Fritjof Meyer

[comrade seinfeld]

http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng/ak ... php?id=563

This is a very complex subject. Probably posters have heard of the Fritjof Meyer thesis in regard to Auschwitz. The above link is a supposed refutation of it, from an anti-revisionist perspective, by someone who has made it his profession to defend the conventional Holocaust narrative, so it is difficult for a layperson such as myself to deal with the so-called facts that he brings to bear. I would think, however, that it should be obvious that it is the same old reiteration of the standard allegations concerning what happened at Auschwitz.

For those who have not actually read the Fritjof Meyer thesis there is a link below. It sounds quite credible, but it seems to be from someone who wants to disavow the conventional narrative of the Holocaust, but is too prudent to go beyond what seems to solid technical criticisms of the supposed homicidal gas chambers. Moreover he adopts a Functionalist attitude to what killings there were supposed to be, rather than an absolutist exterminationist attitude.

http://fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Osteuropa/Fr ... eyer2.html

If it is possible to discern obvious deficiencies in the above links, then those of us who are more agnostic about the Holocaust would be interested to know. However, what I am more interested in is why the standard anti-revisionists are so opposed to Meyer, and what are the validity of their arguments.

[Hannover]

Meyer is in effect propagating 'salami Revisionism'; meaning piece by piece the fraudulent story of Auschwitz is being undone. Obviously the likes of 'holocau$t' profiteer, F. Piper, don't like Meyer one bit; Piper's personal cash cow is endangered and liars by the score are threatened by Meyer's revisions.

One has to wonder if Meyer even believes his own words, or is he merely avoiding prison with his laughable assertions that there were some gassings; but not in the facilities that are absurdly alleged to have been the main 'gas chambers'.....oops, there's the reason why the profiteers don't like Meyer.

Meyer reminds me of Jean-Claude Pressac, the French pharmacist who was paid by a Zionist organization to write a book which would 'prove' the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. Pressac's efforts were so pathetic that there are those that belief he's a cryptic Revisionist.

As hard as he tries to cling to mythical 'gassings', Meyer comes up short.
See Meyer utterly undressed here by reknowned Revisionist, Carlo Mattogno; full text:

http://vho.org/tr/2003/1/Mattogno30-37.html

The 'holocaust' Indu$try has met the enemy, it is themselves.

- Hannover

[Hannover]

In addition, Piper goes through an entire litany of thoroughly debunked Auschwitz stories which makes it difficult to address them in a cogent, systematic way in one thread. Anyone who cares to support any of Piper's positions should do so one at a time, using individual threads per issue. I'm sure the Forum would welcome those threads.

For those who wish to unravel Piper without debate, I suggest our search function.

- Hannover

[comrade seinfeld]

This is not meant to be disrespectful to anyone, least of all to the Moderator, but, after I had posted this thread, I then noticed that there was a locked thread associated with Hebden, which dealt with the criticism of Meyer by Franciszek Piper, and which had to be locked, because the Moderator didn't think it was appropriate, for reasons which have been reiterated by Hannover in this thread.

At the time I did not attempt to actually read the locked thread (I am not sure if you are actually able to do so), as I was busy with something else, and I meant to come back to it the next day -- I rely on publicly available computers. However, today I see that particular thread is not present in the list of threads. Is there some way that I would be able to read this thread?

I am particularly interested because I am dealing with the subject at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/holocaustdenial (but not as comrade seinfeld), and, not having the resources to be a great expert on the supposed Holocaust, I need some ideas from people who are dedicated to the subject. If you know anything about that particular Yahoo! group, it is controlled by anti-revisionists, although it is liberal as regards the posts of those who regard themselves as Holocaust revisionists or agnostics, and many of those who have posted in this forum have posted there, but, apparently, after a while they have dropped out. Possibly because those anti-revisionists (even Daniel Keren puts in an appearence, sometimes, if things are getting desperate!) never properly debate, and are totally dogmatic (I presume that they are mercenaries in the pay of the Zionists! -- or maybe they are just thick?), so that revisionists just couldn't be bothered; however, I think that if there are disinterested observers visiting the site, then I think it is worthwhile engaging in a dialectic with these Believers, as they are called in this forum. Anyway it is a virtual shooting gallery for those who can take time away from this forum, if you are interested.

Actually, also, with due respect to Hannover, I am not primarily concerned with refuting Meyer at this stage, especially since I know that prominent revisionists have dealt with the Meyer thesis in the first online issue of The Revisionist. What I was interested in is the criticism of Meyer by Franciszek Piper, especially since the conventional anti-revisionists are very concerned about Meyer, since it is not possible to have him labelled as a denier, or to have him proscecuted under the German anti-denier laws.

As I understand the situation, the Meyer thesis is essentially Functionalist, in the sense that whatever was technically possible at Auschwitz-Birkenau in the way of homocidal gas chambers was only employed in a limited sense to those diseased inmates threatening the efficiency of slave labour production in the concentration camps. Such is clearly a refutation of the absolutist extermination of the Jews and others by the German Nazis propagated by the conventional Holocaust narrative that the anti-revisionists seek to defend at all costs, for whatever reason. In fact, in the particular article by Piper attacking Meyer, he falls back on the notion that, no matter what the Nazis actually were said to have done, particularly in regard to the Jews, it was only the beginning of an absolutist genocidal program, which, besides taking in World Jewry ultimately, was also planned in regard to the Slavic Europeans, such as the Poles -- all of which is very pathetic, I think.

[Moderator]

Please, go ahead and read what Piper says and then critique it, ask questions, whatever you wish.

The point being that to have a single thread with so many points would be unwieldy and difficult to follow. Hence we have guidelines which specify one topic per thread.

There has been no attempt to ignore Piper, there has been an attempt to make any ensuing debate an orderly, cogent one. In fact, I posted the link to this Piper article with the note to Hebden. That note to Hebden clearly spelled out the need for a single issue per thread. I asked him to post his views on a point by point basis, and asked him to add the link to the full text with each specific thread on individual points.

Please feel free to debate Piper's points... one by one as the guidelines state.

To facilitate your interest I will post the full text in order to make it easier to view and then debate.

Thanks, Moderator

[Sailor]

Fritjof got now finally around to rebut his various adversaries about his essay in "Osteuropa". With revisionist critics he was short and brief: "The Italian Holocaust-Denier" and the "Diplom Demagogue". That's was all.

But how different did he deal with Dr. Piper! After a disgusting brown nosing introduction about what great scientist Piper is, he went to some great length and detail to defend his position, i.e. that nobody was gassed in the morgues of the crematoria but rather in the bunkers, and that his revised number of victims was correct.

See:
Replik auf Piper (Answer to Piper) (in German)
http://www.idgr.de/texte/geschichte/ns- ... -piper.php

As time permits I will summarize his main points.

fge

[Hebden]

Mr. Sailor, do you have a German edition of Mr. Hoess's autobiography?

[Sailor]

Indeed I do.

I have the copy which was edited by Martin Broszat. It was a little expensive with the Dollar going down the tube against the Euro. But I feel that it is worth it because some "reading between the lines" I think is necessary. And the original was in German.

By the way, you posted a while back a neat little sketch of the Birkenau camp layout. I know that I made a copy, filed it in a safe place, and now I can't find it anymore. Could you post that again?

fge

[Hebden]

Indeed I do.

I have the copy which was edited by Martin Broszat. It was a little expensive with the Dollar going down the tube against the Euro. But I feel that it is worth it because some "reading between the lines" I think is necessary. And the original was in German.

Please have a look at the following page which comes from the affidavit allegedly given and signed by Mr. Hoess on March 14 1946:

http://www.r*odoh.org/documents/Hoess6a-2.jpg (remove asterisk)

He talks of transports from Belsen to Auschwitz, and one in particular where a minor revolt took place. We'd like to know if these references to Belsen transports are repeated in the German edition of the autobiography.

By the way, you posted a while back a neat little sketch of the Birkenau camp layout. I know that I made a copy, filed it in a safe place, and now I can't find it anymore. Could you post that again?

We believe this is the one:

http://holocaust-info.dk/auschwitz/Auschwitz/map.jpg

If you right click your mouse over the graphic, you can set it as your desktop background.

[Sailor]

Please have a look at the following page which comes from the affidavit allegedly given and signed by Mr. Hoess on March 14 1946

I did not find any reference to a Belsen transport in his memoirs.

In the book I checked twice, page by page:
"Chapter 8. Kommandant von Auschwitz (1940-1943)", and
"1. Die »Endlösung der Judenfrage« im KL Auschwitz (The final solution of the Jewish problem in Auschwitz)", for a reference this transport from Belsen to Auschwitz.

No luck.

The only reference to the affidavit itself in the Höss memoirs is:

"Was in dem Protokoll drin steht, weiß ich nicht, obwohl ich es unterschrieben habe."
(I don't know what is in the affidavit, allthough I did sign it.)

fge

[comrade seinfeld]

Fritjof got now finally around to rebut his various adversaries about his essay in "Osteuropa". With revisionist critics he was short and brief: "The Italian Holocaust-Denier" and the "Diplom Demagogue". That's was all.

But how different did he deal with Dr. Piper! After a ing brown-nosing introduction about what great scientist Piper is, he went to some great length and detail to defend his position, i.e. that nobody was gassed in the morgues of the crematoria but rather in the bunkers, and that his revised number of victims was correct.

See:
Replik auf Piper (Answer to Piper) (in German)
http://www.idgr.de/texte/geschichte/ns- ... -piper.php

As time permits I will summarize his main points.

fge

That is really excellent, since, whether what Meyer says is true or not, the proponents of the official Holocaust narrative do not like Meyer, and we should do our best to oppose his views to theirs. Thus, there should be an English translation as soon as possible. Probably people know about the free translation sites at http://www.systransoft.com and http://babelfish.altavista.com, which are not very good (probably since they are free), although they do give a rough translation.

I think, Sailor, that you might be a bit harsh in the sense that this is all going on in Germany where Holocaust "denial" is a criminal offense. I get the impression that Meyer is someone who, at heart, knows that the official Holocaust narrative is wrong, and that, considering his situation, is only prepared to deal with what can be conceived as objective factors, such as how many would it have technically been possible for the Nazis to gas and cremate, and what possible reason would they have to do that to likely slave labour. Of course, I could be wrong, and Meyer is just another Left-liberal out to save the bacon of the official Holocaust narrative by erasing the obvious absurdities.

[comrade seinfeld]

Fritjof got now finally around to rebut his various adversaries about his essay in "Osteuropa". With revisionist critics he was short and brief: "The Italian Holocaust-Denier" and the "Diplom Demagogue". That's was all.

But how different did he deal with Dr. Piper! After a ing brown-nosing introduction about what great scientist Piper is, he went to some great length and detail to defend his position, i.e. that nobody was gassed in the morgues of the crematoria but rather in the bunkers, and that his revised number of victims was correct.

See:
Replik auf Piper (Answer to Piper) (in German)
http://www.idgr.de/texte/geschichte/ns- ... -piper.php

As time permits I will summarize his main points.

fge

I have another post about this yet to be approved. But I have found a much superior translation site at http://aztlan.net/translate.htm to deal with the above German link.

[Hebden]

Here's what we have. See what you think.

Auschwitz Chronicle entry for October 23 1943:

1,800 Polish Jews - men, women, children - arrive in an RSHA transport from Bergen-Belsen. They had received passports for departure to Latin American countries. Most of them paid a high price for these visas with the approval of the Gestapo in Warsaw's Hotel Polski, whence they were brought to the detention camp in Bergen-Belsen. These are the so-called exchange Jews. In Bergen-Belsen, Dr. Seidl, a representative of the RSHA, examined their documents and decided that the numerous members of the individual families were not related to one another. The only purpose of the passports with permission to depart was to protect their holders from extermination. They are ordered to prepare for departure to Bergau Camp near Dresden and inormed that their baggage will be sent on to them. At the last moment, 70 Jews who had arrived in Bergen-Belsen are added to the transport. Not until they arrive at the unloading platform do they understand that they have been taken to Auschwitz, a place that is not unfamiliar to the Polish Jews. On the platform, men and women are separated from one another. The women are taken to Crematorium II and the men to Crematorium III. After an examination of travel documents and official announcement that a disinfection must first take place, the SS men lead the women to the undressing room. The order to undress causes unrest among the women. But the SS men begin to strip them of their rings and watches. Then, one woman, who realizes that she is in a hopeless situation, flings part of the clothes she has already taken off at the head of SS Staff Sergeant Schillinger, grabs his revolver and shoots him three times. She also shoots SS Sergeant Emmerich. The other women attack the SS men with their bare hands; they bite one SS man on the nose, they scratch the faces of others. The SS men call for reinforcements. After these have arrived, some of the women are shot, the rest are driven into the gas chambers and killed. SS Staff Sergeant Schillinger dies on the way to hospital; SS Sergeant Emmerich recovers after a while but has a crippled leg.

The two sources given for the entry are the manuscript of Auschwitz escapee Mr. Jerzy Tabeau (the 'Polish major' of the WRB Report, registered in the camp under the name Jerzy Wesolowski) and a book Bergen Belsen: Vom "Aufenhaltslager" zum Konzentrationslager (Hanover, 1962).

The Chronicle has a section called Sketches of the Perpetrators:

Josef Schillinger (SS Staff Sergeant) was successively Roll Call Leader, commander of an outside squad and head of the kitchen in the men's camp in Birkenau. Simultaneously employed also in guarding the transports of Jews from the platform to the crematoriums, he was shot in October 1943 by a Jewess with a pistol in the dressing room of one of the gas chambers, and died a short time later. In his autobiography, Commandant in Auschwitz, Hoess described the experience:

A transport had arrived from Belsen and after about two-thirds, mostly men [were in the gas-chamber], a mutiny broke out among the last third who were still in the dressing room. Three or four of the SS officers entered the room with their weapons to hurry the undressing, since the inmates of the incineration squad couldn't finish. The lighting wires was torn out, the SS men were attacked, one of them was stabbed and all of them were robbed of their weapons. Since the room was now dark, a wild shooting started between the guards at the doors and the prisoners inside. When I arrived I had the doors shut, the gassing of the first two-thirds finished and went with flashlights and the guards into the room; we forced the prisoners into a corner where they were then taken out one by one and shot on my orders in a side room of the crematorium with small-caliber weapons. [This account appears only in the German edition.]

The textual similarity between this version and the affidavit is marked.

The claim that the account only appeared in the German edition of the autobiography immediately aroused our suspicion. Why should it have been left out of the English edition? A quick check of our copy revealed that, "Furthermore, the German edition is not unabridged. For example, the incident of the Rumanian prince has been omitted, presumably for reasons of squeamishness. Here the autobiography is given in its entirety: where there are gaps, indicated by ....., this is in all cases save one because such brief gaps, all of only a few words, exist in the transcribed typescript and are due to the illegibility of the original manuscript."

So where did the Chronicle account come from, if not from the memoirs written in Poland? From the affidavit we quoted or from another interrogation? The Hoess affidavit, given in American custody at Nuremberg, dated 5 April, 1946, makes no mention of transports from Belsen; nor do the interrogation transcripts of April 1 and 2.

Here is the relevant part of the report by Mr. Jerzy Tabeau, apparently written after his escape in November 1943 and which subsequently made its way to the West:

There was only a single case when a self-defense action had some result. It was in September or October 1943. A transport of women arrived at the crematorium at night. The convoying SS-men fell among them, ordering them to undress and herding them to the chambers. This is the best tactic for theft, taking rings from fingers, removing watches, etc. The ones doing this had to torment the one they picked out, in order to have an explanation for their presence there, to keep up the appearance that they were only performing their official function. In the ensuing confusion one of the women jerked away the revolver of Unterscharführer Schilinger [Schillinger], seriously wounding him with three bullets (he died the next day), which was a signal for the rest to throw themselves on the SS-men. One of them got his nose bitten off and another got his scalp split by the women. None of them were saved, though.

The memoirs of SS Rottenführer Pery Broad, allegedly composed in British custody in May-June 1945, briefly allude to the event in question:

But it also occurred that whole transports were fully aware of their impending fate. The murderers had to be very careful in such cases. Otherwise they could be shot with their own pistols, as had happened in the case of SS-Unterscharführer Schillinger.

This appears in a section discussing the gassings in the Bunkers, but the editors of the book KL Auschwitz Seen By the SS helpfully point out in a foonote: Broad refers here to an event which occurred on October 24, 1943. An RSHA transport from KL Bergen-Belsen brought 1,700 Jews, citizens of various countries. They had been told they would go to Switzerland. etc.

Questions arising are:

1) Granted this incident never occurred, how did it come to appear in the first Hoess affidavit?

2) Do the differences in the Hoess affidavit and the Tabaeu account argue against the latter being a source for the former?

3) Does the British interest in Belsen explain why reference to this incident appears to be absent from the later affidavit and memoirs?

4) What independent evidence is there that a transport or transports from Belsen were sent to Auschwitz?

5) Is there independent evidence that SS Staff Sergeant Schillinger died on this date?

[Sailor]

I checked the Höss memoirs again for the section about the Belsen transport. No luck.

I would consider the material in Danuta Czech's "Auschwitz Chronicle" with a grain of salt.
Danuta seemed to have been a little sloppy occasionally. For example with her gassing claims. Says Fritjo Meyer in his rebuttal to Dr. Piper:

"Piper zählt auch die erste Auflage des Kalendariums von Danuta Czech aus dem Jahre 1958 zu den historiographischen Forschungen, obwohl sie der sowjetisch programmierten Propaganda zuzurechnen war. Darin behauptete Czech ohne jeden Beleg den Gastod vieler Transporte, deren Insassen noch lebten wie die am 13.3.1944 in Auschwitz eingetroffene Simone Veill, die spätere Präsidentin des Europarats. In der dritten Auflage ihres "Kalendarium der wichtigsten Ereignisse" 1999 bei Dlugoborski/Piper, Bd.V, S.184f., fehlt der ganze Transport, wie auch die massenhaften Transporte des August und September 1942 aus Frankreich.

(Piper counts the first edition of the Kalendarium of Danuta Czech from the year 1958 as part of the historiographic researches, although they belong to the propaganda programmed by the Soviets. Czech alleges without any proof the gassing death of many transports, whose passengers were still living, like Simone Veill, who arrived in Auschwitz March 13, 1944 and became later president of the European Council. In the third edition of her "Kalendarium" of 1999 by Dlugoborski/Piper. Vol. V, pp. 184, is the whole transport missing, and also the mass transports of August and September 1942 from France.)"

It seems that Danuta got her information about arriving transports from a list which was secretly copied by inmates who worked in the office of the camp administration, and from secondary and tertiary books.

1) Granted this incident never occurred, how did it come to appear in the first Hoess affidavit?

According to Danuta, Jerzy Tabeau escaped at the end of 1943 and sent his report including the Belsen story to London. So the British were aware of it and apparently forced it down Höss throat, who then signed the affidavit.
Höss left Auschwitz in the beginning of November 1943, shortly after the alleged Belsen transport.

2) Do the differences in the Hoess affidavit and the Tabaeu account argue against the latter being a source for the former?

Why do you say this?

3) Does the British interest in Belsen explain why reference to this incident appears to be absent from the later affidavit and memoirs?
4) What independent evidence is there that a transport or transports from Belsen were sent to Auschwitz?

The British liberated the camp and probably got hold of all the files and transportation orders. After checking things out they may not have found any reference to the transport to Auschwitz at that time and felt that the story may not be true after all.

Is there independent evidence that SS Staff Sergeant Schillinger died on this date?

Don't know.

fge

[TheFirstPrinciple]

> See Meyer utterly undressed here by reknowned Revisionist, Carlo Mattogno; full text:

I think that was Meyer's intention. He's kinda saying: "Relax, pals, the Earth is still flat, but it is not center of the Universe and yes, it does move!". He can't say the truth about the silly holohoax story, so he must save an appearance of orthodoxy, yet the only logical conclusion from his propositions is that there were no gassings at all (or at least that nobody can prove that there were gassings). Yes, he doesn't state it outright, but any reasonable person will ask questions after reading his articles. Trojan horse?