The other Auschwitz, any truth to this ?

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
7,539
So the communists were no better than the nazis and ended up lying more..... I'm shocked uttely shocked
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
16,175
Yes, what I've seen is that the holocaust as a topic of discussion very rapidly dissolves into an emotionally charged squabble and also that is very taboo to question any of the "facts" surrounding it. Personally, I am only able to consider statements that would stand up to both legal and scientific scrutiny. Nevertheless, it is a very interesting piece of history.
And when you have Rudolf Hoess - commandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau - providing what amounts to a play-play account of camp operations concerning the gassing and cremating of people?

What would these people have gained by making up stories?

This for me has always stood out; the actual men implicated in it never denied it, never tried to revise it.
 

Nanfeishen

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
7,717
From "
Henry Morton Stanley School of Christian Journalism
FB Page:



Whatever the case may be, blind anti-Semitism is not the answer.
Your source is wrong about the Soviets and Auschwitz, and appears more along the lines of typical anti-Russian propaganda so commonly seen in recent times from Poland.

It was officially opened as a museum on 14 June 1947 , but had unoffically been acting as such for almost a year.


Over the months that followed the camps’ liberation, many former prisoners returned seeking family members and friends. And a small group of survivors came back to stay.
“The earliest stewards of the site were former prisoners,” explains Huener. In his book Auschwitz, Poland, and the Politics of Commemoration, 1945-1979, Huener tells the story of how the site went from operational death camp to memorial.
 

chemfis

Active Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
79
And when you have Rudolf Hoess - commandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau - providing what amounts to a play-play account of camp operations concerning the gassing and cremating of people?

What would these people have gained by making up stories?

This for me has always stood out; the actual men implicated in it never denied it, never tried to revise it.
Yes a valid point, but, in the first place, do you regard Nuremburg as being a fair trial? Hoess's testimony basically amounts to an almost perfect confession of the agenda of the allies (read the usa). Why were only germans tried for war crimes when all sides committed them (eg. think Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? Is a confession valid if the acts being admitted to were scientifically unfeasible?

For me the actual events at Auschwitz are crucial to whether the larger narrative is true or false, strictly in terms of the gas chambers and not the genocide, and there are some very niggly inconsistencies in the mainstream story, like for example, many children and old people survived for years in the camp, but how if they should have been immediately eliminated?
 

etienne_marais

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
6,914
Your source is wrong about the Soviets and Auschwitz, and appears more along the lines of typical anti-Russian propaganda so commonly seen in recent times from Poland.
In terms of the soviets not using it and whatever goes along with that ? The Katyn forest argument still stands however.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
16,175
Yes a valid point, but, in the first place, do you regard Nuremburg as being a fair trial? Hoess's testimony basically amounts to an almost perfect confession of the agenda of the allies (read the usa). Why were only germans tried for war crimes when all sides committed them (eg. think Hiroshima and Nagasaki)? Is a confession valid if the acts being admitted to were scientifically unfeasible?
His confession wasn't the only one though. We have confessions from lowly camp guards from multiple camps corroborating what was going on. Did the Sonderkommando survivors from multiple camps get together and come up with the same story? There is an extensive paper trail, including minutes from the Wannsee Conference.

All sides were guilty of war crimes. One of the defendants at Nuremberg even said if they had won, the Allies would be sitting where they (German officials) were. I don't think anybody disputes this. The German defendants knew what they done, they never argued it, but they also knew had the boot been on the other foot they could place the Allied leadership on trial for a number of things.

For me the actual events at Auschwitz are crucial to whether the larger narrative is true or false, strictly in terms of the gas chambers and not the genocide, and there are some very niggly inconsistencies in the mainstream story, like for example, many children and old people survived for years in the camp, but how if they should have been immediately eliminated?
Auschwitz was an expansive network of camps serving different purposes, not just one camp. In fact, most concentration and extermination camps were made up of multiple camps and sub-camps.

Auschwitz itself compromised three major camps and each one had a network of sub-camps for an estimated total of over 40 camps;



Auschwitz I - The first camp. It functioned like any other camp as a facility for holding people. Extrajudicial killings (as at any other camp) and early gassings were conducted here, but most fatalities were due to the conditions (insufficient food, disease and exposure).
Auschwitz II-Birkenau - The extermination camp, built in the build up to Operation Reinhard, the final and deadliest phase of the genocide. It was constructed along with the other extermination camps at Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek and Sobibor in late 1941 through the winter of 1942.
Auschwitz III-Monowitz - The labour camp. This one was paid for by IG Farben and used by various German industrial companies as a source of slave labour.

Birkenau was the only camp where upon arrival it was almost certain you'd be killed. You stood a chance of surviving at the rest.

So when someone says they were at Auschwitz there is any number of camps they could've been at. They may not have even set foot in one of the main caps, spending time in a satellite camp.
 
Last edited:
Top