A pile of bodies at Ravensbruck in Oct 1944?

[Christopher Louis]

Thanks Hannover for your answer.
So, as yet no confirming testimony of a "mountain of female corpses" by the camp entrance in Oct '44.

Regarding the alleged gassing of prisoners incapable of work, one online source is that these did not begin until Jan - Feb '45. So that isn't relevant to my enquiry. But on that topic, there is (as usual) contradictory testimony of
1.) a "procedure" for alleged gassings,
2.) contradictory testimony and thus "uncertainty about the size of the gas chamber"
there is 3.) "disagreement about the number of victims" and that is all admitted to be "...because of the variance in the reports of the different witnesses."
'Witnesses' also disagree on 4.) whether the alleged gas chamber was blown up prior to the arrival of Russian forces or still existed and was seen after the war's end. http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_ravensbrueck.html.

I would myself be more impressed, if witnesses/'holocaust survivors' such as the one I am investigating would admit to this evidence of a "mountain of contradiction". But ...whatever. All that is not relevant to my interest. As, if there was a "mountain of corpses" it was unrelated to any alleged gassing policy and would have been the result of disease.

This Polish/Swedish gentleman is stating that he is a witness to the systematic policy to kill all the Jews in Europe. Because of his own experiences, he is telling impressionable children that he is proof therefore that all revisionists (such as Faurisson) are racist liers. This is what he told my children and has been telling many other school children in Sweden for a decade. And yet everything that he witnessed and his own (and his parents) survival is NOT a witness to any such policy. That Jews were transported from Poland to concentration camps is NOT contested by Faurisson or anybody.
Nobody contests that people died in camps from disease, and malnutrition at the war's end. Millions of other people were still dying from disease and malnutrition AFTER the war ended in Poland, Ukraine, Greece, Holland, Hungary and Germany. (See: 'Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II' by Keith Lowe) This is the lack of context (and I think deceit by omission) that bothers me with his holocaust lecture.

Japanese were ALSO interred in concentration camps.
Germans, English pacifists (e.g E.D Morel) and members of Moseley's fascist party were interred in England.
Some of these people were tortured to death in London (see 'Cruel Britannia' by Ian Cobain, published by Portobello Books in 2012 http://snipurl.com/26fud9t).
The reason why so many died in the camps in German and Poland at the wars end was because (ahem... cough, cough ) there was a bloody war going on there! The most brutal and destructive and murderous war known in the history of humanity, where for the first time civilians were targeted on a monumental, immoral scale (e.g. Dresden, Münster, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagazaki, etc., etc).
If it is not OK to throw women in children alive into a fire, why was it still regarded as justifiable to throw fire onto living women and children?

ALL sides behaved immorally.
As 'Bomber' Harris said when asked about the immorality of his own actions in the war "what part of war is not immoral?"

This is what irks me about this man's 'holocaust witness' lecture: out of the estimated 55 to 60 million people who died why are we still subjecting our chidren to tales of the suffering of one section of the victims? What about the 10 to 11 million chinese civilians who died as a direct result of the war? the 2 million Japanese civilians? the 16.6 million Russian civilians? the 4.4 million German civilians, etc., etc? 60% to 67% of the casualties of WW2 were civilian (it was about 10% in WW1). Yet we as a society allow a narrative to be preached that only concentrates on the suffering of a fraction of that world orgy of destruction and death. Why don't we get memorials and lecturers from Bengal telling our children about the 2 to 5 miilion Indians that Churchill let starve to death while shipping out rice from the area to "feed the war effort"? (See "Churchill's Secret War" by Madhusree Mukerjee https://sites.google.com/site/bookreviewsbydrgideonpolya/mukerjee

So... If I can demonstrate that he lied about a mountain of corpses I can demonstrate that he is not only NOT a witness to policy of mass genocide, he is not even a reliable witness of the concentration camp he was interred in.
There is an online plan of the layout of the camp here:

It looks as though trains arrived at an entrance to the east of the camp.
The crematorium and alleged gas chamber are situated outside the camp on the west side.
I would appreciate a second opinion.
Can anybody see a main entrance on the plan? As, if this is correct, then the piling up of corpses prior to cremation by the entrance on the EAST of the camp (where the railway lines enter the camp ) at the furthest point AWAY from the crematorium makes little sense and would imply (as I suspected) that Mr Rawet is lying or has invented a memory from his own imagination (or from what he later read or heard). Allthough... the crematorium, being outside the camp, perhaps could only be reached by road from an entrance on the EAST side. Then his story would make sense as trucks would have to drive in the main entrance on the west side of the camp, collect bodies and then drive around the perimetrer of the camp to the crematoria outside on the East.
But as the Kommandants house and the observation tower are also on the east I should imagine there was an entrance here also. And the womens quarters were also on the east. Any thoughts?

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Can anybody see a main entrance on the plan? As, if this is correct, then the piling up of corpses prior to cremation by the entrance on the EAST of the camp (where the railway lines enter the camp ) at the furthest point AWAY from the crematorium makes little sense and would imply (as I suspected) that Mr Rawet is lying or has invented a memory from his own imagination (or from what he later read or heard). Allthough... the crematorium, being outside the camp, perhaps could only be reached by road from an entrance on the EAST side. Then his story would make sense as trucks would have to drive in the main entrance on the west side of the camp, collect bodies and then drive around the perimetrer of the camp to the crematoria outside on the East.

But as the Kommandants house and the observation tower are also on the east I should imagine there was an entrance here also. And the womens quarters were also on the east. Any thoughts?

The officer's houses and the female guards barracks were not inside the perimeter of the camp:
http://ravensbrueck2012.blogspot.co.uk/ ... ouses.html
http://ravensbrueck2012.blogspot.co.uk/ ... using.html

The main entrance to the camp (pictured below), was on the left of the SS headquarters:
http://ravensbrueck2012.blogspot.co.uk/ ... rters.html





This photo was taken in the position, and direction indicated by the red arrow. Although I don't recall anything that indicated railway tracks were once laid there.



The photo above was taken between the wall and building on the right of the photo below:

[Christopher Louis]

Thanks very much for your reply and the photos/info.
So... If I am understanding your info correctly then the main entrance was on the west by the crematorium, so his story is credible.

[Hannover]

Thanks very much for your reply and the photos/info.
So... If I am understanding your info correctly then the main entrance was on the west by the crematorium, so his story is credible.

Not the least bit credible unless you can prove the existence of the claimed corpses which would have greeted entrants into the camp.
I can see it now: 'Welcome to Ravensbruck, we've prepared a little display of diseased corpses to make you feel at home.'

- Hannover

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Thanks very much for your reply and the photos/info.
So... If I am understanding your info correctly then the main entrance was on the west by the crematorium, so his story is credible.

No worries.

I don't know—nor care—what "his story is", but the main entrance is north of the crematorium.



Red arrow: Main entrance in photo in my previous post.
Yellow arrow: Crematorium
Blue arrow: Location of "the homicidal gas chamber"



The picture below was taken in the approximate position and direction indicated by the blue arrow on the Google earth image above. There is an entrance into the prisoner camp on the left of the crematorium. Incidentally, the building behind the crematorium was the camp prison.
http://ravensbrueck2012.blogspot.co.uk/ ... rison.html




Here you can see the same entrance from another angle.

[Hektor]

Here are excerpts from Nuremberg which certainly, and quite falsely, portray Ravensbruck as an extermination center AND work camp, whereas Auschwitz was said to be a pure extermination center.
source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-28-46.asp
...

I get the impression they were then busy fixing themselves on Zyklon B as the "murder weapon", since that was present in all the camps.

[hermod]

Martin Brozsat of the Munich institute for Contemporary History who stated in 1960 that there were no gas chambers in greater Germany during the war.

Martin Broszat (head of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute of Contemporary History) between 1972 and 1989) referred to the Old Reich (Altreich), not to Greater Germany. The term "Old Reich" was used after the annexation of Austria in 1938 to refer to that part of Germany that was within the 1937 (pre-annexation) boundaries. So Auschwitz and Chelmno were not included in Broszat's statement on the absence of homicidal gas chambers in the Old Reich, while Ravensbrück was.

Keine Vergasung in Dachau
(No gassing at Dachau)
by Martin Broszat
Hamburg weekly Die Zeit
August 19, 1960

Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed. The gas chamber in Dachau was never entirely finished or put "into operation." Hundreds of thousands of prisoners who perished in Dachau and other concentration camps in the Old Reich were victims, above all, of the catastrophic hygienic and provisioning conditions: according to official SS statistics, during the twelve months from July 1942 through June 1943 alone, 110,812 persons died of disease and hunger in all of the concentration camps of the Reich. The mass extermination of the Jews by gassing began in 1941-1942 and occurred exclusively in a few facilities selected and equipped with appropriate technical installations, above all in the occupied Polish territory (but at no place in the Old Reich) (aber nirgends im Altreich) in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor on the Bug, in Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec.

It is at those places, but not in Bergen-Belsen, Dachau or Buchenwald, where the mass extermination facilities, spoken of in your article, were built and disguised as shower baths or disinfection rooms. This necessary differentiation does not, of course, change anything regarding the criminal character of the facility that was the concentration camp. However, it may perhaps help eliminate the annoying confusion that arises from the fact that some ineducable people make use of a few arguments that, while correct, are polemically torn from the context, and that, rushing to respond to them are other people who, although they have the correct overall view, rely upon false or mistaken information.

Dr. M. Broszat
Institute for Contemporary History
Munich

Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in what anyone said or wrote in 1960, either revisionist or extemrinationist. The point of history is the process of uncovering new material.

Don't underestimate such concessions from the Institute for Contemporary History. The Institute for Contemporary History conceding there were no homicidal gas chambers in the Old Reich was as if the Vatican had said Jesus never existed. Not something Broszat just said like that, without being 100% certain of what he claimed.

The Institute for Contemporary was the guard of the holo-faith in postwar Germany. The ICH was founded in 1947 by the German government and the State of Bavaria on 'suggestion' (i.e. order) by the Allied Forces, nothing less! Since 1953, the Institute has been publishing the journal Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte ("Contemporary History Quarterly"), one of the world's leading periodicals for "the study of Nazi Germany" (i.e. Holocaust propaganda). Its first director was Hans Rothfels, a German Jew and an influential figure among West German scholars. In the 1950's, when most German historians preferred to ignore "the Holocaust", Rothfels broke new ground by publishing Kurt Gerstein's report in the first edition of the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte in 1953. The second director of the ICH was Martin Broszat. At the 1963–1965 Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt, Broszat together with other experts from the Institute of Contemporary History such as Helmut Krausnick, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen and Hans Buchheim served as expert witnesses for the prosecution. The report that they compiled for the prosecution served as the basis for their 1968 book Anatomy of the SS State. Broszat's protégé was a certain Ian Kershaw.

As you can see, Broszat conceding in the name of Institute for Contemporary History that there were no homicidal gas chambers in the entire Old Reich wasn't something little or even insignificant. That was a major concession to the revisionists, intended to prevent the whole holo-boat from sinking with the ridiculous 'gas chambers' of Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen Belsen, Ravensbrück, Neuengamme, Sachsenhausen and Flossenburg.

Three decades later, the world-famous "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal conceded the same thing.


http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n3p-9_Staff.html

[Hektor]

Martin Brozsat of the Munich institute for Contemporary History who stated in 1960 that there were no gas chambers in greater Germany during the war.

Martin Broszat (head of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute of Contemporary History) between 1972 and 1989) referred to the Old Reich (Altreich), not to Greater Germany. The term "Old Reich" was used after the annexation of Austria in 1938 to refer to that part of Germany that was within the 1937 (pre-annexation) boundaries. So Auschwitz and Chelmno were not included in Broszat's statement on the absence of homicidal gas chambers in the Old Reich, while Ravensbrück was.

Keine Vergasung in Dachau
(No gassing at Dachau)
by Martin Broszat
Hamburg weekly Die Zeit
August 19, 1960

Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed. The gas chamber in Dachau was never entirely finished or put "into operation." Hundreds of thousands of prisoners who perished in Dachau and other concentration camps in the Old Reich were victims, above all, of the catastrophic hygienic and provisioning conditions: according to official SS statistics, during the twelve months from July 1942 through June 1943 alone, 110,812 persons died of disease and hunger in all of the concentration camps of the Reich. The mass extermination of the Jews by gassing began in 1941-1942 and occurred exclusively in a few facilities selected and equipped with appropriate technical installations, above all in the occupied Polish territory (but at no place in the Old Reich) (aber nirgends im Altreich) in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor on the Bug, in Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec.

It is at those places, but not in Bergen-Belsen, Dachau or Buchenwald, where the mass extermination facilities, spoken of in your article, were built and disguised as shower baths or disinfection rooms. This necessary differentiation does not, of course, change anything regarding the criminal character of the facility that was the concentration camp. However, it may perhaps help eliminate the annoying confusion that arises from the fact that some ineducable people make use of a few arguments that, while correct, are polemically torn from the context, and that, rushing to respond to them are other people who, although they have the correct overall view, rely upon false or mistaken information.

Dr. M. Broszat
Institute for Contemporary History
Munich

Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in what anyone said or wrote in 1960, either revisionist or extemrinationist. The point of history is the process of uncovering new material.

Don't underestimate such concessions from the Institute for Contemporary History. The Institute for Contemporary History conceding there were no homicidal gas chambers in the Old Reich was as if the Vatican had said Jesus never existed. Not something Broszat just said like that, without being 100% certain of what he claimed.

The Institute for Contemporary was the guard of the holo-faith in postwar Germany. The ICH was founded in 1947 by the German government and the State of Bavaria on 'suggestion' (i.e. order) by the Allied Forces, nothing less! Since 1953, the Institute has been publishing the journal Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte ("Contemporary History Quarterly"), one of the world's leading periodicals for "the study of Nazi Germany" (i.e. Holocaust propaganda). Its first director was Hans Rothfels, a German Jew and an influential figure among West German scholars. In the 1950's, when most German historians preferred to ignore "the Holocaust", Rothfels broke new ground by publishing Kurt Gerstein's report in the first edition of the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte in 1953. ....

From Wikipedia:

The Institut für Zeitgeschichte ("Institute of Contemporary History") in Munich was conceived in 1947 under the name Deutsches Institut für Geschichte der nationalsozialistischen Zeit ("German Institute of the History of the National Socialist Era"). Founded by the German government and the State of Bavaria on suggestion by the Allied Forces, it was established in 1949 and renamed in 1952. Its purpose is the analysis of contemporary German history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f ... geschichte

No doubt that was part of the Allied Re-education efforts. It's in the zone of the Americans, who were actually leading that idea.

[hermod]

No doubt that was part of the Allied Re-education efforts. It's in the zone of the Americans, who were actually leading that idea.

I agree. Just a continuation of the American efforts to obliterate any knowledge of the huge destructions caused by the U.S. armies during WW2. No way the American lemmings could hear of something else than their country's anti-Nazi atrocity propaganda and could think they weren't "the good guys" having fought "the good war". No way the defeated Germans could hear something else either. The Victors' propaganda is "History".

"A thoughtful American professor, whom I met in Heidelberg, expressed the opinion that the United States military authorities on entering Germany and seeing the ghastly destruction wrought by our obliteration bombing were fearful that knowledge of it would cause a revulsion of opinion in America, and might prevent the carrying out of Washington's policy for Germany by awakening sympathy for the defeated, and realization of our war crimes. This, he believes, is the reason why a whole fleet of aircraft was used by General Eisenhower to bring journalists, Congressmen, and churchmen to see the concentration camps; the idea being that the sight of Hitler's starved victims would obliterate consciousness of our own guilt. Certainly it worked out that way. No American newspaper of large circulation in those days wrote up the horror of our bombing, or described the ghastly conditions in which the survivors were living in the corpse-filled ruins. American readers sipped their fill only of German atrocities.

Whether most Americans in Germany have developed a mental defense mechanism, or really believe that an atrocity ceases to be one when committed in a "good cause," that is, our own, I do not know. But I found many Military Government officials who considered it bad taste, if not almost treasonable, so much as to refer to our war crimes and those of our allies.

In Berlin, for instance, I found myself in disgrace after having remarked, at a cocktail party in Harnack House, that I thought it was high time we stopped talking about German guilt, since there was no crime the Nazis had committed, which we or our allies had not also committed. I had referred to our obliteration bombing, the mass expropriation and expulsion from their homes of twelve million Germans on account of their race; the starving of the Germans during the first years of the occupation; the use of prisoners as slave laborers; the Russian concentration camps, and the looting perpetrated by Americans as well as Russians."

- THE HIGH COST OF VENGEANCE by Freda Utley (1949), p.183

Although the Americans were the initiators of the intellectual plundering of Germany, it was practiced by all the victors - the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union.

When World War II came to an end, the experts of the French, the Soviets and the British were just as ready as the Office of Technical Services in Washington (OTS). The London office of the British Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee said proudly, "The production secrets we take away from Germany are a bigger blow than the loss of East Prussia." Even the prime minister of Australia, Joseph B. Chifley, admitted in a radio address in September 1949 that "the booty of 6,000 German industrial reports and of 46 German scientists given to Australia" possessed a value that could not be calculated in money and now enabled Australian producers to also play a prominent role in industrial world production.

This booty was so great that very soon one was unable to count the documents, and they were measured by weight of paper. The U.S. Air Research and Development Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio in this way received "without doubt the greatest collection of captured secret methods in the world," and it weighed 1,554 tons.

An official of the OTS called this office with the mission to distribute the techno-scientific progress of Germany "the first organization in the world with the purpose to bleed dry the inventive power of an entire people." It disposed of more than 3,000 tons of documents seized in Germany.

So that nobody could come along and denounce all this wholesale robbery and plunder as a war crime, it had to be arranged that all Germans of those times would be continuously defamed and treated as criminals, barbarians, "war criminals," "militarists," "fascists" (with the propaganda-meaning of satanic evil) - so that none of these undesirable people who might hold such opinions should occupy any position from which the public could be reached. That is the reason for Allied control officers at German universities, for Allied writers or assistants in the rewriting of German historical textbooks, and for as many as possible foreign lecturers for history and political sciences at German universities.

And while the certainly not timid Nazis had removed 1,628 university teachers (with pensions), the anti-Nazis in 1945 victimized no less than 4,289 professors and teachers. And they did not receive any pensions. As Christ und Welt calculated in 1950, the Nazis removed 9.5 percent of the university personnel. The Allies removed 32.1 percent.

Nearly every third German university professor in the Western sectors was deprived of his teaching or research position by the victors. And in all of Germany, it was every second teacher. By 1946, 1,028 professors and teachers had come from the eastern territories and from central Germany into the area of the later Bundesrepublik as unemployed refugees, and later on thousands more followed. But in 1946 the denazification had just begun, which ordered, according to Control Council Directive No. 24 of January 1, 1946, the immediate removal of former National Socialists "from all offices and from numerous professions" alone in the American Zone. For example, 373,762 persons by the end of 1946 were found "unsuited for any public function or work in the economy except as laborers." (Zischka, Anton, War es ein Wunder, pp. 153-54.)

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/script ... tents.html

[Hektor]

No doubt that was part of the Allied Re-education efforts. It's in the zone of the Americans, who were actually leading that idea.

I agree. Just a continuation of the American efforts to obliterate any knowledge of the huge destructions caused by the U.S. armies during WW2. No way the American lemmings could hear of something else than their country's anti-Nazi atrocity propaganda and could think they weren't "the good guys" having fought "the good war". No way the defeated Germans could hear something else either. The Victors' propaganda is "History".

"[i]A thoughtful American professor, whom I met in Heidelberg, expressed the opinion that the United States military authorities on entering Germany and seeing the ghastly destruction wrought by our obliteration bombing were fearful that knowledge of it would cause a revulsion of opinion in America, and might prevent the carrying out of Washington's policy for Germany by awakening sympathy for the defeated, and realization of our war crimes. This, he believes, is the reason why a whole fleet of aircraft was used by General Eisenhower to bring journalists, Congressmen, and churchmen to see the concentration camps; the idea being that the sight of Hitler's starved victims would obliterate consciousness of our own guilt. Certainly it worked out that way. No American newspaper of large circulation in those days wrote up the horror of our bombing, or described the ghastly conditions in which the survivors were living in the corpse-filled ruins. American readers sipped their fill only of German atrocities....

No who was that "thoughtful American professor"?

[hermod]

No who was that "thoughtful American professor"?

I don't think Freda Utley gave his name. Not that I remember.