General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Nick Terry]

You have no evidence to back up your characterization of the Trawniki vs the sondercommando.

I have plenty of evidence for this characterisation since I have consulted on a freaking Trawniki war crimes case. It is also quite obvious from the sum total of memoirs, books and articles written on camps where Trawnikis served.

If what you said is true, then all guards, Trawniki or otherwise, were murderers and merely being stationed at a "death" camp would make you guilty. Was every guard that worked at any camp punished as a murderer?

What I say is an observation which exists independently of whether different societies choose to prosecute all camp guards or not. Guards at death camps are rightly considered accessories to murder historically. As a minimum - many were also stone cold killers, like Otto Moll, or Kurt Franz.

Where's the evidence that sondercommando had no choice?

In every single court case and investigation involving a death camp is where. There is not a shred of evidence otherwise.

Where's the evidence none of them volunteered?

The very fact that the prisoners had all been deported involuntarily means that nothing they chose after being deported can be considered 'volunteering'. No prisoner knowingly stepped forward to say 'yes, please, let me help destroy my own people'. Sonderkommandos were picked out without being offered any choice whatsoever at Birkenau, and most of the time also at the Reinhard camps.

Sometimes at the Reinhard camps new arrivals were asked if there were any specialists in the transport (skilled workers) and some survivors stepped forward to say yes they were a carpenter or lied about their skills.

But this is still not volunteering. In some cases the new arrivals did not know what the camp was and did not have the chance to realise before they were selected or allowed themselves to be selected. In other cases they knew that Treblinka meant death, so the presumed choice was between staying alive or immediate death.

I know you have been asked and have never been able to explain how Jewish men and women were coerced into performing the tasks they did. Sorry but asking me if I've ever had a gun to my head isn't an answer unless you tell me how many guns were held to how many heads.

This has been explained multiple times, but you always flee the thread or ignore the answers. Coercion does not solely depend on guns. It also involves physical structures trapping prisoners into total institutions. This is Goffman and Foucault 101.

The prisoners were held inside barbed wire in camps guarded by large numbers of men with whips, pistols, rifles and machine guns. There were 150 plus guards at Treblinka overseeing 600-800 prisoners who were divided into two detachments, one in the inner camp - who had to do the really unpleasant stuff, and who were also even more isolated - and one in the outer camp.

Coercion was elaborated by systems of punishment which made it very clear to the workers that any resistance would be met with overwhelming force, that escapes would result in decimation of the prisoners who didn't escape, and that the guards would kill prisoners virtually on a whim. The guards also used the same techniques as in ordinary concentration camps, eg forced 'exercises' and other humiliations, which combined to crush the will of most of the prisoners. By the time the Nazis set up death camps, they had 8-9 years of experience in tormenting and controlling prisoners.

Despite all this coercion, Sonderkommandos did escape, did resist, and did revolt.

No I really don't understand how a little boy with an infected foot is operated on in a hospital and is recuperating in a hospital means there weren't any hospitals. Maybe you or 000063 can explain it to me.

The literature on Auschwitz, which you have manifestly not read, will answer your silly question. Argument by incomprehension is no argument at all.

 

[nomuse]

Exactly.

Unless they are very stupid Team Holocaust breaks their respective necks to look away from the realities of human nature.

There is no way prisoners, Jewish or otherwise, would essentially be sanctioning the killings by facilitating and enabling them. Why? A Nano hostile environment that guards would not have had sufficient manpower to deal with.

So in your universe, there are no prison trustees?

History is filled with examples of people who aided the oppressor because it was better than dying. And it is a sliding scale -- all the way from being a mere model prisoner to being a stoolie. You speak as if there was a clear boundary between what is acceptable and what is not. And you do so without apparently a second's consideration of the ways their situation is different from that of the dispassionate observer. The observer who isn't so starved he is afraid he may die of it within the day, the observer who isn't being shouted at and whipped and has time to collect his thoughts...well, and so on and so on, well past any ability you have displayed to imagine or empathize with.

Here's another aspect to consider, the daily work that is alleged to have been performed. Hard work. Those prisoners would have been super strong. Whereas the majority of camp guards would have been soldiers not fit enough to serve at the front lines. The alleged hostile environment would have made every one of those super strong men a ticking time bomb on a mission.

Real life is not like the first ten minutes of the "Conan" movie. Hard labor doesn't mean you need to be Hercules to do it -- it means it is hard for the person doing it.

The CHILDREN laboring in diamond mines are doing hard labor, and even you can probably bench-press as much as any of them.

The prisoners are strong by the standards of people from a Polish ghetto in the middle of a terrible war. Which is to say; average ordinary people -- but ones that have been starved and beaten and marched, who have illnesses and injuries.

The soldiers guarding them may not have been in that much better physical condition to begin with, but they had food, rudimentary medical attention, and some semblance of warm quarters and sufficient sleep.

They were also organized -- which the prisoners could only do with great difficulty -- and they had the weapons, and they knew all the geography of the camps (not just the parts the prisoners were permitted to see).

Page back to the Rodney King video.


Being in a perpetual rage would equal any drug that kept King from succumbing to all that manpower beating him.

I always wondered how Rodney managed to single-handedly take down several dozen officers of LA's finest.

I respectfully suggest you've been watching too many Hollywood action flicks, and they have given you some very strange ideas.

 

[Dogzilla]

I have plenty of evidence for this characterisation since I have consulted on a freaking Trawniki war crimes case. It is also quite obvious from the sum total of memoirs, books and articles written on camps where Trawnikis served.



What I say is an observation which exists independently of whether different societies choose to prosecute all camp guards or not. Guards at death camps are rightly considered accessories to murder historically. As a minimum - many were also stone cold killers, like Otto Moll, or Kurt Franz.



In every single court case and investigation involving a death camp is where. There is not a shred of evidence otherwise.



The very fact that the prisoners had all been deported involuntarily means that nothing they chose after being deported can be considered 'volunteering'. No prisoner knowingly stepped forward to say 'yes, please, let me help destroy my own people'. Sonderkommandos were picked out without being offered any choice whatsoever at Birkenau, and most of the time also at the Reinhard camps.

Sometimes at the Reinhard camps new arrivals were asked if there were any specialists in the transport (skilled workers) and some survivors stepped forward to say yes they were a carpenter or lied about their skills.

But this is still not volunteering. In some cases the new arrivals did not know what the camp was and did not have the chance to realise before they were selected or allowed themselves to be selected. In other cases they knew that Treblinka meant death, so the presumed choice was between staying alive or immediate death.



This has been explained multiple times, but you always flee the thread or ignore the answers. Coercion does not solely depend on guns. It also involves physical structures trapping prisoners into total institutions. This is Goffman and Foucault 101.

The prisoners were held inside barbed wire in camps guarded by large numbers of men with whips, pistols, rifles and machine guns. There were 150 plus guards at Treblinka overseeing 600-800 prisoners who were divided into two detachments, one in the inner camp - who had to do the really unpleasant stuff, and who were also even more isolated - and one in the outer camp.

Coercion was elaborated by systems of punishment which made it very clear to the workers that any resistance would be met with overwhelming force, that escapes would result in decimation of the prisoners who didn't escape, and that the guards would kill prisoners virtually on a whim. The guards also used the same techniques as in ordinary concentration camps, eg forced 'exercises' and other humiliations, which combined to crush the will of most of the prisoners. By the time the Nazis set up death camps, they had 8-9 years of experience in tormenting and controlling prisoners.

Despite all this coercion, Sonderkommandos did escape, did resist, and did revolt.

So were there any tasks performed by Jews that could put them in a position whereby they could be held accountable for any of the bad things that happened to Jews in the camps? Was it the tasks themselves that were performed by the Jews that made them exempt from all responsibility for any deaths? Or was it the fact that Jews were stripped of free will upon entering the camps so no matter what tasks they performed, they couldn't be held accountable for causing any deaths? Was it just the Jews in the camps who were exempt from responsibility from the bad things that happened to Jews? Or were all prisoners who were involuntarily incarcerated and assigned to work as a trustee similarly unaccountable?

Instead of getting dizzy from spinning answers to my questions you could just say that Jews are exempt from all blame and be done with it. You'd be wrong of course but it would be easier than trying to weave that sentiment into what you think is a coherent answer within the context of the well known "grey zone" and the fact that if the Jews in the camps didn't do what the Jews were told to do the holocaust, and in fact the entire German war machine, would have come to a screeching halt.

The literature on Auschwitz, which you have manifestly not read, will answer your silly question. Argument by incomprehension is no argument at all.

I didn't have a question. I provided an answer to 000063 who is evidently unaware of the literature on Auschwitz and the existence of a hospital there. The only thing I don't comprehend is what you're babbling about .

 

[nomuse]

So were there any tasks performed by Jews that could put them in a position whereby they could be held accountable for any of the bad things that happened to Jews in the camps?

Yes.

There may be no bright line, but if it is difficult to forgive the ordinary soldier who is "just following orders," it is just as difficult to forgive the kapo.

Ordinary people break under extraordinary strains. We can understand and sympathize why patriotism and a massive psychological campaign could make a young man do things he will later regret. We can understand and sympathize why fear of death and harsh punishment might make a prisoner turn on his fellows and become as bad an abuser as the guards above him. But that does not mean we excuse responsibility -- or prosecution.

You may want to believe in a black and white world. You may want to paint others as believing in a black and white world. But that is a straw dog, and has zilch to do with any discussion about WHAT happened at the camps.

I also do not understand how you think fixing blame, or not fixing blame, for the behavior of the Sondercommandos in any way excuses what the Einsatzgruppen did.

Regardless of how any PRISONER in the camps behaved -- whether morally or in a way we find repugnant -- they did not create the camps. They did not set policy. They did not instigate the program of mass murder.

... the fact that if the Jews in the camps didn't do what the Jews were told to do the holocaust, and in fact the entire German war machine, would have come to a screeching halt.

Like hell. There was resistance, and revolt. And the Germans even lost a few people putting down the larger riots.

Does every prison riot end the prison system in the US? Given the large numbers of the incarcerated -- who incidentally have good meals, fitness programs, and even (some) medical care -- how is it that prisons have not fallen long ago?

Does every escape attempt destroy the keeping of POWs? Are you saying that American, British, Canadian, etc. combat troops are too weak-willed and too morally lax to fight back against unjust imprisonment and escape back to their own lines? Are they just "going along" with episodes such as the Bataan Death March because they don't want to slow down the Japanese war machine (substitute your own choice of war and combatants as needed)?

Your thinking is muddy. Very muddy.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

How that is documented?

Quite thoroughly should be your reply to your time traveling self, should you ever meet.

We're coming up on the anniversary of a report written in Den Haag on April 27 in 1943 by Wilhelm Zoepf, transmitted to Adolf Eichmann's Section RSHA Berlin. Eichmann was reacquainted with it in Jerusalem during case 40/61.

In that Rapport Zoepf used the word "Kopfprämien". I imagine you might have asked yourself, what is the context for his use of such a word? By now you can answer. The 10-15.000 Jews hidden in the Netherlands are only gradually being caught in spite of "Kopfprämien". (That looks a bit like a statistic, doesn't it?)
In the Netherlands the document is archived NIOD Toegang 270c Proces Eichman Inventaris 589

I had planned to go into Zoepf's report in a little more detail on the day itself and was wondering if you would be around for it? Can you RSVP? Can you include the evidence code (T/...) given this document during the Eichmann trial in your reply? Perhaps some dates when it came up during the proceedings? Thanks.
You did say earlier that you would review that trial record after Nick Terry pointed it out as a free online source, didn't you?

Harster in Point 10.) of his letter dated 5.5.1943 also used the word "Kopfprämien".

Harster... "Dr. Har." ... Did YOU figure it out, Snaketongue? Don't Holocaust deniers like puzzles created out of historical sources?

How about the one with the dates of birth and names of the 5 people mentioned on the receipt of NLG 37.50 for which they were exchanged with the SD? Anything to share on how your verification of that riddle is coming along? Will their fate bring you back here? How about exploring the case of Ans van Dijk? Will that rekindle your interest?

A bit disappointed that you haven't replied lately. The merry-go-round still goes on without you. Maybe you are taking some time off to read recommended sources, including the historical reports on the persecution of Jews in the Netherlands. Mr. Himmler himself -remember him?- scribbled "Sehr Gut" on one such effort. If Rauter's preliminary report from Den Haag dated 24 September 1942 warranted a "Sehr Gut", can you imagine how pleased Himmler must have been with statistics Zoepf communicated on April 27, 1943?

 

[Nick Terry]

So were there any tasks performed by Jews that could put them in a position whereby they could be held accountable for any of the bad things that happened to Jews in the camps?

Yes. Kapos - prisoner functionaries - were expected to join in the whipping and beating of other prisoners, in return for privileges. They were the descendants of prison trusties mentioned by nomuse. While most behaved honourably and won the respect of other prisoners, quite a few, especially the 'Aryan' German criminals (greens), behaved especially brutally. Some were bumped off subtly already in the camps, some were killed in revenge after liberation, and quite a few were prosecuted.

You can see kapos being prosecuted at the Belsen trial, many of the Dachau tribunal trials, at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, at another 1960s West German Auschwitz trial, and at various other 1960s camp trials.

Jews did not get to serve as kapos in most camps until the system expanded in late 1943-44, when in Auschwitz a number were given such roles, and in other camps during the explosive growth in late 1944-45, mainly in sub-camps. Again, most behaved honourably but some were hated. The first prosecutions under the Nazi and collaborators war crimes act in Israel were of kapos. Poland prosecuted other Jewish kapos as well.

Was it the tasks themselves that were performed by the Jews that made them exempt from all responsibility for any deaths? Or was it the fact that Jews were stripped of free will upon entering the camps so no matter what tasks they performed, they couldn't be held accountable for causing any deaths? Was it just the Jews in the camps who were exempt from responsibility from the bad things that happened to Jews? Or were all prisoners who were involuntarily incarcerated and assigned to work as a trustee similarly unaccountable?

See above.

Instead of getting dizzy from spinning answers to my questions you could just say that Jews are exempt from all blame and be done with it. You'd be wrong of course but it would be easier than trying to weave that sentiment into what you think is a coherent answer within the context of the well known "grey zone" and the fact that if the Jews in the camps didn't do what the Jews were told to do the holocaust, and in fact the entire German war machine, would have come to a screeching halt.

Jews didn't exempt themselves from blame, nor were they exempted. As I said, there were trials of Jewish collaborators in postwar Poland. There were not many, because the opportunities to collaborate and cause death were much fewer.

No court in the world would ever convict a Sonderkommando of being an accessory to murder for the exceedingly simple reason that they were in a life-or-death situation.

This did not stop many other survivors condemning the Sonderkommandos after the war, as is noticeable in a number of memoirs and testimonies. This was more common among Auschwitz survivors because there were so many ordinary survivors. Since there were no other survivors of Treblinka etc than the Sonderkommandos, they were not condemned in the same way.

It's exceedingly dubious to say that if there had not been Sonderkommandos in the death camps, then the Holocaust would have come to a screeching halt. As you ought know by now, most of the Holocaust took place outside camps, and involved organising very large numbers of Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Red Army POWs as well as Jews to do unpleasant things like dig graves, ferry bodies, fill the graves up, and later on, burn the bodies, as well as more pleasant things like gather up property. Many of the Sonderkommando 1005 workers were ordinary Soviet POWs so it wasn't just Jewish prisoners conducting the worst parts of the operation. We have the same pattern of escapes, attempted mutinies and suicides in those detachments as we do in the death camps.

One might add that the Nazis were able to steer millions of Soviet POWs into camps where they starved, and had relatively few problems corralling them, or in dealing with the 2.7 million corpses that emerged from the process. There were many escapes from marches - just as with Jews on marches outside camps. There were escapes from camps - just as with Jews in labour camps. But very few mutinies or mass breakout attempts, despite the fact that these were mostly young men with military training. The biggest breakout attempt led to a massacre as the POWs were mown down with machine guns.

It's also wrong to say that if Jews didn't do what they were told, the German war machine would have come screeching to a halt, for the simple reason that the number of Jewish forced labourers as a whole was never big enough to cause a fundamental breakdown in the war effort. Non-Germans of all nationalities in occupied Europe worked for the Nazis in what were often coercive conditions, against their will, and resisted as was appropriate to their situation. Jews likewise resisted when they had the chance. By and large, being interned in a closely guarded concentration camp prevented resistance, since camp prisoners were under-nourished, deprived of property and resources, and guarded by armed men.

I didn't have a question. I provided an answer to 000063 who is evidently unaware of the literature on Auschwitz and the existence of a hospital there. The only thing I don't comprehend is what you're babbling about .

When either you or Clayton Moore demonstrate the slightest awareness of the historiography of Auschwitz, you might be in a position to take pot-shots which don't shoot yourself in the foot and expose your grotesque ignorance.

 

[000063]

Five bucks says Clay dismisses this with less than two paragraphs of text, almost none of it with any meaningful content.

I'll see your two paragraphs and raise (lower?) you to two sentences.

One sentence.

Nice fiction.

Just two words - and also he forgot to describe Nick as verbose and count and post the number of words in Nick's post, which I myself found apt, as it neatly supported my point that what is myserious and garbled by Clayton is actually known precisely by people who actually study the matter.

I can't help but wonder if Clayton was making some sort of point. It would be nice if he would elaborate.

 

[000063]

...
The literature on Auschwitz, which you have manifestly not read, will answer your silly question. Argument by incomprehension is no argument at all.

I'm not sure why Dogzilla wants me to explain how there were no hospitals. I don't know much about the hospitals or lack thereof, and made no claims about them. That's why I asked Clayton to back up his claim that there were hospitals; I am genuinely interested. I do not know why he has not yet done so. Perhaps he could explain it to Dogzilla. If anyone would like to direct me to resources on the matter, feel free.

...When either you or Clayton Moore demonstrate the slightest awareness of the historiography of Auschwitz, you might be in a position to take pot-shots which don't shoot yourself in the foot and expose your grotesque ignorance.

No, he's right, sort of; I don't know much about the hospitals in question, which is exactly why I asked Clayton about hospitals. But I note that Dogzilla sees no problem with Clay continuing to not back up his claim about hospitals, despite requests from myself and others. Even knowing it was Auschwitz helps narrow my search considerably.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/auhosp.html
http://en.auschwitz.org/h/index.php...ask=view&id=19&Itemid=16&limit=1&limitstart=7

In a statement as an expert forensic witness in 1946, Dr. Jan Olbrycht, a former prisoner, characterized the Auschwitz hospital records: “If it had not been for the defeat of Nazism, a detached observer studying the history of the prisoners’ sicknesses and the protocols of the treatment they received would conclude that the Auschwitz camp was a model of good sanitary, hygienic, and medical practice, and that prisoners received care that embodied the latest achievements of science and medicine. The death certificates issued for specific registered prisoners can serve as an example of the deliberate falsification of camp records, and should be a warning to young researchers, who should use all imaginable caution in drawing conclusions from those records.”

 

[Clayton Moore]

The Photos

The photos that you have seen, presented as evidence of the holocaust, were taken at the end of the war by British and US troops at Belsen and other western camps, not 'death camps', and the prisoners were not killed by the Nazis but died of disease.

Belsen was a concentration camp in Germany. Near the end of the war as the Soviet troops approached the camps in the east, including Auschwitz, prisoners were transferred to camps in the west. At Belsen there was overcrowding, the facilities broke down, there was inadequte food, supplies, and medicine, and there was a resulting typhus epidemic that killed 35,000 people, for a recent report see http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-19-holocaust-papers_x.htm

Not all of the prisoners died but you have never seen pictures of the ones who didn't, like those at the left. The movie made by the British, and directed by Alfred Hitchcock, with documentary footage shot when they entered Belsen, and the source of the photo to the left, can be seen here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/camp/ . A more comprehensive collection of photos can be seen at Belsen survivorshttp://www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/Database/SurvivorsPhotos.asp?index=0 .

Josef Kramer was the commandant at Belsen, and captured documents show that he did everything he could to prevent the catastrophe that engulfed the camp. He was tried and hanged at the end of the war. The letter he wrote to the camp administration requesting more food, medicine, supplies, etc., can be seen here http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Belsen/Kramer010345.html .

http://www.holohoax101.com/

 

[Clayton Moore]

No, he's right, sort of; I don't know much about the hospitals in question, which is exactly why I asked Clayton about hospitals. But I note that Dogzilla sees no problem with Clay continuing to not back up his claim about hospitals, despite requests from myself and others. Even knowing it was Auschwitz helps narrow my search considerably.

Why would the Germans bother to attempt to save someone who had contracted typhus?

Anne Frank and Otto Frank, her father, were first taken to Auschwitz. They were there when the Soviets approached. Otto had contracted tyhpus and was in the camp hospital, and was liberated by the Soviets. Anne was transferred west where she died of typhus in the epidemic at Belsen.

http://www.holohoax101.com/

 

[LemmyCaution]

I'm not sure why Dogzilla wants me to explain how there were no hospitals. I don't know much about the hospitals or lack thereof, and made no claims about them. That's why I asked . . .

Gutman, et al, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, pp 380-391, surveys this topic. For another angle, Hermann Langbein's People in Auschwitz is interesting; the author, an Austrian whose father was Jewish and who was in the camp system as a "privileged" German political (veteran of the International Brigades), served as clerk to Dr Eduard Wirths, among others in the Stammlager medical system. Langbein had waffled, IIRC, on entry into the camp system about his father, describing him as a Mischlinge to some minor degree, and the bureaucracy failed to pursue the point, classifying Langbein as German and political.

I am pretty sure that the reason Dogzilla wants you to explain, and why Clayton is mum, is that the issue, hospitals in camps, for them is not a serious matter but a way to try scoring cheap rhetorical points against Jews.

 

[abaddon]

Why would the Germans bother to attempt to save someone who had contracted typhus?

Because it is a curable disease. The fact that they didn't demonstrates the abhorrence of the nazi outlook. The nazis gave him no medical aid because they regarded him as a sub-human, simply because he was a Jew.

The fact that he survived once liberated by the Soviets, demonstrates that he was treatable, and further reinforces how barbaric the nazis were.

Finally, the fact that you even ask this question, well, we all know what that demonstrates.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Because it is a curable disease. The fact that they didn't demonstrates the abhorrence of the nazi outlook. The nazis gave him no medical aid because they regarded him as a sub-human, simply because he was a Jew.

The fact that he survived once liberated by the Soviets, demonstrates that he was treatable, and further reinforces how barbaric the nazis were.

Finally, the fact that you even ask this question, well, we all know what that demonstrates.

Quote:
Anne Frank and Otto Frank, her father, were first taken to Auschwitz. They were there when the Soviets approached. Otto had contracted tyhpus and was in the camp hospital, and was liberated by the Soviets. Anne was transferred west where she died of typhus in the epidemic at Belsen.

 

[000063]

Why would the Germans bother to attempt to save someone who had contracted typhus?


http://www.holohoax101.com/

Oh, good, you finally answered. Thank yo--wait, a holocaust denial website? Really?

Gutman, et al, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, pp 380-391, surveys this topic. For another angle, Hermann Langbein's People in Auschwitz is interesting; the author, an Austrian whose father was Jewish and who was in the camp system as a "privileged" German political (veteran of the International Brigades), served as clerk to Dr Eduard Wirths, among others in the Stammlager medical system. Langbein had waffled, IIRC, on entry into the camp system about his father, describing him as a Mischlinge to some minor degree, and the bureaucracy failed to pursue the point, classifying Langbein as German and political.

Thanks. Found 'em on Google Books. If I'm reading this right, the "hospitals" were token at best.

I am pretty sure that the reason Dogzilla wants you to explain, and why Clayton is mum, is that the issue, hospitals in camps, for them is not a serious matter but a way to try scoring cheap rhetorical points against Jews.

I think its a way of them trying to prove that the Germans didn't "really" kill the Jews, since that's inconsistent with trying to save them. Which is odd, since people on Death Row are still given life-saving medical treatment.

 

[Dogzilla]

I'm not sure why Dogzilla wants me to explain how there were no hospitals. I don't know much about the hospitals or lack thereof, and made no claims about them. That's why I asked Clayton to back up his claim that there were hospitals; I am genuinely interested. I do not know why he has not yet done so. Perhaps he could explain it to Dogzilla. If anyone would like to direct me to resources on the matter, feel free.



No, he's right, sort of; I don't know much about the hospitals in question, which is exactly why I asked Clayton about hospitals. But I note that Dogzilla sees no problem with Clay continuing to not back up his claim about hospitals, despite requests from myself and others. Even knowing it was Auschwitz helps narrow my search considerably.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/auhosp.html
http://en.auschwitz.org/h/index.php...ask=view&id=19&Itemid=16&limit=1&limitstart=7

You can find discussion of the hospital in Elie Wiesel's "Night"

 

[A'isha]

You can find discussion of the hospital in Elie Wiesel's "Night"

That can't be what Clayton is talking about, though, because Clayton has never read it.

 

[Nick Terry]

You can find discussion of the hospital in Elie Wiesel's "Night"

this sentence might be vaguely meaningful if it were the only place one could find such discussion. That is quite clearly not the case.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I think its a way of them trying to prove that the Germans didn't "really" kill the Jews, since that's inconsistent with trying to save them. Which is odd, since people on Death Row are still given life-saving medical treatment.

That's right. Time and space are foreign concepts to deniers, or at least in DenierLand: if everything didn't happen the same everywhere and all at once, to everyone, then nothing happened, and thus any of life's shadings and inconsistencies, shifts and changes - along with geographical and temporal development - are wielded as "proofs" that "it" is a hoax. The thinking is very juvenile for its black-and-white quality.

 

[nomuse]

Why would the Germans bother to attempt to save someone who had contracted typhus?


http://www.holohoax101.com/

Err...Otta Frank not only survived his bout with typhus, but lived until 1980. So I guess it IS possible to save someone with typhus!

 

[nomuse]

Quote:
Anne Frank and Otto Frank, her father, were first taken to Auschwitz. They were there when the Soviets approached. Otto had contracted tyhpus and was in the camp hospital, and was liberated by the Soviets. Anne was transferred west where she died of typhus in the epidemic at Belsen.

Everything I've read said that Mr. Frank was not hospitalized; he was sent to the Sick Barracks. Which is to say, there was not treatment -- just isolation. The Sick Barracks were no more than a lazar house; if someone got better, it was strictly on their own.

At that, this was better treatment several patients got from Captain Wirth at Hartheim (he shot them rather than risk his own staff getting infected).