A recent entry on his blog constitutes yet another typical case of Prof. Robert Faurisson´s chutzpah, and so we must ask for evidence:
WHERE and WHEN did President Ahmadinejad ever DENY the gas chambers, the mass executions of the Einsatzgruppen, of the Ordnungspolizei, of the Waffen-SS and other units?
Where and when did he deny the authenticity of the report of Karl Jäger ?
Where or when did he deny that Himmler gave orders to annihilate the Jews?
Where or when did the President of Iran deny that Himmler admitted that it was good that the SS had annihilated the Jews within its reach?
Where or when did he deny the reports of Dr. Stahlecker?
Where or when did he deny Himmler´s letter to Berger?
Where or when did he deny the mass murders of Jeckeln in Riga?
Where or when did he deny the mass murders admitted by Ohlendorf?
Where and when did he deny Wannsee?
Where and when did he deny the authenticity of the Ereignismeldungen UdSSR?
Where and when did he deny the Babi Jar massacre?
To the best of my knowledge, the Iranian President never denied any these facts of what is now widely known as constituting the so-called Holocaust.
And so, again, the time has come for all to ask Prof. Faurisson and his imitators to stop spreading his silly and dangerous lies about past events.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
torsdag 8 mars 2012
söndag 12 februari 2012
Hvornår traf Hitler Beslutningen?
Der er ikke opnået enighed om, hvornår Hitler besluttede sig til at også de tyske jøder skulle udryddes. Nogle mener, at afgørelsen først faldt efter USAs indtræden i krigen i december 1941. Denne hypotese har støtte i flere velkendte dokumenter og overvejelser.
Men hvordan stemmer denne hypotese med følgende hidtil kun lidt påagtede kendsgerninger:
Den 17. november 1941 afgik en jernbanetransport med 1006 jøder fra Berlin. 812 er kendt ved navn. Kort efter ankomstenm til Kaunas, blev de alle skudt den 25. november ved Fort IX.
Den 20. november 1941 afgik en transport med 999 jøder fra München (20 af disse fra Augsburg; 3 fra Obermenzig). Alle disse tyske jøder blev også skudt ved Fort IX i Kaunas den 25. november.
Den 22. november 1941 afgik en transport med 988 jøder (liste med 992 navne bevaret) fra Frankfurt a. M. De blev skudt den 25. november 1941 ved Fort IX i Kaunas.
Ansvaret for henrettelsen af disse jøder - mænd, kvinder og børn i alle aldre - havde Karl Jäger, chef for Einsatzkommando 3, Einsatzgruppe A (Stahlecker).
Jäger indberettede til Berlin fra Kaunas, den 1. december 1941, og han må have handlet efter ordre fra højeste sted. Hans indberetning til Berlin blev udfærdiget i fem eksemplarer, hvoraf kun ét, vist nok hans eget, er bevaret. Det er stemplet tophemmeligt, og har således kun været bestemt for en meget snæver læserkreds. Dokumentets ægthed er uomtvistelig.
De anførte kendsgerninger giver anledning til en del overvejelser. Disse og flere andre tilfælde af massemord på tyske eller østrigske jøder har været kendt af Dr. Rudolf Lange, der tog del i mødet i Wannsee i januar 1942. Og de har selvfølgelig været kendt af Heydrich, Eichmann og Müller m.fl..
Dette må betyde, at deltagerne ikke har drøftet, om de tyske jøder skulle myrdes, men snarere - som Eichmann senere bekræftede - først og fremmest, hvorledes de fremover skulle myrdes. Ingen drøfter, om noget, der allerede er sket, måske skal ske. Beslutningen om de tyske jøder må have været truffet mange måneder tidligere. Den blev bestemt ikke truffet i Wannsee i januar 1942.
Så er der Goebbels. Af hans dagbøger fra netop denne periode fremgår det. at Goebbels lægger et vist pres på Hitler for at få gjort Berlin jødefri. Den 22. november bemærker Goebbels ret forbløffende , at godt nok skal jøderne evakueres fra Tyskland by for by, men at det stadig ikke er besluttet, "hvornår turen kommer til Berlin" ("wann Berlin an die Reihe kommt"). Vidste Goebbels da ikke, at der allerede var afgået en transport fra Berlin den 17. november? Når man samtidig tager i betragtning, at Goebbels ikke var repræsenteret ved mødet i Wannsee i januar 1942, så åbner dette en mulighed for den formodning, at Goebbels ikke altid har været fuldtud underrettet om de jødedeportationer, han ellers gik så meget op i. Selv om Goebbels i dagbogen den 24. september 1941 noterer, at han har drøftet jødespørgsmålet med Heydrich, så er dette ikke ensbetydende med, at Heydrich har lagt alle kort på bordet. Åbenhjertighed var aldrig en af Heydrichs stærkeste sider.
Endelig er der Hitlers velkendt profeti, som har været kendt af alle. Her gør han jødernes fysiske udryddelse afhængig af, at der atter udbryder en verdenskrig, som den internationale finansjødedom efter hans overbevisning jo vil bære ansvaret for.
Forskere, der hælder til, at Hitler først har besluttet sig omkring midten af december 1941, tager altså hans hvis-så profeti for pålydende.
En alternativ udlægning vil snarere tyde Hitlers profeti som et påskud eller røgslør. Der er, forekommer det mig, en god mulighed for at Hitler allerede har besluttet sig for længe siden, meget længe siden. Spørgsmålet kræver en nærmere undersøgelse af den historiske baggrund for at han allerede i Mein Kampf betegner sig selv som "fanatisk antisemit", der ser sig selv som en Messias, der skal frelse kloden for den jødiske pest. Hvad han manglede, var blot et godt og tilsyneladende ikke urimeligt påskud for at omsætte sine hensigter i praksis.
Profetien i Rigsdagen i 1939, har ikke blot haft til formål, at advare den internationale finansjødedom. Den har også, eller rettere, haft et andet formål, som kun fremgår, når man betragter de bevarede optagelser og noterer sig de tilstedeværendes reaktion på talen - stormende bifald. Hitler har altså med sin profeti ønsket at lodde stemningen og sikre sig sit folks støtte til sit udryddelsesprojekt. Profetien skal lodde stemningen.
Her, som ved flere senere lejligheder, modtog han stormende bifald, når han truede med jødernes fysiske udryddelse - også selv om broderparten allerede var blevet udryddet. Hitler mente vel med denne forførelseskunst, at have sit folk bag sig.
Dr. phil. Christian Lindtner
11-02-2012
Men hvordan stemmer denne hypotese med følgende hidtil kun lidt påagtede kendsgerninger:Den 17. november 1941 afgik en jernbanetransport med 1006 jøder fra Berlin. 812 er kendt ved navn. Kort efter ankomstenm til Kaunas, blev de alle skudt den 25. november ved Fort IX.
Den 20. november 1941 afgik en transport med 999 jøder fra München (20 af disse fra Augsburg; 3 fra Obermenzig). Alle disse tyske jøder blev også skudt ved Fort IX i Kaunas den 25. november.
Den 22. november 1941 afgik en transport med 988 jøder (liste med 992 navne bevaret) fra Frankfurt a. M. De blev skudt den 25. november 1941 ved Fort IX i Kaunas.
Ansvaret for henrettelsen af disse jøder - mænd, kvinder og børn i alle aldre - havde Karl Jäger, chef for Einsatzkommando 3, Einsatzgruppe A (Stahlecker).
Jäger indberettede til Berlin fra Kaunas, den 1. december 1941, og han må have handlet efter ordre fra højeste sted. Hans indberetning til Berlin blev udfærdiget i fem eksemplarer, hvoraf kun ét, vist nok hans eget, er bevaret. Det er stemplet tophemmeligt, og har således kun været bestemt for en meget snæver læserkreds. Dokumentets ægthed er uomtvistelig.
De anførte kendsgerninger giver anledning til en del overvejelser. Disse og flere andre tilfælde af massemord på tyske eller østrigske jøder har været kendt af Dr. Rudolf Lange, der tog del i mødet i Wannsee i januar 1942. Og de har selvfølgelig været kendt af Heydrich, Eichmann og Müller m.fl..
Dette må betyde, at deltagerne ikke har drøftet, om de tyske jøder skulle myrdes, men snarere - som Eichmann senere bekræftede - først og fremmest, hvorledes de fremover skulle myrdes. Ingen drøfter, om noget, der allerede er sket, måske skal ske. Beslutningen om de tyske jøder må have været truffet mange måneder tidligere. Den blev bestemt ikke truffet i Wannsee i januar 1942.
Så er der Goebbels. Af hans dagbøger fra netop denne periode fremgår det. at Goebbels lægger et vist pres på Hitler for at få gjort Berlin jødefri. Den 22. november bemærker Goebbels ret forbløffende , at godt nok skal jøderne evakueres fra Tyskland by for by, men at det stadig ikke er besluttet, "hvornår turen kommer til Berlin" ("wann Berlin an die Reihe kommt"). Vidste Goebbels da ikke, at der allerede var afgået en transport fra Berlin den 17. november? Når man samtidig tager i betragtning, at Goebbels ikke var repræsenteret ved mødet i Wannsee i januar 1942, så åbner dette en mulighed for den formodning, at Goebbels ikke altid har været fuldtud underrettet om de jødedeportationer, han ellers gik så meget op i. Selv om Goebbels i dagbogen den 24. september 1941 noterer, at han har drøftet jødespørgsmålet med Heydrich, så er dette ikke ensbetydende med, at Heydrich har lagt alle kort på bordet. Åbenhjertighed var aldrig en af Heydrichs stærkeste sider.
Endelig er der Hitlers velkendt profeti, som har været kendt af alle. Her gør han jødernes fysiske udryddelse afhængig af, at der atter udbryder en verdenskrig, som den internationale finansjødedom efter hans overbevisning jo vil bære ansvaret for.
Forskere, der hælder til, at Hitler først har besluttet sig omkring midten af december 1941, tager altså hans hvis-så profeti for pålydende.
En alternativ udlægning vil snarere tyde Hitlers profeti som et påskud eller røgslør. Der er, forekommer det mig, en god mulighed for at Hitler allerede har besluttet sig for længe siden, meget længe siden. Spørgsmålet kræver en nærmere undersøgelse af den historiske baggrund for at han allerede i Mein Kampf betegner sig selv som "fanatisk antisemit", der ser sig selv som en Messias, der skal frelse kloden for den jødiske pest. Hvad han manglede, var blot et godt og tilsyneladende ikke urimeligt påskud for at omsætte sine hensigter i praksis.
Profetien i Rigsdagen i 1939, har ikke blot haft til formål, at advare den internationale finansjødedom. Den har også, eller rettere, haft et andet formål, som kun fremgår, når man betragter de bevarede optagelser og noterer sig de tilstedeværendes reaktion på talen - stormende bifald. Hitler har altså med sin profeti ønsket at lodde stemningen og sikre sig sit folks støtte til sit udryddelsesprojekt. Profetien skal lodde stemningen.
Her, som ved flere senere lejligheder, modtog han stormende bifald, når han truede med jødernes fysiske udryddelse - også selv om broderparten allerede var blevet udryddet. Hitler mente vel med denne forførelseskunst, at have sit folk bag sig.
Dr. phil. Christian Lindtner
11-02-2012
måndag 6 februari 2012
Himmlers brev til Gottlob Berger
Som jeg tit har fremhævet, er det hævet over enhver tvivl, at Hitler gav Himmler og SS ordre til jødernes fysiske udryddelse. Udmærket dokumentation herfor finder vi i en skrivelse, som Himmler sendte fra Reval den 28. juli 1942 til Gottlob Berger. Originalen kan beses i Haus der Wannsee-Konferenz i Berlin (http://www.ghwk.de/2006-neu/raum7-2.htm)
I dette dokument skriver Himmler bl.a. :
"Jeg beder indtrængende om, at der ikke udstedes nogen forordning om begrebet "jøde". Med alle disse dumme bestemmelser binder vi jo blot hænderne på os selv. De besatte østlige områder bliver jødefri (judenfrei). Gennemførelsen af denne meget tunge befaling har Føreren lagt på mine skuldre. Ansvaret herfor kan ingen tage fra mig...".
Himmler taler altså udtrykkeligt om en befaling - Befehl - og denne befaling har han modtaget fra Hitler. Hvornår, under hvilke omstændigheder og om befalingen er mundtlig eller skriftlig siger Himmler intet om. Det må være mindst et halvt år tidligere.
Tit og ofte tales om, at jøderne blev deporteret "østpå". Her skriver Himmler så det ikke er til at misforstå, at disse områder bliver judenfrei. Der er altså på ingen måde tale om, at jøderne blot blev deporteret for at blive bosat og begynde en ny tilværelse østpå. Ordren gik ud på, at udrydde de jøder, der allerede befandt sig i de østlige områder. Havde der blot været tale om deportationer, ville Himmler heller ikke her - som flere andre steder - have talt om "denne meget tunge befaling".
Indholdet af skrivelsen, der for mig at se er ægte, bekræftes af flere af Himmlers allerede kendte taler. Himmler havde et tæt forhold til Berger, der engang har udtalt, at han, Berger, nød Himmlers fortrolighed.
Det er påfaldende, at Himmler åbenbart har følt trang til at lette sit hjerte over for Berger på denne måde. Formodentlig har Himmler ikke tidligere talt med Berger om denne ordre. Dette stemmer fint med, at Himmler ved flere andre lejligheder understregede, at denne ordre og dens gennemførelse ikke var noget, der skulle tales om - men han gjorde det altså alligevel. Omstændighederne - den faktiske gennemførelse - må have tvunget ham til at forklare sig. Gennemførelsen af ordren har altså sandt nok hvilet tungt på Himmlers skuldre.
Tanken om, at Himmler skulle have handlet på egen hånd bag Hitlers ryg er også af denne grund ganske urimelig - hvortil kommer at hemmeligholdelse ville havde været en umulighed. Himmler havde mange fjender, der straks ville have orienteret Hitler. Den indledende formaning om, at der ikke skal spildes tid på at definere begrebet "jøde", er utvivlsomt et ekko af de vanskelige drøftelser omkring begrebet "Mischling", kendt fra Wannsee i januar 1942 (og efterfølgende møder).
På det tidspunkt, Himmler her skriver fra Reval - næsten to måneder efter Reinhardt Heydrichs død - er "Aktion Reinhardt" i fuld gang. Befalingen har taget hårdt på Himmler.
Nærmere hos Michael Wildt, Generation des Unbedingten. Das Führerkorps des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes, Hamburg 2008, pp. 627-642. Nærmere om Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger og dennes nære forhold til Himmler, se Heinz Höhne, Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf. Die Geschichte der SS, München 1984, passim.
I dette dokument skriver Himmler bl.a. :
"Jeg beder indtrængende om, at der ikke udstedes nogen forordning om begrebet "jøde". Med alle disse dumme bestemmelser binder vi jo blot hænderne på os selv. De besatte østlige områder bliver jødefri (judenfrei). Gennemførelsen af denne meget tunge befaling har Føreren lagt på mine skuldre. Ansvaret herfor kan ingen tage fra mig...".
 |
| Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger |
Tit og ofte tales om, at jøderne blev deporteret "østpå". Her skriver Himmler så det ikke er til at misforstå, at disse områder bliver judenfrei. Der er altså på ingen måde tale om, at jøderne blot blev deporteret for at blive bosat og begynde en ny tilværelse østpå. Ordren gik ud på, at udrydde de jøder, der allerede befandt sig i de østlige områder. Havde der blot været tale om deportationer, ville Himmler heller ikke her - som flere andre steder - have talt om "denne meget tunge befaling".
Indholdet af skrivelsen, der for mig at se er ægte, bekræftes af flere af Himmlers allerede kendte taler. Himmler havde et tæt forhold til Berger, der engang har udtalt, at han, Berger, nød Himmlers fortrolighed.
Det er påfaldende, at Himmler åbenbart har følt trang til at lette sit hjerte over for Berger på denne måde. Formodentlig har Himmler ikke tidligere talt med Berger om denne ordre. Dette stemmer fint med, at Himmler ved flere andre lejligheder understregede, at denne ordre og dens gennemførelse ikke var noget, der skulle tales om - men han gjorde det altså alligevel. Omstændighederne - den faktiske gennemførelse - må have tvunget ham til at forklare sig. Gennemførelsen af ordren har altså sandt nok hvilet tungt på Himmlers skuldre.
Tanken om, at Himmler skulle have handlet på egen hånd bag Hitlers ryg er også af denne grund ganske urimelig - hvortil kommer at hemmeligholdelse ville havde været en umulighed. Himmler havde mange fjender, der straks ville have orienteret Hitler. Den indledende formaning om, at der ikke skal spildes tid på at definere begrebet "jøde", er utvivlsomt et ekko af de vanskelige drøftelser omkring begrebet "Mischling", kendt fra Wannsee i januar 1942 (og efterfølgende møder).
På det tidspunkt, Himmler her skriver fra Reval - næsten to måneder efter Reinhardt Heydrichs død - er "Aktion Reinhardt" i fuld gang. Befalingen har taget hårdt på Himmler.
Nærmere hos Michael Wildt, Generation des Unbedingten. Das Führerkorps des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes, Hamburg 2008, pp. 627-642. Nærmere om Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger og dennes nære forhold til Himmler, se Heinz Höhne, Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf. Die Geschichte der SS, München 1984, passim.
lördag 28 januari 2012
Mr. Graf is Funny
The team at Holocaust Controversies deserves credit for having taken the time to point out numerous falsehoods in the books about Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec published by Graf, Mattogno and Kues.
According to Dr. Töben we can expect a "devastating" refutation from these three gentlemen. Devastating? Probably so - but for WHOM?
Some years ago, in 2007, Mr. Graf and a certain Bruno Montoriol published a small book: Holocaust Revisionism - The Arguments. While not intended to be so, it is actually a funny book. Here are a few examples chosen more or less at random:
1.) There were no gas vans, for there is no physical evidence of any gas vans, and there are no reliable documents. Well, there is one document, Becker to Rauff (p. 176), but this letter "is a primitive forgery", says Graf (p. 176).
Really? - Otto Ohlendorf was interrogated in Nuremberg on January 3, 1946. Asked for his opinion about this document, Ohlendorf identified Becker and Rauff, and stated that the contents was in accordance with his own experience with regard to the gas vans, that had also been used by his men in Einsatzgruppe D: "Der Inhalt entspricht etwa meine Erfahrungen und wird daher auch wahrscheinlich richtig sein." (The contents corresponds to my own experience, and is thus probably also true). (Der Nürnberger Prozess, Bd. IV, Nürnberg 1947 p. 358).
It is not seen that Ohlendorf had any reasn to lie about the gas vans, about which he provides several details from his own experience. The fact that there is no physical evidence of a given past event or thing available to us NOW, does, of course, not allow one to infer that that event or thing never existed. What has become of all the flowers in the world of the past, of which there is no longere any physical evidence! Did they never exist?
2.) To support his claim that there were no gas vans, Graf calls upon a "reliable witness" - Dr. Josef Goebbels (p. 178). The little doctor once told Hans Fritzsche that gas vans "were a pure figment of the imagination". But can we really rely on the veracity of the little doctor? Not always, according to Graf´s own words, for on p. 105 we are told that Goebbels, when writing his March 27 1942 diary "may have brought fantasies to paper". Or perhaps these were not fantasies at all? Are we to rely on Goebbels - or on Graf?
3.) When it comes to Auschwitz, Graf asserts that there is not "a single proof for the gassing of even one Jew in Auschwitz or elsewhere" (p. 113). Surely, Graf will not deny that there is hardly a single SS man who denied that Jews were gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau and many other places. In other words: We cannot rely on any SS man. The only man we can rely on is Mr. Graf, who was not even there.
4.) Graf claims, imitating Faurisson (p. 150): If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed all the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gasses..." etc. etc. In sum: " These technical considerations refute all "eyewitness reports" on mass gassings with Zyklon B without exception" (ibid., p. 151. Really? One the other hand, Walter Dejaco from the Auschwitz Bauleitung, stated, in 1972, that any large room could be used for gassing human beings. "Even this hearing room". Dejaco was one of the Germans responsible for building the Leichenkeller, also called Vergasungskeller. Many Germans used their garage or barn for gassing in those days. So, whom do we want to believe - Graf or Dejaco?
5.) When we come to Babi Yar, Graf wants us to believe that this is "just another swindle" (p. 180).
On the other hand there are numerous German and even Jewish and Ukranian witnesses etc. So again we have to choose between Graf and all those who were there.
6.) One of the main sources for Babi Yar are the reports of the Einsatzgruppen, the Ereignismeldungen, recently published by the WBG. These reports are, according to Graf, "either totally falsified, or at least manipulated on a massive scale". (p. 181) This , again, is a mere statement of faith on the part of Graf.
Ohlendorf, in 1946, confirmed that such reports were prepared, and what they contained: "Die Meldungen über Hinrichtungen wurden regelmässig an das Reichssicherheitshauptamt erstattet". (The reports about the executions were normally passed on the (Heyrich´s) Reichssicherheitshauptamt (in Berlin). (op. cit., p. 374). Heydrich and Himmler were informed, of course. So gain: Who is to relied upon - Ohlendorf or Graf?
7.) Graf asks: The mass graves - where are they? (p. 179) Answer: Have a look here, please: http://www.yahadinunum.org
8.) Graf says that there were so many Jews to be killed, and so few members of the Einsatzgruppen to do so (p. 178). Sure, there were about 3000 men and women in the four Einsatzgruppen, and that would hardly have been sufficient. So why do you forget to mention that Ohlendorf already in 1946 made it clear that members of the Waffen-SS and the Ordnungspolizei assisted them in executing the Jews? (op. cit., p. 359)
9.) When it comes to Chelmno, Graf claims that the "whole extermination camp stands and falls with the existence or nonexistence of the gas vans" (p. 166). Again, it must recalled that none of the SS men who worked there denied to existence of gas vans. So, Chelmno stands.
10.) Like all other deniers, Graf denies that Hitler issued an order to murder the Jews. In other words, Ohlendorf must, according to Graf, have been a damned liar when he stated in January 1946: "Es war ja der Befehl, dass die jüdische Bevölkerung total ausgerottet werden sollte". (There was, of course, the order that the Jewish people had to be totally annihilated). (op. cit., p. 374) Also the Jewish children? Ohlendorf: "Jawohl". Himmler was of exactly the same opinion. So was Heydrich. But not so Graf.
So here we are: On the one side we have all the SS men who did not deny the murder of the Jews etc. On the opposite side we have Graf and, to some extent, perhaps, Goebbels. Graf got it all right, the Germans got it all wrong. Surely, even Goebbels would have been amused.
According to Dr. Töben we can expect a "devastating" refutation from these three gentlemen. Devastating? Probably so - but for WHOM?
Some years ago, in 2007, Mr. Graf and a certain Bruno Montoriol published a small book: Holocaust Revisionism - The Arguments. While not intended to be so, it is actually a funny book. Here are a few examples chosen more or less at random:
1.) There were no gas vans, for there is no physical evidence of any gas vans, and there are no reliable documents. Well, there is one document, Becker to Rauff (p. 176), but this letter "is a primitive forgery", says Graf (p. 176).
 |
| Otto Ohlendorf |
It is not seen that Ohlendorf had any reasn to lie about the gas vans, about which he provides several details from his own experience. The fact that there is no physical evidence of a given past event or thing available to us NOW, does, of course, not allow one to infer that that event or thing never existed. What has become of all the flowers in the world of the past, of which there is no longere any physical evidence! Did they never exist?
2.) To support his claim that there were no gas vans, Graf calls upon a "reliable witness" - Dr. Josef Goebbels (p. 178). The little doctor once told Hans Fritzsche that gas vans "were a pure figment of the imagination". But can we really rely on the veracity of the little doctor? Not always, according to Graf´s own words, for on p. 105 we are told that Goebbels, when writing his March 27 1942 diary "may have brought fantasies to paper". Or perhaps these were not fantasies at all? Are we to rely on Goebbels - or on Graf?
3.) When it comes to Auschwitz, Graf asserts that there is not "a single proof for the gassing of even one Jew in Auschwitz or elsewhere" (p. 113). Surely, Graf will not deny that there is hardly a single SS man who denied that Jews were gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau and many other places. In other words: We cannot rely on any SS man. The only man we can rely on is Mr. Graf, who was not even there.
4.) Graf claims, imitating Faurisson (p. 150): If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed all the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gasses..." etc. etc. In sum: " These technical considerations refute all "eyewitness reports" on mass gassings with Zyklon B without exception" (ibid., p. 151. Really? One the other hand, Walter Dejaco from the Auschwitz Bauleitung, stated, in 1972, that any large room could be used for gassing human beings. "Even this hearing room". Dejaco was one of the Germans responsible for building the Leichenkeller, also called Vergasungskeller. Many Germans used their garage or barn for gassing in those days. So, whom do we want to believe - Graf or Dejaco?
5.) When we come to Babi Yar, Graf wants us to believe that this is "just another swindle" (p. 180).
On the other hand there are numerous German and even Jewish and Ukranian witnesses etc. So again we have to choose between Graf and all those who were there.
6.) One of the main sources for Babi Yar are the reports of the Einsatzgruppen, the Ereignismeldungen, recently published by the WBG. These reports are, according to Graf, "either totally falsified, or at least manipulated on a massive scale". (p. 181) This , again, is a mere statement of faith on the part of Graf.
Ohlendorf, in 1946, confirmed that such reports were prepared, and what they contained: "Die Meldungen über Hinrichtungen wurden regelmässig an das Reichssicherheitshauptamt erstattet". (The reports about the executions were normally passed on the (Heyrich´s) Reichssicherheitshauptamt (in Berlin). (op. cit., p. 374). Heydrich and Himmler were informed, of course. So gain: Who is to relied upon - Ohlendorf or Graf?
7.) Graf asks: The mass graves - where are they? (p. 179) Answer: Have a look here, please: http://www.yahadinunum.org
8.) Graf says that there were so many Jews to be killed, and so few members of the Einsatzgruppen to do so (p. 178). Sure, there were about 3000 men and women in the four Einsatzgruppen, and that would hardly have been sufficient. So why do you forget to mention that Ohlendorf already in 1946 made it clear that members of the Waffen-SS and the Ordnungspolizei assisted them in executing the Jews? (op. cit., p. 359)
9.) When it comes to Chelmno, Graf claims that the "whole extermination camp stands and falls with the existence or nonexistence of the gas vans" (p. 166). Again, it must recalled that none of the SS men who worked there denied to existence of gas vans. So, Chelmno stands.
10.) Like all other deniers, Graf denies that Hitler issued an order to murder the Jews. In other words, Ohlendorf must, according to Graf, have been a damned liar when he stated in January 1946: "Es war ja der Befehl, dass die jüdische Bevölkerung total ausgerottet werden sollte". (There was, of course, the order that the Jewish people had to be totally annihilated). (op. cit., p. 374) Also the Jewish children? Ohlendorf: "Jawohl". Himmler was of exactly the same opinion. So was Heydrich. But not so Graf.
So here we are: On the one side we have all the SS men who did not deny the murder of the Jews etc. On the opposite side we have Graf and, to some extent, perhaps, Goebbels. Graf got it all right, the Germans got it all wrong. Surely, even Goebbels would have been amused.
fredag 27 januari 2012
Massegravene i Ukraine
I et ualmindeligt ondskabsfuldt angreb på den katolske præst Patrick Desbois og en lang række gamle ukrainske bondekoner, rejser Robert Faurisson i en artikel (http://theneworder.org/news/2012/01/father-patrick-desbois-one-hell-of-a-hoaxer!/), som en nationalsocialistisk hjemmeside netop har udsendt i anledning af Faurissons fødselsdag, et spørgsmål, der lyder: Hvordan kan man vide, at der er tale om jødiske massegrave?
Hvad taler vi om?
I juni 1941 angreb de tyske styrker Sovjetunionen, herunder Ukraine. Som allerede chefen for Einsatzgruppe D, Otto Ohlendorf, gjorde rede for i Nürnberg 1946, likviderede nazisterne i dette område ca. 90.000 jøder. Moderne beregninger og ny viden sætter tallet langt højere. En første omgang blev jøderne henrettet ved skydning og ligene kastet i massegrave. Gasvogne blev også anvendt. Senere, fra 1942, blev mange af massegravene gravet op og ligene brændt i et kun delvist vellykket forsøg på at fjerne alle spor af massemordene. I de senere år har Desbois og hans medarbejdere rejst rundt i Ukraine med det formål, at identificere de jødiske massegrave.
Til dato har Desbois og hans team afhørt mere end 1500 vidner og identificeret mere end 500 massegrave. Vidnerne er typisk gamle mænd og bondekoner, der fra sommeren 1941 var vidner til den tyske besættelsesmagts massehenrettelser, ikke blot af jøder, men også af sigøjnere og andre "mindreværdige elementer".
Faurisson påstår nu, at fader Desbois er en svindler, og at de ukrainske vidner er upålidelige. Han mener, at de fortæller opdigtede historier bl.a. for at kunne tjene penge på turister, der måske vil rejse til Ukraine for at besøge mindesmærker over massegravene. Ja, Faurisson påstår endog, at Einsatzgruppen, Babi Jar og beretningerne om massehenrettelser hører hjemme i myternes verden.
Læser man imidlertid Desbois´ bog, Der vergessene Holocaust. Die Ermordung der ukrainischen Juden, Berlin 2010, efterlades man med et ganske andet indtryk, et indtryk, der bekræftes til punkt og prikke af utallige samtidige tyske beretninger: Tyske polititropper ankommer til en landsby; jøderne bliver registreret; nogle sættes til tvangsarbejde eller i ghetto, andre sættes på lastvogne, køres nogle kilometer ud til en skov eller en grus- eller pansergrav, hvor de bliver skudt. Flere ukrainske vidner beretter samstemmende, at der var "liv" i gravene tre dage efter massehenrettelsen har fundet sted.
Faurisson har naturligvis ret i, at man ikke må glemme kommunisternes massegrave, der meget vel kan have været endnu mere omfattende, end de tyske. I teorien kan der forekomme forvekslinger. Men de gamle ukrainske bondekoner var bestemt ikke så dumme, at de ikke kunne skelne mellem kommunister og nazister - især ikke under besættelsen, der jo var tysk. En af disse gamle koner, som Desbois besøgte, rejser et spørgsmål, hun ikke selv har fundet svar på, og som vel også må melde sig for andre: Hvordan var det muligt, at disse nydelige og dannede tyskere kunne gøre sig skyldige i disse forbrydelser?
Hvordan skulle hun også kunne vide, at jødeudryddelserne skete efter ordre fra højeste sted? Hun har næppe fundet på, at spørge de pæne tyske officerer, om Hitler nu også havde givet dem lov til at skyde alle landsbyens jøder!
Svaret på Faurissons spørgsmål,er altså ganske enkelt: Når to helt uafhængige kilder, de tyske og de ukrainske, stemmer overens, kan man forlade sig på dem. Fader Desbois´initiativ har hensat Faurisson i et raserianfald, der har fået ham til at benægte troværdigheden af begge kilder.
Normale mennesker ryster på hovedet og skammer sig over Faurissons tåbelige frækhed, men den nationalsocialistiske hjemmeside er åbenbart meget tilfreds med Faurissons holdning i sagen.. Dette kan undre. Disse nationalsocialister tilbeder tydeligvis Hitler som om han var en gud, der stadig lever. De er selv erklærede antisemitter, akkurat som deres store forbillede, Hitler. Men de benægter fortørnet tanken om, at Hitler var en massemorder, der logisk nok (for ham) fik udryddet en god del af "verdensfjenderne".
Noget tyder således på, at de ikke ret har forstået den Hitler, hvis guddommelige storhed de tilbeder. Nogle af dem beklager tilmed, at Hitler ikke udryddede jøderne, men vil, som sagt, ikke høre tale om, at Hitler dog gjorde et helhjertet forsøg på at gennemføre en endelig løsning på jødeproblemet.
Man kan følge det arbejde, der stadig foregår vedr. ukrainske og andre jødiske massegrave på: http://www.yahadinunum.org. Fremhæves må tillige Andrej Angrich, Besatzungspolitik und Massenmord. Die Einsatzgruppe D in der südlichen Sowjetunion 1941-1943, Hamburg 2003.
Hvad taler vi om?
I juni 1941 angreb de tyske styrker Sovjetunionen, herunder Ukraine. Som allerede chefen for Einsatzgruppe D, Otto Ohlendorf, gjorde rede for i Nürnberg 1946, likviderede nazisterne i dette område ca. 90.000 jøder. Moderne beregninger og ny viden sætter tallet langt højere. En første omgang blev jøderne henrettet ved skydning og ligene kastet i massegrave. Gasvogne blev også anvendt. Senere, fra 1942, blev mange af massegravene gravet op og ligene brændt i et kun delvist vellykket forsøg på at fjerne alle spor af massemordene. I de senere år har Desbois og hans medarbejdere rejst rundt i Ukraine med det formål, at identificere de jødiske massegrave.
Til dato har Desbois og hans team afhørt mere end 1500 vidner og identificeret mere end 500 massegrave. Vidnerne er typisk gamle mænd og bondekoner, der fra sommeren 1941 var vidner til den tyske besættelsesmagts massehenrettelser, ikke blot af jøder, men også af sigøjnere og andre "mindreværdige elementer".
Faurisson påstår nu, at fader Desbois er en svindler, og at de ukrainske vidner er upålidelige. Han mener, at de fortæller opdigtede historier bl.a. for at kunne tjene penge på turister, der måske vil rejse til Ukraine for at besøge mindesmærker over massegravene. Ja, Faurisson påstår endog, at Einsatzgruppen, Babi Jar og beretningerne om massehenrettelser hører hjemme i myternes verden.
Læser man imidlertid Desbois´ bog, Der vergessene Holocaust. Die Ermordung der ukrainischen Juden, Berlin 2010, efterlades man med et ganske andet indtryk, et indtryk, der bekræftes til punkt og prikke af utallige samtidige tyske beretninger: Tyske polititropper ankommer til en landsby; jøderne bliver registreret; nogle sættes til tvangsarbejde eller i ghetto, andre sættes på lastvogne, køres nogle kilometer ud til en skov eller en grus- eller pansergrav, hvor de bliver skudt. Flere ukrainske vidner beretter samstemmende, at der var "liv" i gravene tre dage efter massehenrettelsen har fundet sted.
Faurisson har naturligvis ret i, at man ikke må glemme kommunisternes massegrave, der meget vel kan have været endnu mere omfattende, end de tyske. I teorien kan der forekomme forvekslinger. Men de gamle ukrainske bondekoner var bestemt ikke så dumme, at de ikke kunne skelne mellem kommunister og nazister - især ikke under besættelsen, der jo var tysk. En af disse gamle koner, som Desbois besøgte, rejser et spørgsmål, hun ikke selv har fundet svar på, og som vel også må melde sig for andre: Hvordan var det muligt, at disse nydelige og dannede tyskere kunne gøre sig skyldige i disse forbrydelser?
Hvordan skulle hun også kunne vide, at jødeudryddelserne skete efter ordre fra højeste sted? Hun har næppe fundet på, at spørge de pæne tyske officerer, om Hitler nu også havde givet dem lov til at skyde alle landsbyens jøder!
Svaret på Faurissons spørgsmål,er altså ganske enkelt: Når to helt uafhængige kilder, de tyske og de ukrainske, stemmer overens, kan man forlade sig på dem. Fader Desbois´initiativ har hensat Faurisson i et raserianfald, der har fået ham til at benægte troværdigheden af begge kilder.
Normale mennesker ryster på hovedet og skammer sig over Faurissons tåbelige frækhed, men den nationalsocialistiske hjemmeside er åbenbart meget tilfreds med Faurissons holdning i sagen.. Dette kan undre. Disse nationalsocialister tilbeder tydeligvis Hitler som om han var en gud, der stadig lever. De er selv erklærede antisemitter, akkurat som deres store forbillede, Hitler. Men de benægter fortørnet tanken om, at Hitler var en massemorder, der logisk nok (for ham) fik udryddet en god del af "verdensfjenderne".
Noget tyder således på, at de ikke ret har forstået den Hitler, hvis guddommelige storhed de tilbeder. Nogle af dem beklager tilmed, at Hitler ikke udryddede jøderne, men vil, som sagt, ikke høre tale om, at Hitler dog gjorde et helhjertet forsøg på at gennemføre en endelig løsning på jødeproblemet.
Man kan følge det arbejde, der stadig foregår vedr. ukrainske og andre jødiske massegrave på: http://www.yahadinunum.org. Fremhæves må tillige Andrej Angrich, Besatzungspolitik und Massenmord. Die Einsatzgruppe D in der südlichen Sowjetunion 1941-1943, Hamburg 2003.
onsdag 25 januari 2012
Wannsee Madness
Carolyn Yeager discussed the Wannsee Conference and "that alleged meeting" here: http://carolynyeager.net/heretics%E2%80%99-hour-wannsee-protocol-1942-fact-or-forgery .
She stated that Heydrich was probably not in Berlin on January 20th 1942 and even makes the bold claim that it is all a matter of "media repetition and indoctrination of school kids". The Nazis had no intention of killing the Jews.
Even the average school kid should be able to tell Carolyn Yaeger that she does not know what she is talking about.
There can be no doubt that the Conference actually took place in January 1942. Some of the participants, who were invited by Heydrich, were interrogated after the war - in 1947 - by Robert M. W. Kempner:
1. Dr. Stuckart admitted: "Yes, I did take part in such a meeting (Besprechung)".
2. Klopfer admitted that he was present, and that he was familiar with the expression "Endlösung der Judenfrage" from a letter from Heydrich to Bormann.
3. Dr. Leibbrandt admitted that he was present, and that the invitation came from Heydrich. Later, he reported to Rosenberg that he did not approve of the suggestions made at the meeting.
4. Kritzinger was also present, and confirmed that Heydrich had spoken about the deportation of the Jews. He even confirmed that he had heard about gas chambers for Jews.
5. Neumann was also there, but could no longer remember anything.
6. Martin Luther was not interrogated by Kempner, but we know from other sources that he, Luther, reported from the meeting. In his diary, March 7th 1942, Goebbels noted: " Ich lese eine ausführliche Denkschrift des SD und der Polizei über die Endlösung der Judenfrage".He mentions the 11.000.000 Jews in Europe, as does the Besprechungsprotokoll.
7. Eichmann, of course, was present at the meeting, and provided many details in Jerusalem.
From these and many other independent pieces of evidence it is clear that the meeting did take place, and that Heydrich was present.
Other deniers do not deny that the Wannsee Conference actually took place. Some say that the purpose was to rescue the European Jews by deporting them to safety in the East. In the opinion of Dr. Robert Faurisson, the Jews would have to work. They would not be murdered. Those who survived would then "be people trained to hard work and they will be able to have kibbutz". Faurisson added: "Then, there will be a renaissance, a revival." (Did Six Million Really Die?, Toronto 1992, p. 344). - All this is, of course, plain nonsense and effrontery. Where is the evidence that Hitler, or Himmler, or Heydrich, when speaking of the extermination of the Jews, were seriously thinking of a "revival" or "renaissance" of the Jews!
And why did Himmler say:
"Sämtliche Juden müssen erschossen werden. Judenweiber in die Sümpfe treiben!" (All Jews must be shot. Jewish women must be pushed into the swamps)...
"Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten." (It is good that we had the hardness, to eradicate the Jews in our areas)
? ? ?
Did Hitler and Heydrich forget to tell Himmler about the plan "to have kibbutz"?
There is really no excuse for the deep and disgraceful ignorance displayed by Carolyn Yaeger.
For more about Wannsee etc., see e.g. Mark Roseman, The Villa, the Lake, the Meeting: Wannsee and the Final Solution, London 2002. - Peter Longerich, Holocaust, Oxford 2010, pp. 305-310.- Robert M.W.Kempner, Eichmann und Komplizen, Zürich/Stuttgart/Wien 1961, pp. 126-161.
She stated that Heydrich was probably not in Berlin on January 20th 1942 and even makes the bold claim that it is all a matter of "media repetition and indoctrination of school kids". The Nazis had no intention of killing the Jews.
Even the average school kid should be able to tell Carolyn Yaeger that she does not know what she is talking about.
 |
| SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich |
1. Dr. Stuckart admitted: "Yes, I did take part in such a meeting (Besprechung)".
2. Klopfer admitted that he was present, and that he was familiar with the expression "Endlösung der Judenfrage" from a letter from Heydrich to Bormann.
3. Dr. Leibbrandt admitted that he was present, and that the invitation came from Heydrich. Later, he reported to Rosenberg that he did not approve of the suggestions made at the meeting.
4. Kritzinger was also present, and confirmed that Heydrich had spoken about the deportation of the Jews. He even confirmed that he had heard about gas chambers for Jews.
5. Neumann was also there, but could no longer remember anything.
6. Martin Luther was not interrogated by Kempner, but we know from other sources that he, Luther, reported from the meeting. In his diary, March 7th 1942, Goebbels noted: " Ich lese eine ausführliche Denkschrift des SD und der Polizei über die Endlösung der Judenfrage".He mentions the 11.000.000 Jews in Europe, as does the Besprechungsprotokoll.
7. Eichmann, of course, was present at the meeting, and provided many details in Jerusalem.
From these and many other independent pieces of evidence it is clear that the meeting did take place, and that Heydrich was present.
Other deniers do not deny that the Wannsee Conference actually took place. Some say that the purpose was to rescue the European Jews by deporting them to safety in the East. In the opinion of Dr. Robert Faurisson, the Jews would have to work. They would not be murdered. Those who survived would then "be people trained to hard work and they will be able to have kibbutz". Faurisson added: "Then, there will be a renaissance, a revival." (Did Six Million Really Die?, Toronto 1992, p. 344). - All this is, of course, plain nonsense and effrontery. Where is the evidence that Hitler, or Himmler, or Heydrich, when speaking of the extermination of the Jews, were seriously thinking of a "revival" or "renaissance" of the Jews!
And why did Himmler say:
"Sämtliche Juden müssen erschossen werden. Judenweiber in die Sümpfe treiben!" (All Jews must be shot. Jewish women must be pushed into the swamps)...
"Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten." (It is good that we had the hardness, to eradicate the Jews in our areas)
? ? ?
Did Hitler and Heydrich forget to tell Himmler about the plan "to have kibbutz"?
There is really no excuse for the deep and disgraceful ignorance displayed by Carolyn Yaeger.
For more about Wannsee etc., see e.g. Mark Roseman, The Villa, the Lake, the Meeting: Wannsee and the Final Solution, London 2002. - Peter Longerich, Holocaust, Oxford 2010, pp. 305-310.- Robert M.W.Kempner, Eichmann und Komplizen, Zürich/Stuttgart/Wien 1961, pp. 126-161.
Chutzpah Congratulations!
From: Fredrick Töben.
Sent: 01/25/12 09:18 AM
"Congratulations Professor Robert Faurisson!… and you are still awaiting a response to your challenge: Show me or draw me the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz! "
Dr. Lindtner´s reply to Dr. Töben: Dr. Töben seems to have a short memory: I have - more than once - offered to show a drawing or even a photo of a Nazi gas chamber to Robert Faurisson and to the public. But first RF has to answer a few questions concerning the Holocaust. Time has shown that RF does not want to answer these rather simple questions. Nor has Dr. Töben or any other "denier" been able to answer any of these questions - to be found on the blog:
http://holocaustdenialischutzpah.blogspot.com/2011/10/professor-faurisson-needs-your-help.html.
http://holocaustdenialischutzpah.blogspot.com/2011/10/dr-toben-also-needs-your-help.html
From this one can conclude that the challenge of RF is mere chutzpah.
Dr. Christian Lindtner.
Sent: 01/25/12 09:18 AM
"Congratulations Professor Robert Faurisson!… and you are still awaiting a response to your challenge: Show me or draw me the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz! "
Dr. Lindtner´s reply to Dr. Töben: Dr. Töben seems to have a short memory: I have - more than once - offered to show a drawing or even a photo of a Nazi gas chamber to Robert Faurisson and to the public. But first RF has to answer a few questions concerning the Holocaust. Time has shown that RF does not want to answer these rather simple questions. Nor has Dr. Töben or any other "denier" been able to answer any of these questions - to be found on the blog:
http://holocaustdenialischutzpah.blogspot.com/2011/10/professor-faurisson-needs-your-help.html.
http://holocaustdenialischutzpah.blogspot.com/2011/10/dr-toben-also-needs-your-help.html
From this one can conclude that the challenge of RF is mere chutzpah.
Dr. Christian Lindtner.
onsdag 14 december 2011
The Genius of Scientific Revisionism
On his Blog, dated Dec. 1, 2011, Professor Faurisson hails Arthur Butz in these words:
"I am in the habit of calling Arthur Robert Butz "Doctor Genius". For me he is the Number One scientific revisionist of "the Holocaust".
Butz is the author of a "masterful" book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, we are told. The prominent French revisionist asserts:
"In 35 years (1976-2011) not a single historian, academic or researcher has been able to make a rebuttal to it or refute it."
This claim is typical Chutzpah. The truth is that the fundamental claims of Butz´s "Hoax" have been refuted again and again by many scholars. The fundamental claims of Faurisson´s "Doctor Genius" include:
1. The Jews were not exterminated, for after the end of the war they were still there. - A lie.
2. The Nazi euthanasia program, with its gassings, had nothing to do with alleged gassings in the camps. - A lie.
3. Leichenkeller I in Krema 2 was not a Vergasungskeller or a Gaskeller - even though the Germans said so. - A lie.
4. The "Ereignismeldungen UdSSR" were "manufactured by Moscow". - Also a lie.
The genius of the scientific revisionist is twist speak for the genius it takes to ignore reality.
Faurisson and Butz maintain that the Nazis only intended a territorial solution of the Jewish question. There was no attempt, no plan etc. to murder the Jews.
The Einsatzgruppen were not to kill the Jews, said Faurissson in 2006. The Ereignismeldungen (EM) wrote Butz in 1976, were "amateur essays", a "forgery"(Butz . p. 200).
Now, in 2011, the reports (EM) of the Einsatzgruppen (EG) have become available in print, edited by Mallmann/Angrick/Matthäus/Cüppers under the title Die " Ereignismeldungen UdSSR" 1941. Dokumente der Einsatzgruppen in der Sowjetunion, Darmstadt (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). This is a truly monumental work, the first of four volumes. It is a critical edition of EM 2 (June 23, 1941) to EM 149 (Dec. 22, 1941).
The reader will soon see that the EM contain an enormous amount of authentic information about events, persons and places etc. that cannot possibly be "forgeries" that were "manufactured by Moscow". There are vivid descriptions of NKWD atrocities and Communist crimes - the last thing that would have been "manufactured by Moscow". Very typical German, all of it.
And Faurisson´s claim that it was not the task of the EG "to kill people" is contradicted on almost each page. For instance, on p. 144, EM 27 casually reports that, "Die Liquidierungen laufen täglich weiter". The murders continue as usual.
The authenticity of the EM was never disputed by any of the Germans who prepared or read the EM that were written, not in Moscow, but in Berlin. On the other hand this does not mean that all details are correct. Comparing the EM with the available reports of Böhme, Jäger, Stahlecker etc., there are certain inconsistencies, but, as said, this certainly does not allow us to reject the EM as a whole (as some of the "scientific revisionists" have sometime done).
It is impossible to summarize the contents of the 897 pages of introduction, text and notes. There is absolutely nothing here that can honestly be described as "amateur essays". EM 106 is our main (but not our only) source for the Babij Jar massacre of Sept. 29 & 30, 1941. Dryly, the report states (p. 642):
"In Zusammenarbeit mit dem Gruppenstabe und 2 Kommandos des Polizeiregiments Süd hat das Sonderkommando 4a am 29. und 30. 33771 Juden exekutiert."
The execution is explicitly described as an "Umsiedlungsmassnahme" (ibid.)! And the report goes on:
"Dass die Juden tatsächlich liquidiert wurden, ist bisher kaum bekanntgeworden...".
Here we also have some of the photographs taken by Johannes Hähle, showing some of the Jewish victims.
Nevertheless, some of the "scientific revisionists" still claim that Babij Jar "never took place".
The unique importance of the EM as a historical source has been recognized by many scholars for long. One of the first scholarly books to make extensive use of these sources was Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges. Die Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD 1938-1942, Stuttgart 1981, by H. Krausnick and H.-H. Wilhelm.
Faurisson mentioned this book in 1990, told us that it contained 688 pages but no order or plan for the physical extermination of the Jews, thus leaving his reader with the utterly mistaken impression that it was not the task of the EG to kill the Jews.
To sum up: The genius of the "scientific revisionist" mainly consists in the bad habit of ignoring or distorting historical reality in various ways. Should you fail to pay your respect to this sort of doctored genius, you may soon see your name defamed by some of the most rabid supporters of these prominent masters of Chutzpah.
The EM contain such an enormous amount of rare information about cultural, economical, administrative, educational, religious, sociological, nosological, demographic, military and other affairs, that no serious scholar can afford to ignore them. They tell us a lot about German efficiency - and about Nazi terror and brutality.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
"I am in the habit of calling Arthur Robert Butz "Doctor Genius". For me he is the Number One scientific revisionist of "the Holocaust".
Butz is the author of a "masterful" book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, we are told. The prominent French revisionist asserts:
"In 35 years (1976-2011) not a single historian, academic or researcher has been able to make a rebuttal to it or refute it."
This claim is typical Chutzpah. The truth is that the fundamental claims of Butz´s "Hoax" have been refuted again and again by many scholars. The fundamental claims of Faurisson´s "Doctor Genius" include:
1. The Jews were not exterminated, for after the end of the war they were still there. - A lie.
2. The Nazi euthanasia program, with its gassings, had nothing to do with alleged gassings in the camps. - A lie.
3. Leichenkeller I in Krema 2 was not a Vergasungskeller or a Gaskeller - even though the Germans said so. - A lie.
4. The "Ereignismeldungen UdSSR" were "manufactured by Moscow". - Also a lie.
The genius of the scientific revisionist is twist speak for the genius it takes to ignore reality.
Faurisson and Butz maintain that the Nazis only intended a territorial solution of the Jewish question. There was no attempt, no plan etc. to murder the Jews.
The Einsatzgruppen were not to kill the Jews, said Faurissson in 2006. The Ereignismeldungen (EM) wrote Butz in 1976, were "amateur essays", a "forgery"(Butz . p. 200).
Now, in 2011, the reports (EM) of the Einsatzgruppen (EG) have become available in print, edited by Mallmann/Angrick/Matthäus/Cüppers under the title Die " Ereignismeldungen UdSSR" 1941. Dokumente der Einsatzgruppen in der Sowjetunion, Darmstadt (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). This is a truly monumental work, the first of four volumes. It is a critical edition of EM 2 (June 23, 1941) to EM 149 (Dec. 22, 1941).
The reader will soon see that the EM contain an enormous amount of authentic information about events, persons and places etc. that cannot possibly be "forgeries" that were "manufactured by Moscow". There are vivid descriptions of NKWD atrocities and Communist crimes - the last thing that would have been "manufactured by Moscow". Very typical German, all of it.
And Faurisson´s claim that it was not the task of the EG "to kill people" is contradicted on almost each page. For instance, on p. 144, EM 27 casually reports that, "Die Liquidierungen laufen täglich weiter". The murders continue as usual.
The authenticity of the EM was never disputed by any of the Germans who prepared or read the EM that were written, not in Moscow, but in Berlin. On the other hand this does not mean that all details are correct. Comparing the EM with the available reports of Böhme, Jäger, Stahlecker etc., there are certain inconsistencies, but, as said, this certainly does not allow us to reject the EM as a whole (as some of the "scientific revisionists" have sometime done).
It is impossible to summarize the contents of the 897 pages of introduction, text and notes. There is absolutely nothing here that can honestly be described as "amateur essays". EM 106 is our main (but not our only) source for the Babij Jar massacre of Sept. 29 & 30, 1941. Dryly, the report states (p. 642):
"In Zusammenarbeit mit dem Gruppenstabe und 2 Kommandos des Polizeiregiments Süd hat das Sonderkommando 4a am 29. und 30. 33771 Juden exekutiert."
The execution is explicitly described as an "Umsiedlungsmassnahme" (ibid.)! And the report goes on:
"Dass die Juden tatsächlich liquidiert wurden, ist bisher kaum bekanntgeworden...".
Here we also have some of the photographs taken by Johannes Hähle, showing some of the Jewish victims.
 |
| On the way to Babij Jar |
 |
| ...after the executions |
Nevertheless, some of the "scientific revisionists" still claim that Babij Jar "never took place".
The unique importance of the EM as a historical source has been recognized by many scholars for long. One of the first scholarly books to make extensive use of these sources was Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges. Die Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD 1938-1942, Stuttgart 1981, by H. Krausnick and H.-H. Wilhelm.
Faurisson mentioned this book in 1990, told us that it contained 688 pages but no order or plan for the physical extermination of the Jews, thus leaving his reader with the utterly mistaken impression that it was not the task of the EG to kill the Jews.
To sum up: The genius of the "scientific revisionist" mainly consists in the bad habit of ignoring or distorting historical reality in various ways. Should you fail to pay your respect to this sort of doctored genius, you may soon see your name defamed by some of the most rabid supporters of these prominent masters of Chutzpah.
The EM contain such an enormous amount of rare information about cultural, economical, administrative, educational, religious, sociological, nosological, demographic, military and other affairs, that no serious scholar can afford to ignore them. They tell us a lot about German efficiency - and about Nazi terror and brutality.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
fredag 18 november 2011
Don´t Show Me a Nazi Gas Chamber!
When Robert Faursisson visited Stockholm in 1992, he made a famous challenge, when he said that he had been looking for a Nazi gas chamber for thirty years without finding any. So he challenged the Swedish medias with these words:
"Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!"
Not only did the Swedish journalists but also the Scandinavian historians fail to do so. What a great pity!
This incident probably left many with the impression that there was no documentation for the existence of Nazi gas chambers. That, however, is a wrong impression, and Faurisson must have been counting on the ignorance of his audience. Faurisson often argues, even now in 2011: If there were no gas chambers, then there was no holocaust.
He knows very well, however, that there is manifold documentation for the existence of Nazi gas chambers. He also knows that this documentation is only available and known to a few specialists - including himself.
So, the French professor is fooling the public with his Chutzpah. He is also playing a trick, when he reduces the Holocaust to a mere matter of gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau.
I have often asked Faurisson to answer various difficult questions with regard to the Holocaust, and I have asked others to help him do so. There have been no real answers, only evasions, distortions, silence etc. I am not the only person who would like to have answers to my questions.
So here is my challenge to Prof. Faurisson:
Please answer my questions, and I will then show you a Nazi gas chamber!
If you still fail to answer my questions, I fear that you are not really interested in seeing a Nazi gas chamber. I will think that your real attitude is this:
Don´t show me a Nazi gas chamber!
It is now up to Prof. Faurisson to decide what we all have to think about his challenge in Stockholm.
"Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!"
Not only did the Swedish journalists but also the Scandinavian historians fail to do so. What a great pity!
This incident probably left many with the impression that there was no documentation for the existence of Nazi gas chambers. That, however, is a wrong impression, and Faurisson must have been counting on the ignorance of his audience. Faurisson often argues, even now in 2011: If there were no gas chambers, then there was no holocaust.
He knows very well, however, that there is manifold documentation for the existence of Nazi gas chambers. He also knows that this documentation is only available and known to a few specialists - including himself.
So, the French professor is fooling the public with his Chutzpah. He is also playing a trick, when he reduces the Holocaust to a mere matter of gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau.
I have often asked Faurisson to answer various difficult questions with regard to the Holocaust, and I have asked others to help him do so. There have been no real answers, only evasions, distortions, silence etc. I am not the only person who would like to have answers to my questions.
So here is my challenge to Prof. Faurisson:
Please answer my questions, and I will then show you a Nazi gas chamber!
If you still fail to answer my questions, I fear that you are not really interested in seeing a Nazi gas chamber. I will think that your real attitude is this:
Don´t show me a Nazi gas chamber!
It is now up to Prof. Faurisson to decide what we all have to think about his challenge in Stockholm.
söndag 13 november 2011
Kære Hanna - ORDNUNG und VERNICHTUNG!
På nordiske sprog findes efterhånden en stor mængde materiale om Holocaust. Grundige videnskabelige bøger finder man ikke , og da emnet jo er alvorligt, egner det sig kun dårligt til populær fremstilling. For det meste fokuseres der på Auschwitz. Auschwitz og lejrens gaskamre er i centrum - også når hensigten er at benægte, at massemordet på de europæiske jøder overhovedet fandt sted.
Benægterne henviser til de ret talrige usikre vidner, og påpeger, at det rent teknisk og fysiske er svært at forestille sig, hvordan masseudryddelser overhovedet var mulige i krematorierne og lejrens to "bondehuse". Man henviser også til, at der ikke findes dokumenter eller fysiske beviser af nogen art. Det kan jo lyde meget rigtigt, og har medført, at der mange, der tror, at Holocaust aldrig har fundet sted, men "er opfundet af jøderne".
Der foreligger her en fundamental fejltagelse. Ser man på Auschwitz i den større historiske sammenhæng, ville det have været noget af et mirakel, hvis der ikke havde været gaskamre i Auschwitz-Birkenau. De færreste synes at vide, at der var talrige gaskamre i Tyskland allerede fra 1939. Hensigten var altid, at udrydde "unyttige" mennesker på en "human" måde. Normalt blev afgørelsen truffet af tyske læger. Det siger derfor sig selv, ville jeg mene, at der må have været gaskamre i Auschwitz, af den simple grund, at der kom talrige "unyttige" jøder til Auschwitz. Hvorfor skulle Auschwitz dog danne en undtagelse fra den almindelige regel!
Den grundlæggende nazistiske jødepolitik var, fra sommeren 1941 den, at alle jøder, der ikke kunne arbejde, skulle udryddes.
Her skal det imidlertid ikke handle om de gaskamre, der efter al sandsynlighed fandtes i Auschwitz, men som nu ikke længere forefindes i deres oprindelige tilstand.
Man læser kun sjældent om den rolle, som tysk politi spillede i forbindelse med deportationerne og henrettelserne af de europæiske jøder.
Fra april til august 2011 blev der i Deutsches Historisches Museum i Berlin afholdt en udstilling om det tyske politis rolle og virksomhed under Hitler. Til udstillingen foreligger et meget instruktivt katalog, der stadig kan bestilles gennem boghandelen. Dets titel lyder: Ordnung und Vernichtung - Die Polizei im NS-Staat. Heraf fremgår, at ikke blot Gestapo, men også Kriminalpolitiet, Sikkerhedspolitiet og især Ordenspolitiet var dybt involveret i arrestation, deportation, registrering, bevogtning og henrettelse af europæiske jøder fra 1939 indtil 1945.
Himmler var øverste chef for politiets mange afdelinger. Heydrich var chef for Sikkerhedspolitiet (SIPO), og Daluege chef for Ordnungspolizei (ORPO). Müller var chef for Gestapo. Det er først i de senere år, at der foreligger meget omfattende dokumentation for de tyske politiformationers indsats i de besatte områder.
For en historiker er dette materiale meget værdifuldt. Kilderne har en helt anden kvalitet og lødighed , end de "vidner", man ellers præsenteres for i massemedierne og den populariserende litteratur. Der er tale om politirapporter, nogle fra krigens tid, andre, der er blevet til ved afhøringer af politifolk efter krigen. Overalt mærker man tyske grundighed og objektivitet. Der er på intet tidspunkt - mig bekendt - tale om at tyske politifolk er blevet udsat for tortur - af deres kolleger!
Da der stadig er så mange usikkerhedspunkter omkring Endlösung, søger man efter faste holdepunkter, og hvilke bedre holdepunkter kan en historiker finde, end tyske politifolks egne ord! Jeg har ved flere lejligheder fremhævet Wolfgang Curillas moderne standardværker om det tyske Ordenspolitis indsats i Baltikum, Hviderusland og Polen (fra 2006 & 2011).
I efteråret 1941 sendte en tysk politimand et brev hjem til sin kone, Hanna. Brevet er bevaret, det er et sikkert samtigigt dokument, og her læser man følgende:
"Kære Hanna,
Vi befinder os i en lille landsby (i Ukraine). Alle jøderne bliver udryddet (Alle Juden werden umgebracht). Men det behøver du nu ikke at tænke på! Sådan må det være!"
Da jeg for nogle måneder siden blev opmærksom på dette lille brev, bad jeg professor Faurisson om en kommentar. Han har jo ofte sagt, at tysk politi slet ikke havde til opgave at skyde jøder. Ved samme lejlighed bad jeg ham kommentere et telegram fra Himmler, politimandens øverste chef fra samme periode i 1941. Det lød:
"Alle jøder skal skydes. Jødekvinder drives ud i sumpene"
Jeg fik aldrig noget svar.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
Benægterne henviser til de ret talrige usikre vidner, og påpeger, at det rent teknisk og fysiske er svært at forestille sig, hvordan masseudryddelser overhovedet var mulige i krematorierne og lejrens to "bondehuse". Man henviser også til, at der ikke findes dokumenter eller fysiske beviser af nogen art. Det kan jo lyde meget rigtigt, og har medført, at der mange, der tror, at Holocaust aldrig har fundet sted, men "er opfundet af jøderne".
Der foreligger her en fundamental fejltagelse. Ser man på Auschwitz i den større historiske sammenhæng, ville det have været noget af et mirakel, hvis der ikke havde været gaskamre i Auschwitz-Birkenau. De færreste synes at vide, at der var talrige gaskamre i Tyskland allerede fra 1939. Hensigten var altid, at udrydde "unyttige" mennesker på en "human" måde. Normalt blev afgørelsen truffet af tyske læger. Det siger derfor sig selv, ville jeg mene, at der må have været gaskamre i Auschwitz, af den simple grund, at der kom talrige "unyttige" jøder til Auschwitz. Hvorfor skulle Auschwitz dog danne en undtagelse fra den almindelige regel!
Den grundlæggende nazistiske jødepolitik var, fra sommeren 1941 den, at alle jøder, der ikke kunne arbejde, skulle udryddes.
Her skal det imidlertid ikke handle om de gaskamre, der efter al sandsynlighed fandtes i Auschwitz, men som nu ikke længere forefindes i deres oprindelige tilstand.
Man læser kun sjældent om den rolle, som tysk politi spillede i forbindelse med deportationerne og henrettelserne af de europæiske jøder.
Fra april til august 2011 blev der i Deutsches Historisches Museum i Berlin afholdt en udstilling om det tyske politis rolle og virksomhed under Hitler. Til udstillingen foreligger et meget instruktivt katalog, der stadig kan bestilles gennem boghandelen. Dets titel lyder: Ordnung und Vernichtung - Die Polizei im NS-Staat. Heraf fremgår, at ikke blot Gestapo, men også Kriminalpolitiet, Sikkerhedspolitiet og især Ordenspolitiet var dybt involveret i arrestation, deportation, registrering, bevogtning og henrettelse af europæiske jøder fra 1939 indtil 1945.
Himmler var øverste chef for politiets mange afdelinger. Heydrich var chef for Sikkerhedspolitiet (SIPO), og Daluege chef for Ordnungspolizei (ORPO). Müller var chef for Gestapo. Det er først i de senere år, at der foreligger meget omfattende dokumentation for de tyske politiformationers indsats i de besatte områder.
 |
| Himmler og Daluege 1943 |
Da der stadig er så mange usikkerhedspunkter omkring Endlösung, søger man efter faste holdepunkter, og hvilke bedre holdepunkter kan en historiker finde, end tyske politifolks egne ord! Jeg har ved flere lejligheder fremhævet Wolfgang Curillas moderne standardværker om det tyske Ordenspolitis indsats i Baltikum, Hviderusland og Polen (fra 2006 & 2011).
I efteråret 1941 sendte en tysk politimand et brev hjem til sin kone, Hanna. Brevet er bevaret, det er et sikkert samtigigt dokument, og her læser man følgende:
"Kære Hanna,
Vi befinder os i en lille landsby (i Ukraine). Alle jøderne bliver udryddet (Alle Juden werden umgebracht). Men det behøver du nu ikke at tænke på! Sådan må det være!"
Da jeg for nogle måneder siden blev opmærksom på dette lille brev, bad jeg professor Faurisson om en kommentar. Han har jo ofte sagt, at tysk politi slet ikke havde til opgave at skyde jøder. Ved samme lejlighed bad jeg ham kommentere et telegram fra Himmler, politimandens øverste chef fra samme periode i 1941. Det lød:
"Alle jøder skal skydes. Jødekvinder drives ud i sumpene"
Jeg fik aldrig noget svar.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
söndag 30 oktober 2011
Dr. Toben ALSO needs YOUR Help!
Dr. Toben´s October 2011 comments go to show that I was not wrong in making the claim that "Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah".
He clearly claims that it is not for Prof. Faurisson to prove anything at all, for Prof. Faurisson does not make any claims himself.
But actually Prof. F. makes numerous claims, some of them even being quoted by Dr. Toben himself, e.g., "Neither here or elsewhere did there exist any order to kill the Jews."
That is a nice case of Chutzpah, or sophistry: To make a claim, and then claim that you make no claim.
I posed several questions to Prof. Faurisson without receiving any answer. Dr. Toben then turned up, but, alas, also failed to answer my questions. He simply ignored them, coming up with a few personal insults instead.
That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.
Dr. Toben launches a "definition" of the "Holocaust". I do not accept this poor definition, for it is far too narrow, and not in accordance with what actually happened. It would be like defining a car, leaving out the engine, the doors, the wheels, the windows etc. The cheap trick is to invent a stupid definition and then ascribe it, wrongly and dishonestly , to your opponent.
That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.
Dr. Toben also makes false inferences when asking for a Hitler order. From the fact that there is no WRITTEN order here and now, he infers that there never was any order at all. But there is good evidence that there was an ORAL order, as has often been pointed out by myself and others.
Thus, he not only ignores available evidence of an oral order, but also resorts to a false inference.
That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.
Finally, Dr. Toben makes various claims with regard to various trials, but they too, are - mere claims without any proofs being offered.
Dr. Toben is, of course, welcome to make all these false or empty claims. At the same time it ought to be clear to him that it is he himself - not his opponent - who is preventing an open debate on the Holocaust.
So, if he deplores that there is no open debate, that, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.
A personal note: A friend of mine finds that I am wasting far too much time on "these nuts". One should, instead, just ask these "mad deniers" to explain what Himmler had in mind when he stated, in July 1941, and in June 1944:
1. "Sämtliche Juden müssen erschossen werden. Judenweiber in die Sümpfe treiben!" (All Jews must be shot. Jewish women must be pushed into the swamps)
2. "Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten." (It is good that we had the hardness, to eradicate the Jews in our areas)
He clearly claims that it is not for Prof. Faurisson to prove anything at all, for Prof. Faurisson does not make any claims himself.
But actually Prof. F. makes numerous claims, some of them even being quoted by Dr. Toben himself, e.g., "Neither here or elsewhere did there exist any order to kill the Jews."
That is a nice case of Chutzpah, or sophistry: To make a claim, and then claim that you make no claim.
I posed several questions to Prof. Faurisson without receiving any answer. Dr. Toben then turned up, but, alas, also failed to answer my questions. He simply ignored them, coming up with a few personal insults instead.
That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.
Dr. Toben launches a "definition" of the "Holocaust". I do not accept this poor definition, for it is far too narrow, and not in accordance with what actually happened. It would be like defining a car, leaving out the engine, the doors, the wheels, the windows etc. The cheap trick is to invent a stupid definition and then ascribe it, wrongly and dishonestly , to your opponent.
That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.
Dr. Toben also makes false inferences when asking for a Hitler order. From the fact that there is no WRITTEN order here and now, he infers that there never was any order at all. But there is good evidence that there was an ORAL order, as has often been pointed out by myself and others.
Thus, he not only ignores available evidence of an oral order, but also resorts to a false inference.
That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.
Finally, Dr. Toben makes various claims with regard to various trials, but they too, are - mere claims without any proofs being offered.
Dr. Toben is, of course, welcome to make all these false or empty claims. At the same time it ought to be clear to him that it is he himself - not his opponent - who is preventing an open debate on the Holocaust.
So, if he deplores that there is no open debate, that, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.
A personal note: A friend of mine finds that I am wasting far too much time on "these nuts". One should, instead, just ask these "mad deniers" to explain what Himmler had in mind when he stated, in July 1941, and in June 1944:
1. "Sämtliche Juden müssen erschossen werden. Judenweiber in die Sümpfe treiben!" (All Jews must be shot. Jewish women must be pushed into the swamps)
2. "Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten." (It is good that we had the hardness, to eradicate the Jews in our areas)
"An Interview with ex-denier Christian Lindtner"
Holocaust Controversies interviewed me. Click on this link to read it: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/10/interview-with-ex-denier-christian.html
onsdag 19 oktober 2011
Professor Faurisson Needs YOUR Help!
The world’s absolute leading holocaust denier Professor Robert Faurisson has often complained that there is no "open debate" about the Holocaust. He has often also been helpful in making rare documents etc. available.
More than six months ago I asked him five questions about the holocaust. For reasons unknown, Professor Faurisson can or will not answer these simple questions. He either talks about something else, or does not reply at all.
In the interest of an open debate, I have now decided - after more than six months of no debate - to ask the public to help the famous French scholar answer my five questions from April 17, 2011:
1. You posited in 2006: "Neither here nor elsewhere did there exist any order to kill the Jews." Please provide one PROOF - just ONE proof - that this statement is true!
2. You stated in 2006, correctly: "The Einsatzgruppen...On the immense Russian front, they were mere 3000 (three thousand), drivers and clerks included." But why do you omit to mention that, when murdering Jews, they, the EG/EK, were assisted by some 20000 members of the Ordnungspolizei, and perhaps even more Ukrainian and Latvian and other non-German collaborators? That omission may be very misleading.
3. In discussing Babi Yar, you refer to John Ball´s air photos, and to a German document that you consider doubtful.- But why do you leave out all the other German documents? Why do you not mention the photos of Johannes Hähle, from Babi Yar and Lubny, for instance? Why do you not mention that the AA (Luther, von Weizsäcker) also knew of this mass murder? Such omissions, too, may be very misleading.
4. When it comes to the task of the Einsatzgruppen, you state that they would "have to check the identity of the prisoners and civilians. This does not mean that these people are going to be killed.” But, please, how does this interpretation of yours fit with e.g. what SS-Standartenführer Karl Jäger (EK 3) himself wrote in his report from Kaunas to Berlin, December 1, 1941: " Ich kann heute feststellen, dass das Ziel, das Judenproblem für Litauen zu lösen, vom EK 3 erreicht worden ist. In Litauen gibt es keine Juden mehr, ausser den Arbeitsjuden incl. ihrer Familien." The number of those killed by Jäger and his men (Joachim Hamann et al.) was 137.346. When it comes to the "Ziel" of the EG/EK - on whom are we to rely: On you - or on Karl Jäger? If you say that Karl Jäger - and the other commanders and members of the EG/EK - totally misunderstood the order - please provide proof - one or many, as you wish.
5. Often you repeat, "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber". You have been doing so for years. Also, you claim that the much discussed Vergasungskeller (in Krema II, Birkenau) was not such a Nazi gas chamber. You, and others, have come up with various conflicting interpretations - gas shelters etc. etc. In other words, you are saying that the Vergasungskeller was not a Nazi gas chamber but something else. So, again, please give us just ONE PROOF that the Vergasungskeller, that we are here talking about, was not a Nazi gas chamber? And why did you not mention the note about the Gaskeller by Fritz Sander & Karl Schultze? And why did you not mention the Gasprüfer for Zyklon B?
Please, Professor Faurisson needs YOUR help!
Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 19, 2011.
More than six months ago I asked him five questions about the holocaust. For reasons unknown, Professor Faurisson can or will not answer these simple questions. He either talks about something else, or does not reply at all.
 |
| Professor Robert Faurisson in Copenhagen, Denmark 2002 |
1. You posited in 2006: "Neither here nor elsewhere did there exist any order to kill the Jews." Please provide one PROOF - just ONE proof - that this statement is true!
2. You stated in 2006, correctly: "The Einsatzgruppen...On the immense Russian front, they were mere 3000 (three thousand), drivers and clerks included." But why do you omit to mention that, when murdering Jews, they, the EG/EK, were assisted by some 20000 members of the Ordnungspolizei, and perhaps even more Ukrainian and Latvian and other non-German collaborators? That omission may be very misleading.
3. In discussing Babi Yar, you refer to John Ball´s air photos, and to a German document that you consider doubtful.- But why do you leave out all the other German documents? Why do you not mention the photos of Johannes Hähle, from Babi Yar and Lubny, for instance? Why do you not mention that the AA (Luther, von Weizsäcker) also knew of this mass murder? Such omissions, too, may be very misleading.
4. When it comes to the task of the Einsatzgruppen, you state that they would "have to check the identity of the prisoners and civilians. This does not mean that these people are going to be killed.” But, please, how does this interpretation of yours fit with e.g. what SS-Standartenführer Karl Jäger (EK 3) himself wrote in his report from Kaunas to Berlin, December 1, 1941: " Ich kann heute feststellen, dass das Ziel, das Judenproblem für Litauen zu lösen, vom EK 3 erreicht worden ist. In Litauen gibt es keine Juden mehr, ausser den Arbeitsjuden incl. ihrer Familien." The number of those killed by Jäger and his men (Joachim Hamann et al.) was 137.346. When it comes to the "Ziel" of the EG/EK - on whom are we to rely: On you - or on Karl Jäger? If you say that Karl Jäger - and the other commanders and members of the EG/EK - totally misunderstood the order - please provide proof - one or many, as you wish.
5. Often you repeat, "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber". You have been doing so for years. Also, you claim that the much discussed Vergasungskeller (in Krema II, Birkenau) was not such a Nazi gas chamber. You, and others, have come up with various conflicting interpretations - gas shelters etc. etc. In other words, you are saying that the Vergasungskeller was not a Nazi gas chamber but something else. So, again, please give us just ONE PROOF that the Vergasungskeller, that we are here talking about, was not a Nazi gas chamber? And why did you not mention the note about the Gaskeller by Fritz Sander & Karl Schultze? And why did you not mention the Gasprüfer for Zyklon B?
Please, Professor Faurisson needs YOUR help!
Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 19, 2011.
tisdag 18 oktober 2011
Talk of the Town - Jeckelns Grossaktion i Riga 1941
Just som Karl Jäger den 1. december 1941 lagde en sidste hånd på sin rapport om udryddelsen af jøderne i Litauen, havde hans kolleger i Letland travlt med at løse en del af jødeproblemet i Riga. Ansvaret for løsningen af jødespørgsmålet lå her i hænderne på den Højere SS- og Politifører (HSSPF) Friedrich Jeckeln. Som HSSPF havde han navnlig til opgave at koordinere arbejdet mellem SS og de forskellige politiformationer, både tyske og lettiske.
Jeckeln havde i midten af måneden fået ordre til at likvidere jøderne i Rigas ghetto. Der var tale om en ordre fra Hitler, gennem Himmler, og Jeckeln og hans stab forberedte denne Grossaktion med vanlig tysk grundighed. At tilintetgøre jøderne, forklarede Jeckeln sine folk , var et spørgsmål om fædrelandspligt. Storaktionen begyndte tidligt om morgenen den 30. november, det var vinterkoldt og stadig mørkt. Ghettoen var blevet opdelt og afspærret med pigtråd. Jøderne blev drevet sammen i store grupper, og med godt en halv times mellemrum blev de under bevogtning i kolonner på omkring 1000 individer drevet i retning af Dünaburg. Gamle og svage og jøder med gangbesvær blev transporteret på ladet af lastbiler. Nogle blev skudt undervejs. Alle endte de i massegrave i Rumbula-skoven. Godt og vel 1000 tyske og lettiske politifolk m.fl. deltog i opgaven, der ikke kun omfattede selve henrettelserne, men også transport, kontrol, og bevogtning osv..
Denne Grossaktion kunne selvsagt ikke undgå at vække stor opmærksomhed i hele Riga. Blot på én dag havde Jeckeln og hans folk - herunder Dr. Stahlecker, chefen for Einsatzgruppe A, som allerede omtalt andetsteds - da mørket faldt på, likvideret 10- 12000 lettiske jøder. Storaktionen i Riga blev ikke blot talk of the town, men tilmed omtalt på britisk og sovjetisk radio samme dags aften.
Men det var ikke kun lettiske jøder, der endte som" sardiner i dåse" - for at bruge Jeckelns egen formulering - det var også omkring 1000 tyske jøder, der endte deres dage som dåsesardiner. Tidligt om morgenen den 30. ankom således en transport med jøder fra Berlin. Denne transport var oprindeligt bestemt til Kaunas i Litauen, men blev omdirigeret af Reichsbahn. Jeckeln handlede lynhurtigt. Jøderne fra Berlin var dårligt kommanderet af toget, før de endte i massegrave i Rumbula allerede før den første kolonne med ghettojøder fra Riga nåede frem til skoven. Samme dag, men først over middag, gjorde Himmler kl. 13:30 et meget omtalt notat i sin telefonkalender:" Judentransport aus Berlin" - "Keine Liquidierung." Dette notat afspejlede en telefonsamtale, Himmler havde med Heydrich, der på dette tidspunkt befandt sig i Prag.
Den almindelige ordre til Jeckeln lød på, at alle jøder skulle likvideres. Transporten fra Berlin medbragte et vist antal priviligerede jøder, der dannede undtagelse fra den almindelige regel. Jeckeln har vel været uvidende om dette særlige forhold, og dette indbragte ham senere en røffel fra hans chef, Himmler.
Likvideringen af alle disse ghettojøder var kun et første skridt i retning af det endelige mål. På grund af de elendige vejrforhold, dyb sne, måtte aktionen afbrydes, for først at blive genoptaget den 8. december.
På dette tidspunkt gives ordren af Dr. Rudolf Lange, den politichef, der også deltog i den såkaldte Wannsee-konference i Berlin den 20. januar 1942. Dette møde, sammenkaldt af Heydrich, var oprindeligt berammet til at finde sted den 9. december, men blev udsat. Årsagen til udsættelsen er uklar og omtvistet. Det kan meget vel tænkes, at Heydrich har lagt afgørende vægt på Dr. Langes deltagelse. Her var jo en "ekspert" i den praktiske løsning af jødeproblemet. Men netop i først halvdel af december 1941 var Dr. Lange travlt beskæftiget med praktiske spørgsmål i Letland.
Der er talrige vidner, tyske og lettiske, til den Grossaktion, der fandt sted i Riga den 30. november 1941. Jeckeln, der blev afhørt - og senere henrettet - af russerne, har ikke lagt skjul på hverken disse eller mange andre massehenrettelser, han som HSSPF havde ansvaret for.
En af de politifolk, der var til stede i Rumbula den 30. november, havde åbenbart fået nok, da han i december blev anmodet om igen at tage del i anden etappe af massakren på ghettojøderne i Riga. I hvert fald siges han at have erklæret: " Ti heste kan ikke trække mig ud til (Rumbula) igen!" Han blev fritaget for sin "fædrelandspligt".
Som man kunne forvente, har de såkaldte benægtere haft store problemer med at bortforklare massakren i Riga den 30. november 1941. Deres forudfattede opfattelse er jo den, at den tyske jødepolitik i anden halvdel af 1941 blot gik ud på at deportere jøderne østpå. Der var kun tale om en "territorial", dvs. geografisk løsning på jødespørgsmålet.
På sin sædvanlige forhastede måde har David Irving fortolket Himmlers telefonnotat på den måde, at vi her har et bevis på, at Hitler holdt hånden over jøderne. Hitler griber altså ind til fordel for jøderne, siger Irving. Hitler var altså en jødekærlig sjæl, mener Irving. Det er noget vrøvl af flere grunde. For det første nedfældede Himmler sit notat før han havde et møde med Hitler, dvs. før Hitler havde mulighed for at ytre sig om sagen. For det andet måtte det forhold, at Hitler forbød én enkelt jødehenrettelse jo betyde, at han i forvejen havde givet grønt lys for henrettelser i almindelighed. Altså kan Hitler ikke have været så jødevenlig, som Irving gik ud fra. Irving bestrider ikke selve massakren den 30. november. Han påberåber sig en vis general Bruns som vidne. Nu er det imidlertid lidt uklart, om Bruns var øjenvidne, eller blot havde hørt om massakren fra anden side.
Denne usikkerhed i forbindelse med ét enkelt usikkert vidne bliver dernæst misbrugt af Faurisson til at kaste tvivl over hele episodens historicitet. Faurisson ignorerer dermed på sin typiske måde alle de andre gode vidner.
Endelig har professor Butz i september 2008 givet sit besyv med. Butz mener, at "Keine Liquidierung" betyder, at toget fra Berlin ikke blev aflyst. Himmler og Heydrich har altså snakket om denne transport fra Berlin, og er blevet enige om at den fandt sted. Formålet med Butz´ komiske krumspring er altså at undgå enhver tale om at jøderne blev likvideret. Det var kun, siger Butz, selve transporten, der ikke blev likvideret. Den fandt sted, toget fra Berlin blev ikke aflyst! Hvad der så skete med jøderne fra Berlin, da de nåede frem til Riga om morgenen den 30. november, tør Butz ikke udtale sig om. I anden forbindelse hart Butz udtalt, at alle jøderne overlevede krigen. Det må altså også gælder de jøder, der endte i massegravene i Rumbula. For at forklare paradokset, kunne man formode, at Butz tror på kødets genopstandelse. Herom siger Butz dog intet.
Man ser altså, at de tre benægtere betjener sig af den sædvanlige metode: Enten ignorerer de bevislighederne, eller også fordrejer de dem.
Butz, der er amerikaner, tøver ikke med at fordreje det tyske sprog til ukendelighed , tilmed med støtte fra en tysker, Germar Rudolf, der siges at have støttet Butz i at "likvidere" kan betyde at "aflyse". Hvad mon en normal tysk jernbanefunktionær i 1941 ville forstå, hvis han fik at vide, at en jødetransport ikke var eller skulle likvideres? Hvad forstår en dansker eller svensker, hvis man siger til ham, at toget skal likvideres?Hvordan skulle han dog forstå Himmlers notat på den måde, at toget ikke var blevet aflyst, dvs. at toget afgik til tiden, planmæssigt?
Der er hverken hoved eller hale på den slags vrøvl og spidsfindigheder. Som man kunne vente, "glemmer" de alle at nævne den hovedansvarlige for dette kapitel af Endlösung der Judenfrage - Friedrich Jeckeln. Man kan læse mere, med udførlige kildehenvisninger, hos Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 214-243.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
Den 18. oktober, 2011.
 |
| Friedrich Jeckeln |
Denne Grossaktion kunne selvsagt ikke undgå at vække stor opmærksomhed i hele Riga. Blot på én dag havde Jeckeln og hans folk - herunder Dr. Stahlecker, chefen for Einsatzgruppe A, som allerede omtalt andetsteds - da mørket faldt på, likvideret 10- 12000 lettiske jøder. Storaktionen i Riga blev ikke blot talk of the town, men tilmed omtalt på britisk og sovjetisk radio samme dags aften.
Men det var ikke kun lettiske jøder, der endte som" sardiner i dåse" - for at bruge Jeckelns egen formulering - det var også omkring 1000 tyske jøder, der endte deres dage som dåsesardiner. Tidligt om morgenen den 30. ankom således en transport med jøder fra Berlin. Denne transport var oprindeligt bestemt til Kaunas i Litauen, men blev omdirigeret af Reichsbahn. Jeckeln handlede lynhurtigt. Jøderne fra Berlin var dårligt kommanderet af toget, før de endte i massegrave i Rumbula allerede før den første kolonne med ghettojøder fra Riga nåede frem til skoven. Samme dag, men først over middag, gjorde Himmler kl. 13:30 et meget omtalt notat i sin telefonkalender:" Judentransport aus Berlin" - "Keine Liquidierung." Dette notat afspejlede en telefonsamtale, Himmler havde med Heydrich, der på dette tidspunkt befandt sig i Prag.
Den almindelige ordre til Jeckeln lød på, at alle jøder skulle likvideres. Transporten fra Berlin medbragte et vist antal priviligerede jøder, der dannede undtagelse fra den almindelige regel. Jeckeln har vel været uvidende om dette særlige forhold, og dette indbragte ham senere en røffel fra hans chef, Himmler.
Likvideringen af alle disse ghettojøder var kun et første skridt i retning af det endelige mål. På grund af de elendige vejrforhold, dyb sne, måtte aktionen afbrydes, for først at blive genoptaget den 8. december.
På dette tidspunkt gives ordren af Dr. Rudolf Lange, den politichef, der også deltog i den såkaldte Wannsee-konference i Berlin den 20. januar 1942. Dette møde, sammenkaldt af Heydrich, var oprindeligt berammet til at finde sted den 9. december, men blev udsat. Årsagen til udsættelsen er uklar og omtvistet. Det kan meget vel tænkes, at Heydrich har lagt afgørende vægt på Dr. Langes deltagelse. Her var jo en "ekspert" i den praktiske løsning af jødeproblemet. Men netop i først halvdel af december 1941 var Dr. Lange travlt beskæftiget med praktiske spørgsmål i Letland.
Der er talrige vidner, tyske og lettiske, til den Grossaktion, der fandt sted i Riga den 30. november 1941. Jeckeln, der blev afhørt - og senere henrettet - af russerne, har ikke lagt skjul på hverken disse eller mange andre massehenrettelser, han som HSSPF havde ansvaret for.
En af de politifolk, der var til stede i Rumbula den 30. november, havde åbenbart fået nok, da han i december blev anmodet om igen at tage del i anden etappe af massakren på ghettojøderne i Riga. I hvert fald siges han at have erklæret: " Ti heste kan ikke trække mig ud til (Rumbula) igen!" Han blev fritaget for sin "fædrelandspligt".
Som man kunne forvente, har de såkaldte benægtere haft store problemer med at bortforklare massakren i Riga den 30. november 1941. Deres forudfattede opfattelse er jo den, at den tyske jødepolitik i anden halvdel af 1941 blot gik ud på at deportere jøderne østpå. Der var kun tale om en "territorial", dvs. geografisk løsning på jødespørgsmålet.
På sin sædvanlige forhastede måde har David Irving fortolket Himmlers telefonnotat på den måde, at vi her har et bevis på, at Hitler holdt hånden over jøderne. Hitler griber altså ind til fordel for jøderne, siger Irving. Hitler var altså en jødekærlig sjæl, mener Irving. Det er noget vrøvl af flere grunde. For det første nedfældede Himmler sit notat før han havde et møde med Hitler, dvs. før Hitler havde mulighed for at ytre sig om sagen. For det andet måtte det forhold, at Hitler forbød én enkelt jødehenrettelse jo betyde, at han i forvejen havde givet grønt lys for henrettelser i almindelighed. Altså kan Hitler ikke have været så jødevenlig, som Irving gik ud fra. Irving bestrider ikke selve massakren den 30. november. Han påberåber sig en vis general Bruns som vidne. Nu er det imidlertid lidt uklart, om Bruns var øjenvidne, eller blot havde hørt om massakren fra anden side.
Denne usikkerhed i forbindelse med ét enkelt usikkert vidne bliver dernæst misbrugt af Faurisson til at kaste tvivl over hele episodens historicitet. Faurisson ignorerer dermed på sin typiske måde alle de andre gode vidner.
Endelig har professor Butz i september 2008 givet sit besyv med. Butz mener, at "Keine Liquidierung" betyder, at toget fra Berlin ikke blev aflyst. Himmler og Heydrich har altså snakket om denne transport fra Berlin, og er blevet enige om at den fandt sted. Formålet med Butz´ komiske krumspring er altså at undgå enhver tale om at jøderne blev likvideret. Det var kun, siger Butz, selve transporten, der ikke blev likvideret. Den fandt sted, toget fra Berlin blev ikke aflyst! Hvad der så skete med jøderne fra Berlin, da de nåede frem til Riga om morgenen den 30. november, tør Butz ikke udtale sig om. I anden forbindelse hart Butz udtalt, at alle jøderne overlevede krigen. Det må altså også gælder de jøder, der endte i massegravene i Rumbula. For at forklare paradokset, kunne man formode, at Butz tror på kødets genopstandelse. Herom siger Butz dog intet.
Man ser altså, at de tre benægtere betjener sig af den sædvanlige metode: Enten ignorerer de bevislighederne, eller også fordrejer de dem.
Butz, der er amerikaner, tøver ikke med at fordreje det tyske sprog til ukendelighed , tilmed med støtte fra en tysker, Germar Rudolf, der siges at have støttet Butz i at "likvidere" kan betyde at "aflyse". Hvad mon en normal tysk jernbanefunktionær i 1941 ville forstå, hvis han fik at vide, at en jødetransport ikke var eller skulle likvideres? Hvad forstår en dansker eller svensker, hvis man siger til ham, at toget skal likvideres?Hvordan skulle han dog forstå Himmlers notat på den måde, at toget ikke var blevet aflyst, dvs. at toget afgik til tiden, planmæssigt?
Der er hverken hoved eller hale på den slags vrøvl og spidsfindigheder. Som man kunne vente, "glemmer" de alle at nævne den hovedansvarlige for dette kapitel af Endlösung der Judenfrage - Friedrich Jeckeln. Man kan læse mere, med udførlige kildehenvisninger, hos Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 214-243.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
Den 18. oktober, 2011.
måndag 3 oktober 2011
Welcome to Maly Trostinec!
Once the deniers claim that it was not the intention of Hitler to have the Jews exterminated, they are forced to explain what, then, actually happened to the Jews who were deported to the East.
Mr. Mattogno and Mr. Graf - one of "the heavies of Revisionism", according to Dr. F. Toben - face this puzzle in their 2002 book about Treblinka. Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager?, pp. 316-325. The title of this chapter reads, "Das Endziel der nach Osten deportierten Juden". What, then, was the Endziel of the European Jews in, say, 1942?
The authors admit that, due to lack of documentation, they are unable to say with certainty where or what the final goal of the deportations of European Jews actually was. Various German sources are quoted to the effect that the Jews are living and working in the East. Camps like Treblinka and Sobibor were, therefore, not at all extermination camps. They were not the final destination; they were merely transit camps. From here, the Jews would "cross the border", and go East - to a new and happy life - or how?
Despite their contempt for "official German historians", the authors end by quoting C. Gerlach, who writes (p. 325) that the Jews were brought by train to Minsk. That the Jews were also brought by train to Minsk is quite true. But the question is: What happened to the Jews once they arrived in Minsk?
Are the authors in good faith when claiming that we have no documentation for what happened once they arrived by train e.g. in Minsk?
The fact is that we have very good German documentation for what actully happened to at least a good deal of the Jews who arrived in Minsk by train, and that we, moreover, have had this documentation at least since 1965, when, in Vienna, Fritz Baaede et al.edited the book "Unsere Ehre heisst Treue". Kriegstagebuch des Kommandostabes des Reichführer-SS, Tätigkeitsberichte der 1. und 2. SS-Inf.-Brigade, der 1. SS-Kav.-Brigade und von Sonderkommando der Waffen-SS.
More recently, these sources were also used by Alfred Gottwaldt & Diana Schulle, Die "Judendeportationen" aus dem Deutschen Reich 1941-1945, Wiesbaden 2005.
One of those Germans who already in 1965 could have helped Mattogno and Graf solve the problem of what happened to European Jews who arrived in Minsk, was SS-Unterscharführer Arlt.
Arlt, stationed in Minsk, wrote a report dated May 17, 1942. Here we read:
"Am 4. Mai 1942 gingen wir bereits wieder daran, neue Gruben in der Nähe des Gutes vom Kdr. (Kommandeur) selbst auszuheben. Auch diese Arbeiten nahmen 4 Tage in Anspruch. Am 11. Mai traf ein Transport mit Juden (1000 Stück) aus Wien in Minsk ein, und wurden gleich vom Bahnhof zur obengenannten Grube geschafft. Dazu war der Zug direkt an der Grube eingesetzt. Am 13. Mai beaufsichtigten 8 Mann die Ausgrabung einer weiteren Grube, da in nächter Zeit abermals ein Transport mit Juden aus dem Reich hier eintreffen soll."
There are several similar reports from Arlt from this period, and they fit nicely with what we know independently about the number, dates etc. of the trains that left Vienna for Minsk and other destinations in the East.
In the following months, June, July, August and September, trains arrived in Minsk not just from Vienna, but also from Königsberg/Berlin, Theresienstadt and Köln.
In September 1942 huge transports of Jews from Theresienstadt were directed to Treblinka. The numbers of the trains and the number of the Jews on these trains are known. For details, see Gottwaldt & Schulle, op. cit., pp. 237-247.
It is a great pity that Arlt and Maly Trostinec are never mentioned by Faurisson and his imitators. Why do the deniers ignore these important sources?
The picture we get from reading Arlt´s contemporary reports leaves us in no doubt about the "Endziel" of thousands of European Jews who were deported to Minsk and Maly Trostinec: Here the SS and the mass graves were waiting for them.
It was certainly not wrong when Himmler, in a speech given in the Haus der Flieger in Berlin, June 9, 1942 said:
"Die Völkerwanderung der Juden werden wir in einem Jahr bestimmt fertig haben; dann wandert keiner mehr" (Geheimreden, 1974, p. 159).
But it was not the full truth; Himmler was vague - understandably so. What happened to the Jews was a "Geheime Reichssache".
In Posen, on October 4, 1943, Himmler was more explicit (ibid., p. 169):
"Es musste der schwere Entschluss gefasst werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen."
Unterscharführer Arlt and his men would have know precisely what Himmler was aiming at. How can deniers still pretend to be ignorant of these obvious facts?
Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 3, 2011
Mr. Mattogno and Mr. Graf - one of "the heavies of Revisionism", according to Dr. F. Toben - face this puzzle in their 2002 book about Treblinka. Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager?, pp. 316-325. The title of this chapter reads, "Das Endziel der nach Osten deportierten Juden". What, then, was the Endziel of the European Jews in, say, 1942?
The authors admit that, due to lack of documentation, they are unable to say with certainty where or what the final goal of the deportations of European Jews actually was. Various German sources are quoted to the effect that the Jews are living and working in the East. Camps like Treblinka and Sobibor were, therefore, not at all extermination camps. They were not the final destination; they were merely transit camps. From here, the Jews would "cross the border", and go East - to a new and happy life - or how?
Despite their contempt for "official German historians", the authors end by quoting C. Gerlach, who writes (p. 325) that the Jews were brought by train to Minsk. That the Jews were also brought by train to Minsk is quite true. But the question is: What happened to the Jews once they arrived in Minsk?
Are the authors in good faith when claiming that we have no documentation for what happened once they arrived by train e.g. in Minsk?
The fact is that we have very good German documentation for what actully happened to at least a good deal of the Jews who arrived in Minsk by train, and that we, moreover, have had this documentation at least since 1965, when, in Vienna, Fritz Baaede et al.edited the book "Unsere Ehre heisst Treue". Kriegstagebuch des Kommandostabes des Reichführer-SS, Tätigkeitsberichte der 1. und 2. SS-Inf.-Brigade, der 1. SS-Kav.-Brigade und von Sonderkommando der Waffen-SS.
More recently, these sources were also used by Alfred Gottwaldt & Diana Schulle, Die "Judendeportationen" aus dem Deutschen Reich 1941-1945, Wiesbaden 2005.
One of those Germans who already in 1965 could have helped Mattogno and Graf solve the problem of what happened to European Jews who arrived in Minsk, was SS-Unterscharführer Arlt.
Arlt, stationed in Minsk, wrote a report dated May 17, 1942. Here we read:
"Am 4. Mai 1942 gingen wir bereits wieder daran, neue Gruben in der Nähe des Gutes vom Kdr. (Kommandeur) selbst auszuheben. Auch diese Arbeiten nahmen 4 Tage in Anspruch. Am 11. Mai traf ein Transport mit Juden (1000 Stück) aus Wien in Minsk ein, und wurden gleich vom Bahnhof zur obengenannten Grube geschafft. Dazu war der Zug direkt an der Grube eingesetzt. Am 13. Mai beaufsichtigten 8 Mann die Ausgrabung einer weiteren Grube, da in nächter Zeit abermals ein Transport mit Juden aus dem Reich hier eintreffen soll."
There are several similar reports from Arlt from this period, and they fit nicely with what we know independently about the number, dates etc. of the trains that left Vienna for Minsk and other destinations in the East.
In the following months, June, July, August and September, trains arrived in Minsk not just from Vienna, but also from Königsberg/Berlin, Theresienstadt and Köln.
In September 1942 huge transports of Jews from Theresienstadt were directed to Treblinka. The numbers of the trains and the number of the Jews on these trains are known. For details, see Gottwaldt & Schulle, op. cit., pp. 237-247.
It is a great pity that Arlt and Maly Trostinec are never mentioned by Faurisson and his imitators. Why do the deniers ignore these important sources?
The picture we get from reading Arlt´s contemporary reports leaves us in no doubt about the "Endziel" of thousands of European Jews who were deported to Minsk and Maly Trostinec: Here the SS and the mass graves were waiting for them.
It was certainly not wrong when Himmler, in a speech given in the Haus der Flieger in Berlin, June 9, 1942 said:
"Die Völkerwanderung der Juden werden wir in einem Jahr bestimmt fertig haben; dann wandert keiner mehr" (Geheimreden, 1974, p. 159).
But it was not the full truth; Himmler was vague - understandably so. What happened to the Jews was a "Geheime Reichssache".
In Posen, on October 4, 1943, Himmler was more explicit (ibid., p. 169):
"Es musste der schwere Entschluss gefasst werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen."
Unterscharführer Arlt and his men would have know precisely what Himmler was aiming at. How can deniers still pretend to be ignorant of these obvious facts?
Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 3, 2011
söndag 2 oktober 2011
The Ladies of Libau
The executions of the Jews of Libau (Lijepaja) in Latvia started already in July 1941, and one of the good things about these otherwise awful events is that they are so well documented by reliable German primary souces of various kinds. See, for instance, Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen, Volker Riess, "Schöne Zeiten". Judenmord aus der Sicht der Täter und Gaffer, Frankfurt am Main 1988, pp. 122-129 (with sources, p. 253).
Unfortunately, the name of the person who took the eight photographs reproduced on pp. 123, 125, 127 and 128 has not been identified. There can hardly be any doubt that they record executions that took place in December 1941 not far from Libau itself. On page 123 we see two photographs with the (modern) text: "Libau, am 15.Dezember 1941: Jüdische Frauen müssen sich in der Kälte und vor dem Augen ihrer Mörder ausziehen."
Now, Udo Walendy, in the book edited by Ernst Gauss in 2000, Dissecting the Holocaust, p. 258, provides us with two slightly different reproductions of the second of these photographs. One is a bit darker than the other. Both are somewhat blurred. Walendy speaks of "total fabrications". He writes:
"The same goes for Group 17, purported to show naked inmates prior to mass executions in Latvia. It speaks for itself that several versions of these pictures exist (ref. given by U.W. in note 44; CL). The left one especially cannot be called a photo. At the best, it is a painting based on a photo. Compare the two women in the background who appear to have been drawn in."
It is not easy for us to subscribe to Walendy´s opinion about "Group 17", the ladies of Libau:
First, one would like to know, why Walendy does not say anything about the other photographs - especially the first one reproduced on p. 123 of "Schöne Zeiten". Is this also supposed to be "a painting based on a photo"? In that case, one may ask: What did the original photo look like, and why was it used for a painting?
Moreover: Is it really fair to speak of "several versions"? Are we not rather dealing with different reproductions, some being less blurred that others? The clearest one being the one reproduced on p. 123 of "Schöne Zeiten". It is certainly not a new "version", just another reproduction of the same original(s).
Walendy also invites us to look at the two women in the background "who appear to have been drawn in".
To my eye they do NOT appear to have been drawn in. But even if one were to assume, argumenti causa, that these two naked women had been drawn in, why, then, one may ask, were they drawn in? There must have been a reason for someone having decided to do so. There were already several naked women on the photo - so whay add more? But, as said, this is just for the sake of argument. Looking at reproduction of Walendy´s two women as to be seen on p. 123 of "Schöne Zeiten", there is nothing to suggest that they were "drawn in".
Now, even if Walendy were to argue that one of the eight photographs belonged to a group that he called "total fabrications", what about all the other - seven - photographs belonging to this series? Are they also "paintings" based on a photo? Where is that photo now? What did that photo look like? Why did the unknown painter decide to make a paiting based on a photo? What kind of changes did the unknown painter introduce?
To sum up: The picture with the two naked women in the background is a photo, not a painting based on an unknown photo. The same goes for the other pictures from Libau. They are not the paintings of any unknown painter.
Again: Udo Walendy fails to ask these questions. When faced with a photo that he does not like, he merely states that it is not a photo.
Details about the executions of the Jews from Libau and many other locations in Latvia may be found in Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 286-304 ("Einsatzkommando 2/KdS Lettland").
The photographs from the executions near Libau are rare, bot not unique. Some very fine photographs of Jews on their way to execution, then next to the mass grave, and, finally, in the mass grave are to be found in the recent standard work of Wolfgang Curilla, Der Judenmord in Polen und die deutsche Ordnungspolizei 1939-1945, Paderborn 2011, next to page 532. These executions of Jews by German police (belonging to units that can be identified precisely) already took place on November 11, 1939 in Ostrow Mazowiecki, in Poland.
It being absolutely impossible to argue that these original German photographs from November 1939 are "total fabrications", there is really nothing strange in the fact that similar photographs were taken two years later, this time in Latvia.
Photographs taken in themselves do not tell us the full story. But taken together with other supplementary pieces of evidence, they may form a precious source for a vivid understanding of what actually happened in the past.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 2, 2011
Now, Udo Walendy, in the book edited by Ernst Gauss in 2000, Dissecting the Holocaust, p. 258, provides us with two slightly different reproductions of the second of these photographs. One is a bit darker than the other. Both are somewhat blurred. Walendy speaks of "total fabrications". He writes:
"The same goes for Group 17, purported to show naked inmates prior to mass executions in Latvia. It speaks for itself that several versions of these pictures exist (ref. given by U.W. in note 44; CL). The left one especially cannot be called a photo. At the best, it is a painting based on a photo. Compare the two women in the background who appear to have been drawn in."
It is not easy for us to subscribe to Walendy´s opinion about "Group 17", the ladies of Libau:
First, one would like to know, why Walendy does not say anything about the other photographs - especially the first one reproduced on p. 123 of "Schöne Zeiten". Is this also supposed to be "a painting based on a photo"? In that case, one may ask: What did the original photo look like, and why was it used for a painting?
Moreover: Is it really fair to speak of "several versions"? Are we not rather dealing with different reproductions, some being less blurred that others? The clearest one being the one reproduced on p. 123 of "Schöne Zeiten". It is certainly not a new "version", just another reproduction of the same original(s).
Walendy also invites us to look at the two women in the background "who appear to have been drawn in".
To my eye they do NOT appear to have been drawn in. But even if one were to assume, argumenti causa, that these two naked women had been drawn in, why, then, one may ask, were they drawn in? There must have been a reason for someone having decided to do so. There were already several naked women on the photo - so whay add more? But, as said, this is just for the sake of argument. Looking at reproduction of Walendy´s two women as to be seen on p. 123 of "Schöne Zeiten", there is nothing to suggest that they were "drawn in".
Now, even if Walendy were to argue that one of the eight photographs belonged to a group that he called "total fabrications", what about all the other - seven - photographs belonging to this series? Are they also "paintings" based on a photo? Where is that photo now? What did that photo look like? Why did the unknown painter decide to make a paiting based on a photo? What kind of changes did the unknown painter introduce?
To sum up: The picture with the two naked women in the background is a photo, not a painting based on an unknown photo. The same goes for the other pictures from Libau. They are not the paintings of any unknown painter.
Again: Udo Walendy fails to ask these questions. When faced with a photo that he does not like, he merely states that it is not a photo.
Details about the executions of the Jews from Libau and many other locations in Latvia may be found in Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 286-304 ("Einsatzkommando 2/KdS Lettland").
The photographs from the executions near Libau are rare, bot not unique. Some very fine photographs of Jews on their way to execution, then next to the mass grave, and, finally, in the mass grave are to be found in the recent standard work of Wolfgang Curilla, Der Judenmord in Polen und die deutsche Ordnungspolizei 1939-1945, Paderborn 2011, next to page 532. These executions of Jews by German police (belonging to units that can be identified precisely) already took place on November 11, 1939 in Ostrow Mazowiecki, in Poland.
It being absolutely impossible to argue that these original German photographs from November 1939 are "total fabrications", there is really nothing strange in the fact that similar photographs were taken two years later, this time in Latvia.
Photographs taken in themselves do not tell us the full story. But taken together with other supplementary pieces of evidence, they may form a precious source for a vivid understanding of what actually happened in the past.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 2, 2011
Dr. Stahlecker - Where Did He Go?
Dr. Walter Stahlecker was the first commander of Einsatzgruppe A, from June 1941 until his death in March 1942.
According to the most recent and very careful calculations of Wolfgang Curilla, EG A was responsible for the execution of almost 250.000 Jewish men, women and children - quite in accordance with the order issued by Hitler. (Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, p. 215)
In its Closing Statement for the US, Case 9, The USA against Ohlendorf, et al.., February 13, 1948, the prosecution concluded that the evidence was compelling, that " a German (military) victory would have enormously widened the scope of operations of the Einsatzgruppen and the holocaust (!) would have been even more staggering...the crimes of the Einsatzgruppen were not, fundamentally, military crimes at all. They were not committed in order to make military victory possible.On the contrary, military victory was sought in order to put the victors in a position where these crimes could be committed. These crimes were a war objective, not a military means" (quoted from Hilary Earl, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial 1945-1958, Cambridge 2009, p. 215)
This Statement is noteworthy for the fact that we here - to the best of my knowledge - have one of the earliest postwar applications of the word "holocaust" by the Americans to refer to what the Germans themselves normally called die Endlösung (der Judenfrage).
The US prosecution here seems to use the word "holocaust" in the sense of the executions of Jews by members of the Einsatzgruppen. In so doing, the prosecution not only refers to the operations of Dr. Stahlecker´s EG A, but also to those of the three other Einsatzgrppen, including, of course, the various Einsatzkommandos, Sonderkommandos etc.
To deny the historicity of " the holocaust" in this sense would obviously be about as difficult as to deny the reality of the sun and the moon.
Nevertheless, Professor Faurisson recently repeated his conviction that it was NOT the task of the EG, i.e. of Dr. Stahlecker and his colleagues to kill the Jews.
Professor Faurisson is, of course, entitled to maintain this startling view, but in so doing he is also obliged to explain how in the world all these enormous misunderstandings about the operations of Dr. Stahlecker and his colleagues can be accounted for? We, therefore, look in the writings of Faurisson, Graf, Rudolf and so on, to see what they have to says about Dr. Stahlecker. And what do we find about Dr. Stahlecker? Answer: Not a word!
This,then, permits us to conclude that it is a vital part of the "methodology" of Professor Faurisson and his imitators to ignore good German evidence. One cannot claim that we have no evidence about the operations of EG A and the other Einsatzgruppen. Nor can one claim that these operations have nothing to do with the"holocaust" (as used by the Americans in February 1948).
The various reports of Dr. Stahlecker were known to the public at a very early date. Parts are reproduced e.g. in the book by Léon Poliakov & Joseph Wulf, Das Dritte Reich und die Juden. Dokumente und Berichte, the first (German) edition of which appeared in Berlin 1955.
Professor Faurisson knows the book and its authors/editors - but obviously prefers to forget all about Dr. Stahlecker, one of the main characters in that book. Professor Faurisson is, of course, also entitled, alternatively, to hold his startling view without giving any reason at all for his belief. His belief is, in that case, based on a sort of mystical revelation. A geat mystic, a poor scholar!
Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 2, 2011
 |
| Dr. Walter Stahlecker |
In its Closing Statement for the US, Case 9, The USA against Ohlendorf, et al.., February 13, 1948, the prosecution concluded that the evidence was compelling, that " a German (military) victory would have enormously widened the scope of operations of the Einsatzgruppen and the holocaust (!) would have been even more staggering...the crimes of the Einsatzgruppen were not, fundamentally, military crimes at all. They were not committed in order to make military victory possible.On the contrary, military victory was sought in order to put the victors in a position where these crimes could be committed. These crimes were a war objective, not a military means" (quoted from Hilary Earl, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial 1945-1958, Cambridge 2009, p. 215)
This Statement is noteworthy for the fact that we here - to the best of my knowledge - have one of the earliest postwar applications of the word "holocaust" by the Americans to refer to what the Germans themselves normally called die Endlösung (der Judenfrage).
The US prosecution here seems to use the word "holocaust" in the sense of the executions of Jews by members of the Einsatzgruppen. In so doing, the prosecution not only refers to the operations of Dr. Stahlecker´s EG A, but also to those of the three other Einsatzgrppen, including, of course, the various Einsatzkommandos, Sonderkommandos etc.
To deny the historicity of " the holocaust" in this sense would obviously be about as difficult as to deny the reality of the sun and the moon.
Nevertheless, Professor Faurisson recently repeated his conviction that it was NOT the task of the EG, i.e. of Dr. Stahlecker and his colleagues to kill the Jews.
Professor Faurisson is, of course, entitled to maintain this startling view, but in so doing he is also obliged to explain how in the world all these enormous misunderstandings about the operations of Dr. Stahlecker and his colleagues can be accounted for? We, therefore, look in the writings of Faurisson, Graf, Rudolf and so on, to see what they have to says about Dr. Stahlecker. And what do we find about Dr. Stahlecker? Answer: Not a word!
This,then, permits us to conclude that it is a vital part of the "methodology" of Professor Faurisson and his imitators to ignore good German evidence. One cannot claim that we have no evidence about the operations of EG A and the other Einsatzgruppen. Nor can one claim that these operations have nothing to do with the"holocaust" (as used by the Americans in February 1948).
The various reports of Dr. Stahlecker were known to the public at a very early date. Parts are reproduced e.g. in the book by Léon Poliakov & Joseph Wulf, Das Dritte Reich und die Juden. Dokumente und Berichte, the first (German) edition of which appeared in Berlin 1955.
Professor Faurisson knows the book and its authors/editors - but obviously prefers to forget all about Dr. Stahlecker, one of the main characters in that book. Professor Faurisson is, of course, also entitled, alternatively, to hold his startling view without giving any reason at all for his belief. His belief is, in that case, based on a sort of mystical revelation. A geat mystic, a poor scholar!
Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 2, 2011
Faurisson film fooling the French
A French historian by the name of Paul-Érik Blanrue has just produced a video about the "man" Faurisson; it is in French and available here. Blanrue has an old interest in counterfactual history - so Faurisson is just the right man for him to focus on.
Faurisson presents all his well-known inveterate opinions about gas chambers etc., but, unfortunately, Blanrue fails to ask some of the critical questions one expects from a good historian. From an announcement just received, it is clear that Faurisson is not only pleased with himself but also with Blanrue and this video.
Here, therefore, are some of the questions the French public should ask in order not to be fooled by Faurisson´s Chutzpah.
The main point is, as always, the Nazi gas chambers.
1. Robert Faurisson (RF) shows us the famous drawing of Krema II in Birkenau, priding himself of being the first to discovery this blueprint in 1976. Here, one can see Leichenkeller I and Leichenkeller 2. RF fails to inform us that Leichenkeller 1 in early 1943 was referred to by the Germans responsible for its construction as Vergasungskeller or Gaskeller - two different terms for a gas chamber. So, these Germans were not merely speaking of normal morgues, but also of gas chambers! None of these men or their colleagues later denied that these gas chambers were for killing Jews. It is only RF , who was not there, who denies this. So, a man who was not there knows better than the men who were there! RF also forgets to mention that there were many gas chambers and gas vans used to exterminate Jews inside and outside the Reich. RF thus ignores vital evidence that invalidates his unscientific views about Nazi gas chambers.
2. RF refers to a French historian, Conan, who some years ago pointed out that with regard to Krematorium 1 in Auschwitz, "all is false". RF should have told the public that the fact that "all is false" NOW, by no means allows us to infer that there was no gassings in that building THEN. RF seems to have learned some of his tricks from the Allies - who were full of them!
3. Likewise, RF compares the Nazi gas chambers of Birkenau to American gas chambers. He should, of course have compared German gas chambers to GERMAN gas chambers - NOT American gas chambers. Making false comparisons is a cheap trick.
4. RF also fools his French viewers when he claims a victory over Hilberg and Vrba. It is true that Hilberg, in the first edition of his standard work on the extermination of the European Jews, , had a note about Hitler orders to kill the Jews, and that Hilberg deleted that note after the first Zündel trial in Toronto. But it is WRONG thereby to suggest that Hilberg admitted that Hitler had given no such order. RF should have mentioned that Hilberg never abandoned his view that there must have been a Hitler order to that effect. That we have no such order in Hitler´s own hand, is only what was to be expected. When it comes to Vrba, it is true that his testimony proved unreliable.
But it is WRONG to claim that Vrba was the main witness for gas chambers in Auschwitz. Again and again, RF jumps to conclusions. Many unreliable witnesses to a given event, does NOT mean that that event did not take place. It merely shows confusionn or dishonesty, or the like. Had he been an honest seeker after historical truth, RF would have called the attention of his French viewers to the most recent and exhaustive discussion about Hitler´s order to kill the Jews. It is to be found in the standard work of Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 86-123. Having reviewed all the numerous available German sources, Curilla concludes that there was, for sure, a Hitler order to kill ALL Jews, including women and children, and that that order, almost certainly, was given before June 22, 1941.
Only a pilpulist keeps on demanding that one shows him a piece of paper signed by the Führer: Kill all the Jews!
5. RF also refers to Höss.It is quite true that Höss was beaten up and that his testimony sometimes is unreliable. But this fact does NOT permit us to conclude that ALL that Höss said or wrote has to be discarded. When Höss says or writes things that can be independently confirmed from other sources, there is no reason to discard his testimony. It is, surely, the same with RF: The fact that RF says or writes many things that are unreliable, does NOT mean that ALL that he says or writes is totally unreliable. We do not want to be unfair to Höss, and we do not want to be unfair to Faurisson.
6. Finally, the 6 million figure. This figure was often mentioned by Zionists even long before the Second World War. Who could, in those days, have any accurate notion of the precise number! There were even those who claimed, in May 1945, that 6 million Jews had survived and were safe! Eichmann called the 6 million figure "Unsinn" or "Wahnsinn". The important thing is that Hitler intended to have his police exterminate all Jews, and that Himmler also admitted that his men had done what they could to implement the order of Hitler.
The fact that PRECISELY 6 million Jews were not murdered by the Nazis , does NOT allow us to infer that "they were all there" in 1945. These are but some of the facts the public in France have to keep in mind not to be completely fooled by Professor Faurisson´s "counterfactual history"..
Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 1, 2011
Faurisson presents all his well-known inveterate opinions about gas chambers etc., but, unfortunately, Blanrue fails to ask some of the critical questions one expects from a good historian. From an announcement just received, it is clear that Faurisson is not only pleased with himself but also with Blanrue and this video.
Here, therefore, are some of the questions the French public should ask in order not to be fooled by Faurisson´s Chutzpah.
The main point is, as always, the Nazi gas chambers.
1. Robert Faurisson (RF) shows us the famous drawing of Krema II in Birkenau, priding himself of being the first to discovery this blueprint in 1976. Here, one can see Leichenkeller I and Leichenkeller 2. RF fails to inform us that Leichenkeller 1 in early 1943 was referred to by the Germans responsible for its construction as Vergasungskeller or Gaskeller - two different terms for a gas chamber. So, these Germans were not merely speaking of normal morgues, but also of gas chambers! None of these men or their colleagues later denied that these gas chambers were for killing Jews. It is only RF , who was not there, who denies this. So, a man who was not there knows better than the men who were there! RF also forgets to mention that there were many gas chambers and gas vans used to exterminate Jews inside and outside the Reich. RF thus ignores vital evidence that invalidates his unscientific views about Nazi gas chambers.
2. RF refers to a French historian, Conan, who some years ago pointed out that with regard to Krematorium 1 in Auschwitz, "all is false". RF should have told the public that the fact that "all is false" NOW, by no means allows us to infer that there was no gassings in that building THEN. RF seems to have learned some of his tricks from the Allies - who were full of them!
3. Likewise, RF compares the Nazi gas chambers of Birkenau to American gas chambers. He should, of course have compared German gas chambers to GERMAN gas chambers - NOT American gas chambers. Making false comparisons is a cheap trick.
4. RF also fools his French viewers when he claims a victory over Hilberg and Vrba. It is true that Hilberg, in the first edition of his standard work on the extermination of the European Jews, , had a note about Hitler orders to kill the Jews, and that Hilberg deleted that note after the first Zündel trial in Toronto. But it is WRONG thereby to suggest that Hilberg admitted that Hitler had given no such order. RF should have mentioned that Hilberg never abandoned his view that there must have been a Hitler order to that effect. That we have no such order in Hitler´s own hand, is only what was to be expected. When it comes to Vrba, it is true that his testimony proved unreliable.
But it is WRONG to claim that Vrba was the main witness for gas chambers in Auschwitz. Again and again, RF jumps to conclusions. Many unreliable witnesses to a given event, does NOT mean that that event did not take place. It merely shows confusionn or dishonesty, or the like. Had he been an honest seeker after historical truth, RF would have called the attention of his French viewers to the most recent and exhaustive discussion about Hitler´s order to kill the Jews. It is to be found in the standard work of Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 86-123. Having reviewed all the numerous available German sources, Curilla concludes that there was, for sure, a Hitler order to kill ALL Jews, including women and children, and that that order, almost certainly, was given before June 22, 1941.
Only a pilpulist keeps on demanding that one shows him a piece of paper signed by the Führer: Kill all the Jews!
5. RF also refers to Höss.It is quite true that Höss was beaten up and that his testimony sometimes is unreliable. But this fact does NOT permit us to conclude that ALL that Höss said or wrote has to be discarded. When Höss says or writes things that can be independently confirmed from other sources, there is no reason to discard his testimony. It is, surely, the same with RF: The fact that RF says or writes many things that are unreliable, does NOT mean that ALL that he says or writes is totally unreliable. We do not want to be unfair to Höss, and we do not want to be unfair to Faurisson.
6. Finally, the 6 million figure. This figure was often mentioned by Zionists even long before the Second World War. Who could, in those days, have any accurate notion of the precise number! There were even those who claimed, in May 1945, that 6 million Jews had survived and were safe! Eichmann called the 6 million figure "Unsinn" or "Wahnsinn". The important thing is that Hitler intended to have his police exterminate all Jews, and that Himmler also admitted that his men had done what they could to implement the order of Hitler.
The fact that PRECISELY 6 million Jews were not murdered by the Nazis , does NOT allow us to infer that "they were all there" in 1945. These are but some of the facts the public in France have to keep in mind not to be completely fooled by Professor Faurisson´s "counterfactual history"..
Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 1, 2011
The Doctor who Wanted to Gas God and the World
Anyone who wants to discuss seriously, what took place in Treblinka, cannot afford to ignore the name of Dr. med. Irmfried Eberl, for Eberl was the first Kommandant of Treblinka (from July 1942). So what do the great experts of Holocaust denial have to say about Dr. med. Eberl?
Well, if we consult the index of names to the four volumes of Ecrits revisionnistes of Robert Faurisson, we find - nothing! Well, if we then consult the index of names in the "standard work" edited by Ernst Gauss, Dissecting the Holocaust, we find - nothing!
If we, finally, consult what is supposed to be the book about this camp, namely Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf, Treblinka. Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager? from 2002, we find the name of Eberl mentioned twice.
The first mention is on p. 15, a quotation from another book. On p. 143, two letters from Eberl, from June 1942, are mentioned. They contain nothing criminal at all. Now,why in the world do none of these experts tell their reader something about the background of the first Kommandant of Treblinka? To understand this omission, one must recall that their intention is to show that Treblinka was not a Vernichtungslager, but only a Durchgangslager, i.e. a place where the Jews were certainly not gassed. So we must search for other sources.
An illuminating source is found in the important work of Ernst Klee, Dokumente zur "Euthanasie", Frankfurt am Main 1985. This collection of German documents cannot be ignored by any scholars interested in what actually happened. Here, on p. 20-21, we read about Dr. Irmfried Eberl:
"Leiter der Vergasungsanstalten Brandenburg und Bernburg ("Dr. Schneider"), danach Kommandant in Treblinka, anschliessend wieder in Bernburg. Von seinem stellvertretenden Büroleiter Godensweig als "sadistisch und blutrünstig" bezeichnet. Nach T 4-Arzt Bunke wollte er "Gott und Welt vergasen".
The appointment of Dr. med. Irmfried Eber as the first Kommandant of the Vernichtungslager Treblinka was thus a perfectly logical choice. Here was the man who wanted to gas God and the Worl - probably including the Jews.
Had Treblinka been a mere Durchgangslager - a transit camp to places not found on the map - a real expect in gassing human beings would hardly have been the right choice. Many of the colleagues of Dr. med. Irmfried Eberl had a similar backgroud - they were great gassers!
The evidence for gas chambers and gas vans used during the Euthanasia programme is, as knwn, very well documented, and there is no evidence at all that Hitler, when it came to the physical extermination of the Jews, changed his brutal mind.
All this is, typically, ignored by those who still speak of "eine territoriale Lösung" to the Jewish question. The "territories" that "Dr. Schneider" had in mind were, of course the gas chambers and the mass graves. Dr. Eberl hanged himself on February 16, 1948.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
September 29, 2011
 |
| Dr. med. Irmfried Eberl |
Well, if we consult the index of names to the four volumes of Ecrits revisionnistes of Robert Faurisson, we find - nothing! Well, if we then consult the index of names in the "standard work" edited by Ernst Gauss, Dissecting the Holocaust, we find - nothing!
If we, finally, consult what is supposed to be the book about this camp, namely Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf, Treblinka. Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager? from 2002, we find the name of Eberl mentioned twice.
The first mention is on p. 15, a quotation from another book. On p. 143, two letters from Eberl, from June 1942, are mentioned. They contain nothing criminal at all. Now,why in the world do none of these experts tell their reader something about the background of the first Kommandant of Treblinka? To understand this omission, one must recall that their intention is to show that Treblinka was not a Vernichtungslager, but only a Durchgangslager, i.e. a place where the Jews were certainly not gassed. So we must search for other sources.
An illuminating source is found in the important work of Ernst Klee, Dokumente zur "Euthanasie", Frankfurt am Main 1985. This collection of German documents cannot be ignored by any scholars interested in what actually happened. Here, on p. 20-21, we read about Dr. Irmfried Eberl:
"Leiter der Vergasungsanstalten Brandenburg und Bernburg ("Dr. Schneider"), danach Kommandant in Treblinka, anschliessend wieder in Bernburg. Von seinem stellvertretenden Büroleiter Godensweig als "sadistisch und blutrünstig" bezeichnet. Nach T 4-Arzt Bunke wollte er "Gott und Welt vergasen".
The appointment of Dr. med. Irmfried Eber as the first Kommandant of the Vernichtungslager Treblinka was thus a perfectly logical choice. Here was the man who wanted to gas God and the Worl - probably including the Jews.
Had Treblinka been a mere Durchgangslager - a transit camp to places not found on the map - a real expect in gassing human beings would hardly have been the right choice. Many of the colleagues of Dr. med. Irmfried Eberl had a similar backgroud - they were great gassers!
The evidence for gas chambers and gas vans used during the Euthanasia programme is, as knwn, very well documented, and there is no evidence at all that Hitler, when it came to the physical extermination of the Jews, changed his brutal mind.
All this is, typically, ignored by those who still speak of "eine territoriale Lösung" to the Jewish question. The "territories" that "Dr. Schneider" had in mind were, of course the gas chambers and the mass graves. Dr. Eberl hanged himself on February 16, 1948.
Dr. Christian Lindtner
September 29, 2011
Fantastic revelation from Professor Faurisson!
On his Blog, dated September 11, 2011, Prof. Robert Faurisson publishes many fantastic tales under the heading "Die Siege des Revisionismus".
One of these tales is about the notorious Einsatzgruppen:
The French professor now, always proud of his own "exactitude", reveals to the world - without giving any source:
"Niemals erhielten die Einsatzgruppen den Befehl, Juden als solche zu erschiessen."
In English: "The Einsatzgruppen never received the order to shoot the Jews as such."
Really? Fantastic news!
In 1947, twenty-four leaders of the four Einsatzgruppen were indicted for having murdered approximately one million civilians in open air shootings, most of the victims being Jews, including women and children. None of these men denied this fact, nor did their boss, Heinrich Himmler.
Himmler, in fact, stated, in June 1944:
"It is good that we had the brutality to exterminate the Jews within our domain ".
It was the very same Himmler, who in July 1941 ordered his men: "All Jews must be shot!"
One of the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen, Adolf Ott, expressed himself rather clearly, when he admitted that, "every Jew who was apprehended had to be shot. Never mind whether he was a perpetrator or not." (Source: Hilary Earl, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial 1945-1958, Cambridge 2009, p. 214).
Many of these leaders were educated and intelligent Germans. Nevertheless, not only they but even Himmler must have misunderstood the orders received from Hitler.
Now, many years later, we suddenly have a French professor telling us - and, posthumously, them - that they never received such orders. These men - and thousands of other members of the SS and German police units under Himmler - must, if we are to believe this new witness, have followed orders they never received.
What a great pity that Professor Faurisson was not there in 1941 to tell them that these orders were mere illusions! So many Jewish lives would have been spared, had our French witness - then but a child - only been there to tell Himmler and all the others of their delusions!
The source of Professor Faurisson´s new revelation remains a great mystery!
Dr. Christian Lindtner
September 28, 2011
One of these tales is about the notorious Einsatzgruppen:
The French professor now, always proud of his own "exactitude", reveals to the world - without giving any source:
"Niemals erhielten die Einsatzgruppen den Befehl, Juden als solche zu erschiessen."
In English: "The Einsatzgruppen never received the order to shoot the Jews as such."
Really? Fantastic news!
In 1947, twenty-four leaders of the four Einsatzgruppen were indicted for having murdered approximately one million civilians in open air shootings, most of the victims being Jews, including women and children. None of these men denied this fact, nor did their boss, Heinrich Himmler.
Himmler, in fact, stated, in June 1944:
"It is good that we had the brutality to exterminate the Jews within our domain ".
It was the very same Himmler, who in July 1941 ordered his men: "All Jews must be shot!"
One of the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen, Adolf Ott, expressed himself rather clearly, when he admitted that, "every Jew who was apprehended had to be shot. Never mind whether he was a perpetrator or not." (Source: Hilary Earl, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial 1945-1958, Cambridge 2009, p. 214).
Many of these leaders were educated and intelligent Germans. Nevertheless, not only they but even Himmler must have misunderstood the orders received from Hitler.
Now, many years later, we suddenly have a French professor telling us - and, posthumously, them - that they never received such orders. These men - and thousands of other members of the SS and German police units under Himmler - must, if we are to believe this new witness, have followed orders they never received.
What a great pity that Professor Faurisson was not there in 1941 to tell them that these orders were mere illusions! So many Jewish lives would have been spared, had our French witness - then but a child - only been there to tell Himmler and all the others of their delusions!
The source of Professor Faurisson´s new revelation remains a great mystery!
Dr. Christian Lindtner
September 28, 2011
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)