Why did the Jews leave Auschwitz

Vorticity said:
A comic book it may be, but the story contained therein is Art Speigelman's father Vladek's own firsthand account of his time at Auschwitz. I see no reason to treat it as any more or less valid than any other eyewitness account. The cat/mouse dynamic is merely a nod to the nature of the format.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it's no more or less valid than any other eyewitness account.
 
Dogzilla said:
With Auschwitz being the death factory that it was and the Nazi plan to exterminate all the Jews, there could not have been very many Jews left in Auschwitz when the Russians arrived. See The Law Reports of the Trials of War Criminals, specifically the Zyklon B Trial. According to the British (who held this trial) Auschwitz was a place where Zyklon B murdered 4.5 million "...people from the occupied territories of Europe, including Czechs, Russians, Poles, French, Dutch and Belgians, and people from neutral countries and from the United States."

Jews are mentioned in here but they were not the primary victims by a long shot. To be fair to the Brits, this trial was held in March 1946. Polish Jews were still streaming into the DP camps in western Germany and the situation in Europe was still so chaotic that nobody could possibly estimate the Jewish losses.
Click to expand...

There were approximately 67,000, of which 7,000 stayed at the camp to be found by the Red Army.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reasons Jews were not mentioned as the primary victims is that "Jew" is not a nationality?
 
Meadmaker said:
There were approximately 67,000, of which 7,000 stayed at the camp to be found by the Red Army.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reasons Jews were not mentioned as the primary victims is that "Jew" is not a nationality?
Click to expand...

Wilder's documentary on Buchenwald mentioned Jews in addition to all the other nationalities.

The Russians at the time (Communists, Bolsheviks) should have been favorable to Jews. Boris Smyslovsky fought with the Nazis as an anti-communist.

Mead, I'll also point out that the hospitals and barracks in the American internment camp weren't exactly top notch either. Maybe you can try to be more objective despite your Jewish background. Stop making assumptions.

All this indicates to me that the Germans really weren't as bad as everyone has been saying.
 
kageki said:
Wilder's documentary on Buchenwald mentioned Jews in addition to all the other nationalities.
Click to expand...

The linked document was not a documentary. It was a description of a war crimes trial. In order to have a war crime, you have to have a war, and that means you have to have warring parties, which are nations. "Jew" is not a warring party. "Denmark" is.


Mead, I'll also point out that the hospitals and barracks in the American internment camp weren't exactly top notch either. Maybe you can try to be more objective despite your Jewish background. Stop making assumptions.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Dr. Mengele did the best he could, but he never really had all the staff that he needed.

The care was probably pretty good, though. After all, a lot of medical research was conducted there.
 
Meadmaker said:
The linked document was not a documentary. It was a description of a war crimes trial. In order to have a war crime, you have to have a war, and that means you have to have warring parties, which are nations. "Jew" is not a warring party. "Denmark" is.




I'm sure that Dr. Mengele did the best he could, but he never really had all the staff that he needed.

The care was probably pretty good, though. After all, a lot of medical research was conducted there.
Click to expand...

The poster did say Jews were mentioned in the report. Jewry did declare war and Jews had to wear a unique symbol and was singled out by Nazis.

So Mengele did medical research. And?

Do you have anymore assumptions to state or perhaps realize this scenario seems to indicate the people rather be with the Germans over the Russians?
 
Dogzilla said:
You know that MAUS is a comic book, don't you? (excuse me, a "graphic novel") And blatantly ailurophobic one at that. You're quoting from an ailurophobic comic book?
Click to expand...

Yes, a comic book in which the author's father gives a firsthand account of theft, mass-murder, imprisonment, rape, torture and assorted other heinous atrocities visited by German officials upon innumerable Jewish persons of several nationalities, innocent and "partisan" alike, women and men and children, year after year after year, all recounted in excruciating detail by a living eyewitness to the events.

Did you have a point here, or can you refute Spiegelman's account in way, apart from your personal incredulity (a logical fallacy) or your rejection of thousands of similar accounts which correspond in both minute detail and broad outline?

Incidentally, this "comic book" won the Pulitzer Prize and has hung in its entirety, page next to page, in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. This treatment, and its intended audience of adult readers worldwide, removes the work from the commonly held notion of a "comic book" as an adventure serial for children and adolescents. It has been poured over by academics and historians who do not hand-wave it away, as you have done, with a biased and disingenuous "comic book" label.

ETA: "Ailurophobic" means "fear of cats". Yes, I had to look it up. The claim that the work MAUS, or its author, exhibits a fear of cats is so absurd I can only think it must be an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, which is that Dogzilla has put forward numerous unsubstantiated, non-evidential arguments, arguments from ignorance and incredulity, straw men and assorted logical fallacies, in addition to offering bigoted, callous, cruel and hateful opinions.
 
Last edited:
kageki said:
Jewry did declare war
Click to expand...
.
"Declare war?" Seriously?

Tell us: how many divisions of troops did "Jewry" have at this time? How were they trained and equipped? What was the chain of command? Who was the CiC of "Jewry?"
.
 
gtm said:
It refers to an economic boycott rather than the literal meaning of 'war'. Bearing in mind the rabidly antisemitic nature of the Nazi regime this was & understandable & reasonable response.
Click to expand...

The thing is an economic war is very devastating. You can't even wage a physical war without money after all. The point is that there was a battle and certainly Jews were being identified even without a nation.
 
Meadmaker said:
Well, your evidence certainly speaks for itself.

Dogzilla,

Just a reminder: We are all judged by the company we keep.
Click to expand...

It's a simple matter of history.

Still wondering about this event huh? Do you hate Germans?
 
wow, i didnt know that, if its true.

what with Stockholm syndrom?
 
DC said:
wow, i didnt know that, if its true.

what with Stockholm syndrom?
Click to expand...

I wondered that, too,when I started the thread. However, I think from subsequent reading it was simpler. I would still like to read it directly from one of the people who made the choice, but I think it was a case of deciding that those who stayed behind would be murdered by the Nazis.

ETA: I first read about the "choice" from our very own Saggy. Needless to say, I didn't put much stock in it. However, one day I read two different sites that had Elie Wiesel's story that did say pretty much the same thing. I figured someone here would know more, so I started the thread in the hopes of getting more info. After more research, I came to the conclusion above, that it was a simple calculus of who the Nazis were more likely to shoot. Also, I'm pretty sure from my reading, as noted earlier, that only the sick barracks had any sort of choice at all. Most inmates were forced onto the march, using the usual methods.

If anyone has more information to corroborate or disprove the hypothesis, I'm open to it.
 
Last edited:
kageki said:
The thing is an economic war is very devastating. You can't even wage a physical war without money after all. The point is that there was a battle and certainly Jews were being identified even without a nation.
Click to expand...
.
Ah, so not a *war* war, but a boycott. Announced in a single newspaper by someone who had no authority to speak for "Jewry" in general.

So why do you try to claim otherwise?

Do you even know how that worked out? Can you tell us what was happening to "Jewish" businesses in Germany during this time / before this "declaration?" and do you think that might have been a factor in this single person's "declaration?"

And exactly who was doing this "identification?"
.
 
Last edited:
yes, how much German business was affected by this boycott?

how many millions of Deutsch Marks did the Reich lose?

and what was the German response to its Jewish citizens?
 
Thunder said:
yes, how much German business was affected by this boycott?

how many millions of Deutsch Marks did the Reich lose?

and what was the German response to its Jewish citizens?
Click to expand...

Quite a bit, actually. The anti-Nazi boycott could have toppled Hitler's regime in it's infancy. That fear prompted negotiation of the Haavara Agreement with Zionists that allowed German Jews to circumvent the currency restrictions Nazis had placed on all German citizens who wanted to emigrate.

The Nizkor website has a link to the first three chapters of Edwin Black's book, The Transfer Agreement. Check it out for a fascinating side to the history of the Third Reich.
 
Meadmaker said:
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reasons Jews were not mentioned as the primary victims is that "Jew" is not a nationality?
Click to expand...

Is this based on fact or conjecture? Has it occurred to you that "Jew" is still not a nationality yet today we are able to speak of the "Jewish" victims of the holocaust?
 
Dogzilla said:
Is this based on fact or conjecture? Has it occurred to you that "Jew" is still not a nationality yet today we are able to speak of the "Jewish" victims of the holocaust?
Click to expand...

It's fact. The document you linked to was describing War Crimes trials. War Crimes, by definition, only occur between nations who are at war. The list you quoted described the nations whose citizens were the victims of War Crimes. The "standard narrative" would say that many Germans and Hungarians were killed by Zyklon B, but they aren't mentioned in the list, because their deaths cannot be attributed to War Crimes. The killing of the Hungarian Jews would be included in "Crimes Against Humanity", but not in War Crimes.

I do not know if the Zyklon B trial also included a charge of Crimes Against Humanity. Many of the post WW II trials included both counts.

ETA: The Zyklon B trial did not include Crimes Against Humanity. The British War Crimes courts, it is noted in the appendix, did not have jurisdiction to prosecute such crimes. It contrasts their mandate with that of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg, which also was charged with prosecuting Crimes Against Humanity and Crimes Against Peace.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom