Question About The Polish Resistance Movement Reports

[greatmystery]

The Reports from the Polish Resistance Movement have been thoroughly debunked by Jürgen Graf. However, I can't seem to find any examples of how orthodox Holocaust scholars are using the reports in their story telling. Does anyone know of an important Scholar/Historian/Book that cites these reports and uses them as if they are actual evidence? Any information would be much appreciated!

[Lamprecht]

These were used during the war as the basis of news stories. They weren't universally considered to be credible, for obvious reasons. After the war was over, all sorts of Jewish prisoners came out with their "Eyewitness testimony" as well as [often coerced] "confessions" from camp guards and higher-ups. On the Wikipedia page, these reports are discussed with citations to exterminationist literature.
These sorts of reports would not be cited as the primary evidence in modern works, as the post-war trial testimony and "confessions" would be considered more definitive.

[hermod]

In the Shadow of Auschwitz : The Polish government-in-exile and the Jews, 1939-1942 (1987), by David Engel

https://archive.org/details/inshadowofa ... 1/mode/2up

Auschwitz and the Exile Government of Poland According to the 'Polish Fortnightly Review' 1940-1945 (1991), by Enrique Aynat Eknes

https://codoh.com/library/document/ausc ... poland/en/

[greatmystery]

Thank you both for the information. It is most helpful. It is possible that the reports were used as evidence in any of the trials? My motivation for this question is to form sort of a gotcha. To say, look at the ridiculous reports and how they were used to promote the false Holocaust narrative.

It is evident that the Allies did not take these stories seriously as they never acted upon them. I found this little tidbit at historycollection.com.
“For years, Pilecki and his group gave information about the horrors of the camp and his reports made it all the way to London. His reports were the main source of intelligence about the camp for the Allies, and Pilecki hoped that there would be a drop off troops or arms to the camp to help them to rise up and escape. In 1943 he decided to break out of Auschwitz in order to convince the Home Army to perform a rescue operation at the camp. He succeeded in escaping, but he could not find enough Allied support to help the AK liberate Auschwitz.”

It does look like David Engel is a respected Holocaust historian. So him using these reports as evidence is something indeed.

[hermod]

It is evident that the Allies did not take these stories seriously as they never acted upon them.

By fear of a potential embarrassing exposure of their biggest propaganda lies, they even deleted a reference to the Nazi gas chambers and to the extermination of Jews in their joint anti-Nazi declaration of August 1943.

https://postimg.cc/0MP1Vqbf

https://postimg.cc/5HJcnMrt

https://postimg.cc/phxFWy6t

https://postimg.cc/N2mS1JxX

https://postimg.cc/XGFj10K1

[Lamprecht]

Thank you both for the information. It is most helpful. It is possible that the reports were used as evidence in any of the trials? My motivation for this question is to form sort of a gotcha. To say, look at the ridiculous reports and how they were used to promote the false Holocaust narrative.

Again, that wouldn't have made much sense. The reports are by themselves rather worthless in a court setting without the author himself being questioned. Additionally, after the war, when they were putting on these show trials they had a plethora of willing "eyewitnesses" to testify, a bunch of new documents, as well as captured German officials to extract "confessions" from. Those reports already existed, so during these trials there would have been no reason to bring them in as evidence since they already existed. The only real purpose they would have served was as inspiration.

It is evident that the Allies did not take these stories seriously as they never acted upon them. I found this little tidbit at historycollection.com.

Some did, some didn't. On July 1943, the chairman of the Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee, Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, commented:
"The Poles, and to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up."

[Archie]

The Polish Underground material does not seem to be emphasized a whole lot, at least in the sort of detail revisionists are interested in. The early reports of Auschwitz collected by Graf and Aynat contain a lot of silly material and the mainstream historians obviously aren't eager in quoting stories about "Lufthammers" and electrocution chambers and the like. You hear some mention of people like Pilecki or Jan Karski but usually just general terms. They don't deal with the problematic details revisionists are interested in.

I see there is a mainstream book, The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939-1945 by Joshua D. Zimmerman. But it might not really have what you're looking for.

There are quite a few books on the broader topic of wartime knowledge of "the Holocaust." You might find those of interest. Some examples: Martin Gilbert's Auschwitz and the Allies, David Wyman's The Abandonment of the Jews. Or from the revisionist side see Butz's Hoax of the Twentieth Century (especially chapter 3) or Samuel Crowell's The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes. A lot of Mattogno's books have relevant material as well and he often quotes or reproduces material that might be hard to find otherwise.

[Archie]

I feel pretty certain the underground reports were not used at Nuremberg. The most famous wartime report was the War Refugee Board report and even that was barely used. One page of it (the one with the death statistics) was submitted and referenced very briefly in one of the presentations. They primarily used a captured German documents, affidavits, and testimonies, not obscure, anonymous stories from the Polish Underground. Possibly some of it was used in the Polish/Soviet trials but I couldn't say for sure.

[Otium]

If any book would give you a detailed look into the use of such Polish reports it would be Mattogno's book:

The Making of the Auschwitz Myth— Auschwitz in British Intercepts, Polish Underground Reports and Postwar Testimonies (1941-1947). On the Genesis and Development of the Gas-Chamber Lore.


PDF file | Book Purchase

Tracing the origin of the myth would logically entail a discussion of how these reports were fit into the emerging Holocaust mythology. In particular, see part 4 of the above study.

[Hektor]

Thank you both for the information. It is most helpful. It is possible that the reports were used as evidence in any of the trials? My motivation for this question is to form sort of a gotcha. To say, look at the ridiculous reports and how they were used to promote the false Holocaust narrative.

It is evident that the Allies did not take these stories seriously as they never acted upon them. I found this little tidbit at historycollection.com.....

Their propagandists (Thomas Mann, Paul Tillich come to mind) spread stories of gas chambers, though. Wait, I think Tillich didn't mention homicidal gassings in name though. What he said sounded more like innuendo, though.
https://archive.org/details/WarTimeRadi ... aulTillich

And today, when the trains with Germans who are fleeing from the cities roll from west to east, this is an atonement for the death trains that, filled with Jewish women and children and old people, drove out of all German cities from west to east to certain death. The German cities slept when the death trains rolled through their train stations with their bürden of indescribable misery. Now they are awoken by the fire from heaven; now their inhabitants themselves are filling the trains of misery.

He calls it death trains without mentioning anything specific on how the Jews were supposedly killed. That leaves the that subject open to the audience's own imagination. Such statements are also unfalsifiable, since their proposition isn't specific. All one can respond is ask those making them to be more specific and ask them for actual evidence. It leads to classical question begging, where the lack of refutation becomes proof for conclusions being drawn.

[greatmystery]

Once again, thank you all for your answers. I'm learning new and interesting things.
Once again I'm going to pose a question, but it can only be answered with speculation. Why do you think Graf included these reports in his book? Was is done to discredit the Holocaust story, or was he just being thorough? Or something else?

[Lamprecht]

Why do you think Graf included these reports in his book? Was is done to discredit the Holocaust story, or was he just being thorough? Or something else?

They're important because they were the main source of information of these myths during the war. It's also useful to compare and contrast them with the post-war testimonies / "confessions" to better understand the evolution of the Auschwitz "extermination camp" hoax.

[ServantOfAhuraMazda]

You seem to be weirdly hung up on the fact that these reports were not used in trials.

Their significance is in that they prove the extermination stories were ridiculous from the very start.

[greatmystery]

You seem to be weirdly hung up on the fact that these reports were not used in trials.

Their significance is in that they prove the extermination stories were ridiculous from the very start.

I'm doing a writing project about the Holocaust lies. I am dramatizing it to make it more normie friendly and adding explanatory notes at the end once their interested is piqued. The reports make for good dramatization, but I want to make sure I am correct on the significance of these reports. So that is why I seem hung up. I fully trust all books put out by Codoh, but Graf doesn't really explain why they the reports are significant.

[Hektor]

I feel pretty certain the underground reports were not used at Nuremberg. The most famous wartime report was the War Refugee Board report and even that was barely used. One page of it (the one with the death statistics) was submitted and referenced very briefly in one of the presentations. They primarily used a captured German documents, affidavits, and testimonies, not obscure, anonymous stories from the Polish Underground. Possibly some of it was used in the Polish/Soviet trials but I couldn't say for sure.

Indeed strange. The American political top leadership is closely associated with the Report, yet they didn't introduce it to IMT-proceedings?
I'd guess that someone noted that it deviates to far from what was factually present in Auschwitz at the time. Those that produced the report claimed to have first hand knowledge of gassing and cremation facilities. But if you look at the drawing they produced of the crematoria, they clearly didn't. If it was indeed introduced at any of the trials dealing with 'homicidal gassing' in Auschwitz, this would have become a field day for Revisionists. The Auschwitz trials have witnesses point to the Krema buildings or some other obscure 'farm houses'. Essentially post war knowledge was used. Some of those involved on the inside probably realized that the accusations actually do not live up to scrutiny. Hence the change of course there.

I've pointed out to Holocaustians that there were media reports of the homicidal gassing narrative from Allied countries prior to this being possibly knowable for anyone in an Allied country. Guess what I got as reply:"Yeah, but what those news-reports said was later confirmed"....

Well, superficially that seems to be the case of course. First a gassing prophesy, then affirming this by what one sees into reality. But given that the first reports are riddled with false details about the objects of enquiry, they are not credible. It's far more plausible that those 'witnesses' made up stories, with the intention of creating atrocity propaganda.

Thomas Mann and Paul Tillich where among those babbling about this on Allied broadcastings directed at Germans. Both with an axe to grind and obviously not caring about whether what they say is true or not. There is of course lots of mixing of fact and fiction in those broadcasts as well. But that has become typical for atrocity propaganda. Apply precision of details, when you can, than the German audience is more likely to believe you, because there is a German inclination to confuse precision with truthfulness... And imprecision with lying. That's of course not necessarily the case.