israel's leaders to distinguish their people from their neighbors. The bans best known among non-Jews probably are those of making pictures (common everywhere else) and eating pork (a sacred animal to the Canaaneans).

On the other hand, today there are many secular Jews, also in Israel, and they don't care about tradition. As tattooing has become fashion among certain strata of society, they also do not bother about the ban on tattooing. So you are right, too. But only to a certain degree, since in WW II (and before) things were different. The vast majority of the eastern Jews (those affected by the Nazi measures) were orthodox and abiding to the Torah. For them, being tattooed was a deep humiliation.

[Strong Coffee]

Dr Neander: The issue is not whether 90% of history is eyewitness or second hand or third hand. The issue is how much weight to attach to it and how much it proves. You yourself have expressed skepticism of some of the "eyewitness" claims concerning Auschwitz (Ms Zisblatt). According to your reasoning, historians cannot doubt eyewitness testimony. But of course, they do. It's a process of judgment, concerning what to believe, what not to believe, what to put into a narrative, and what to leave out of a narrative.

Generally speaking historians are extremely reluctant to say that something "did not happen." But if they do not believe the evidence, or find the evidence thin, then they make a judgment not to include what they doubt from their narrative.

Take the rapes during the expulsions, or the expulsions themselves. As you know, the Germans compiled many affidavits of these expulsions. I have read these from time to time. Some of the evidence I find compelling, some I do not. I can believe that Germans were lined up and shot -- a video of such a shooting emerged earlier this year -- but I do not know how many were shot, why they were shot, and how many died in the expulsions. No one really knows.

The same goes for the rapes. Discussions of the mass rapes of women -- not just German women, but Polish women, Hungarian women, and even Jewish women -- has been "exposed" since the 1960's. As you know, right wing Russians dispute these rapes, because it reflects on the honor of the Red Army. I myself have known some of these women who were raped. One, crippled by the event. I do not doubt in a general sense that this happened.

BUT. One cannot simply say because there's lots of evidence of the rapes (nearly all of it oral testimony) how many rapes took place, that every single rape story is true, why they took place, and so on. The responsible historian can only report the phenomenon, record various estimates, and perhaps quote some testimony that he or she finds compelling. As it happens, the testimony for women being raped by the Red Army has more of a ring of truth than testimony about turning concentration camp inmates into sausages.

But perhaps you disagree, and that is fine. There's much more judgment in history than "irrefutable" fact.