Since I do not have Danuta Czech's Kalendarium available, I suppose you wouldn't be as kind as to provide that evidence in a more direct form?
http://deportati.it/librionline/Kalendarium.html
start in November 1944.
90.000 shoes (hundreds of thousand for Auschwitz and Majdanek together) proves nothing as to 1.5 million victims at Majdanek Nick. It doesn't even prove 90.000 deaths. It proves 90.000 or less people lost one or more pairs of shoes to ze evil Nazis.
What source are you reading? The Soviets found 820,000 pairs of shoes at Majdanek.
http://www.jewishgen.org/forgottenCamps/Camps/MajdanekReport.html
The shoe mountain was also specifically commented on by press reporters brought to the site in August 1944, not just by Soviet reporter Konstantin Simononv but by Life magazine
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/III
The 820,000 pairs of shoes were undoubtedly the only quantity that is even vaguely close to the 1.5 million originally estimated. If you read the Soviet report you'll notice that none of the killing actions described go much beyond low five figures and would if added up fit into the current accepted death toll of 78,000.
Meanwhile, the 1.5 million estimate is accurate for
all the Lublin/Reinhard camps including Belzec, Sobibior and Treblinka. One of Majdanek's functions was to process property robbed from deportees to the Reinhard camps, which is why there were so many shoes found on-site.
The Nazis managed to remove more of the property from Auschwitz before it was liberated (and also tried setting some of the property sorting barracks on fire) but left 7 tons of women's hair behind.
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/IV
That in turn became the symbol of genocide at Auschwitz in the initial reporting - it was prominently filmed for a show reel used at Nuremberg, and the Soviet press chose images of investigators clambering over the stacked bales of hair for still photos used in the press in May 1945.
Except for the tiny overlooked fact that dwindling is gradual, not supporting the theory of a decision taken at a single point in time to stop registering the deaths of jewish inmates. Those Nazis sure knew how to cook the books.
LOL, now you're playing semantic games with idiomatic expressions used in a language which isn't your own.
Just to end this pointless charade, I've pulled off the following book from my shelves:
Grotum, Thomas, Das digitale Archiv. Aufbau und Auswertung einer Datenbank zur Geschichte des Konzentrationslagers Auschwitz. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 2004
which is written by a data analyst involved in the Auschwitz museum database project.
On p.275 he reproduces a breakdown month by month of the religious confessions of the entries in the death books.
Jan 43 - 2,841
Feb 43 - 2,393
March 43 - 873
April 43 - 82
May 43 - 31
Including March and April 1943, a mere 680 Jews received death certificates from March to December 1943, which is 1/3 of the number issued in February 1943 alone.
It's worth noting that there is a sudden spike for Jewish death certificates in the last quarter of 1943 - all of 352 death certificates. Explainable by the establishment of the Theresienstadt family camp, which was a propaganda camp from which correspondence was allowed back to the Theresienstadt ghetto, and which had not been selected at all on arrival, unlike other Jewish transports.
So - are you going to tell me with a straight face that only 680 Jews died in 10 months of 1942 at Auschwitz? The death books aren't a complete record, end of story.
Maybe you can talk to Nessie on my behalf then?
But you're claiming that the room was a morgue full stop, as in operated as a morgue. Nessie and I have both been asking you for evidence of use as a morgue. Which you keep failing to provide.
I'm happy it is acknowledged that this "homicidal" gas chamber actually was used for delousing TOO.
Yet there's no evidence of the Birkenau gas chambers inside the crematoria being used for delousing.
Read: I can't explain this one, even though it makes grammatically way more sense, it conflict with everything I've been taught and got a PhD for.
Your parsing makes no logical sense:
Also please explain to me why DIE has a [sic] next to it on the site of your Holocaust team buddies. If YOUR conventional holocaust theory applies, it should have been DAS alright. If MY theory applies, that the heat of a Vergasungskeller can be used against the frost impact, DIE is perfectly correct as it applies to Frosteinwirkung. If DIE indeed applies to Frosteinwirkung, please explain to me how a gas chamber is going to do anything about frost impact?
this is a pretty silly misreading of
Die Eisenbetondecke des Leichenkellers konnte infolge Frosteinwirkung noch nicht ausgeschalt werden. Die [sic] ist jedoch unbedeutend, da der Vergasungskeller hierfür benützt werden kann.
Firstly, the sic on 'die' is probably down to 'dies' being a better choice of work, as in 'this is however unimportant'.
Dies is jedoch is a not uncommon German phrase. So is
das ist jedoch. Whereas die ist jedoch is grammatically incorrect. Die x ist jedoch is fine, but German speakers don't normally write the definite article and say 'the is however'. They say 'this is however', or 'that is however', and use das and dies. Or they say 'the x is however' and actually type out the noun.
To say that 'die' refers to Frosteinwirkung isn't in any case relevant, since the Frosteinwirkung has prevented the formwork being removed from LK2. Indeed, the intended 'dies' which was mistyped would refer to the general unfinishedness of LK2 and thus includes the Frosteinwirkung. So the second sentence still stands
exactly as before, with the Vergasungskeller being capable of use as a morgue in the current situation, the incompleteness of LK2 due to the formwork not yet being removed due to frost.
Like I could if indeed it was a forgery. People should care since it is key evidence, a criminal trace to allegedly one of the biggest mass murders and your evidence looks like anyone could have tampered with it by handwriting inconvenient items in blank columns. Good evidence for at least the possibility of that, is listing those wire mesh columns in the wrong room.
You've still not presented any evidence of forgery, and your claim that the wire mesh columns are listed in the wrong room is without merit, as I explained in the previous post. The wire mesh columns are listed next to an unnumbered Leichenkeller whose other fittings match the blueprints for LK1. Therefore the wire mesh columns were in LK1.
Claiming that the handwriting was added later makes very little sense, because nobody pointed to the wire mesh columns appearing in writing until 1989 when Pressac published his book. The postwar investigations didn't deal with the issue at all. I don't even recall it coming up at the 1972 trial of Dejaco and Ertl, the architects who designed the crematoria.
The same document with the same annotation was still under wraps in Moscow in its original form, the Auschwitz Museum had been provided with copies of the materials held in Moscow. So any handwriting wasn't added by the Polish museum authorities. It makes zero sense to claim that the Soviets anticipated the interpretation of a French pharmacist, Pressac, twenty, thirty or forty years beforehand.
Thank you for at least explaining more decently, although the fact that this post is edited makes me wonder whether maybe it was also explained a bit less decent.
I could wonder the same about your edited posts but I'm not that childish. What I wrote was hardly indecent, and nothing I have written in this post could be considered indecent.
