another fake document: Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report'

[Lamprecht]

Nice to meet you. This is my first post.
I'm Japanese. I apologize for the automatic translation of this text, which is very unnatural.

My guess is that the 'Resettlement Action Report' is a translation of the American English manuscript into German.
The text states that the location of the incinerator is ' the 2nd floor'.
It is very puzzling to common sense to think that very heavy incinerators would be on the 2nd floor.
I suspect this is the result of the translation into German of the words in the manuscript that were 'first floor' in American English.
I'm sorry if this argument is already well known.

The alleged homicidal gas chamber (mortuary cellar) was underground, and the crematoria was on the ground level. They were connected only by a 4x9 foot, postage stamp of an elevator. Manual as well, someone had to pull it up.


More info:
Auschwitz Krema II: The elevator / chute / lift - was it ever replaced/improved?
viewtopic.php?t=12891

By the way, I have created a series of videos explaining the Holocaust controversy and distribute them on YouTube.
The English version of this is not found in search, so it has hardly gained any views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihFk8gM ... wlVN_RYz6N

Fortunately, the Japanese version has reached 70,000 views. We have been able to share information about this issue with many Japanese people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plC5xiz ... ZQvUGNTHLP ...

All "Holocaust denial" is banned on YouTube. Have you tried posting it on BitChute? It could be removed at any time.

If you can upload these video files on another website then I could download them and post them on BitChute.

Some good file sharing websites:

https://1fichier.com
https://clicknupload.co
https://mega.nz

You could also make an account and upload this series on: https://archive.org/

[stinky]

All "Holocaust denial" is banned on YouTube. Have you tried posting it on BitChute? It could be removed at any time

YouTube hasn't gotten to Konig Albelt's video's yet.

Welcome Konig Albelt

[Lamprecht]

New TRS video on this document, responding to an HC blog post that mentions this thread:


https://www.bitchute.com/video/yNA31IbcDtMg/

The HC blog post: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... enial.html

[fireofice]

I think one thing to take into consideration is that Franke-Gricksch was anti Hitler. So right off the bat we should not take all negative statements he writes down about the Third Reich and Hitler at face value. So even if it's not a forgery (which it probably is) it is still not very good evidence.

By all accounts, Franke-Gricksch opposed Hitler (and "Hitlerism") before, during, and after the war. Given this record, it is reasonable to conclude that he was capable of working together with Allied intelligence personnel to furnish background information that would provide credibility for the "Resettlement Action" report. Such cooperation would also explain why an SS officer of Franke-Gricksch's standing might have been released by the British rather than being tried as a "war criminal." It may also provide a plausible motive for Franke-Gricksch to compose his back-dated, damningly anti-Hitler "diary" entry. In any case, Franke-Gricksch's political activities and aspirations indicate that he might well be willing to accept, and even help bolster for some conceivable reason of Realpolitik, the Allied propaganda claims about "gas chambers" and the like.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p261_Renk.html

One excuse that was made for the problems in the document was that it was hearsay. This is what Sergey said:

I think it's most probable that the report is hearsay - i.e. what FG was told on his visit in Auschwitz, and maybe wrote down from memory. This explains/is demanded by the inaccuracies in details.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 4#p2041124

But if that is the case, why should we take it seriously? We are seriously going to put all our belief in the holocaust on a document that they say is hearsay?

[Hektor]

.....
But if that is the case, why should we take it seriously? We are seriously going to put all our belief in the holocaust on a document that they say is hearsay?

There were people dying and cremated, showers, delousing gas chambers etc. present in Auschwitz. From those tenets it's rather easy to create a homicidal gassing claim relating to Auschwitz and that's probably also how the rumour arose that over time became "fact". But to knowledgeable people exactly this may have been a reason for doubt at the time as well. Someone with extensive military knowledge would have known that:
- detention centres that lack maintenance discipline (a given when you let civilians self-organise) are prone to epidemics.
- Zyklon B was used for delousing.
- Showering is a hygiene measure that saves lives as well.
- Cremation is the corpse disposal of choice during epidemics.

Of course he would also have realised the strong need for atrocity propaganda of the Allies against the Germans. But such people are a minority. Isolated private people that don't have the apparatus to challenge myth and falsehoods circulating through the media. It's similar to the present scamdemic stories circulating. Academic elites with ulterior motives spread make statements. Ambitious journalists with conflicts of interests are writing about this. The most conducive way to advance in their job and keep it, is not to deviate too much from the main stream reporting on an issue. Even if facts appear that contradict the present narrative, they'd rather stick to something in line with the original narratives. Rather disparage the doubters than take a deviating stance in front of your colleagues. It's similar with academics or even the medical fraternity. They rather repeat a faulty narrative than being the infant terrible at the next cocktail party or conference in their field. If something is a statement of faith (as is the Holocaust or the COVID19 pandemic narrative), you'll be treated as a heretic, when people learn that you argue against it.

The Allies took millions of German prisoners both from the army, but also SS. Among them probably tens of thousands were somehow connected to the concentration camp system. Interrogators would have been instructed to search for "evidence". Well, and among those prisoners some would have realised what kind of testimony would work in their advantage. So under the 1000s of "Don't know" statements a handful of more "useful" testimony (and readiness to cooperate) can be expected. The "don't knows" are mostly ignored, of course. In fact media treatment of this is done as if they were lying (which they clearly are not, but journalists know how to let it look like that way).

Once established one gets also a carousel of confirmation from the historians guild. They'll find some documents and then interpret them in terms of the narrative. That's how paradigms are created and maintained. Now usually they tend to die with those holding them for a generation, but with an issue like the Holocaust, were there is strong interest in upholding the myth, it's a bit more difficult to do so. It needs far more effort to push the falsehoods out. Usually that would happen, when those having an interest in the myth lose their interest or power. Or when the myth loses its grip on the general population and one starts looking like a fool to uphold it in public.

[PrudentRegret]

New TRS video on this document, responding to an HC blog post that mentions this thread:


https://www.bitchute.com/video/yNA31IbcDtMg/

The HC blog post: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... enial.html

Great content, hope they keep it up.

Franke-Gricksch also visited Lublin and wrote about 'Einsatz Reinhardt', but he did not report on the supposed extermination being carried out by that office.

So for FG to talk about extermination in Auschwitz in some random 'attachment' but not mention extermination in Lublin is another inconsistency.