Did inmates of Auschwitz choose to be evacuated?

[Fugazi]

I was originally going to post this as a reply to the Why didn't the Germans kill all the Jews thread, but I figure it's better treated as a new thread.

I've read in a lot of places in this forum that the inmates of Auschwitz volunteered to be evacuated west with their guards rather than stay and be "liberated" by the Red Army. But I don't recall seeing anywhere what evidence there is for this assertion. I've read a couple of "survivor" stories that didn't mention being offered a choice, but nothing that mentions a choice other than reports of what's in Weasel's book Night (which I haven't read).

The reports I've read of what's in Weasel's book say that the inmates who were in the hospital for various reasons were offered a choice of whether to be evacuated with the rest of the prisoners, or to stay and wait for the Soviets. Weasel chose to be evacuated, something that to my mind blows the rest of his claims out of the water, but the implication was pretty clear that the healthy prisoners were getting evacuated whether they liked it or not, and only the sick ones in the hospital were given a choice.

Obviously, I'm short of facts on this subject, so I'd be grateful to hear from anyone who does have some. It does seem weird to me that the SS would decide to evacuate the prisoners back into the Reich, I've never understood why they did that. Of course, no regular historian is going to put forward the idea that it might have been for humanitarian reasons, to keep them safe from the Soviets, but I've got to admit I have trouble with accepting that idea myself.

[Hannover]

It’s quite clear that the inmates of the Auschwitz complex were given a choice to stay and wait for the Russians to arrive, or leave with the retreating SS. Primo Levi indicates this when he states that after having neen notified that the Germans were in fact leaving Auschwitz, two ill Hungarian inmates made the decision to go with the SS.

It was obvious that they were afraid to stay with the patients and were **deciding** to go with the healthy ones.

‘Survival In Auschwitz’ and the Reawakening, - two memoirs’, Summit Books, 1986, ISBN 0-671-60541-0, p.154

Primo Levi, himself, decided to stay. One cannot 'decide' unless there is a choice.
And I thought the Hungarian Jews were gassed? But wait, here's two ill Hungarian Jews who left with the SS.

Friedrich Paul Berg's incites:

The fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews preferred the company of Nazis to Soviet "liberation" is indeed supported by "survivor's" accounts including the Schindler List story. One interesting supporting story is that of the famous Primo Levi who achieved world notoriety for his classic "Survival in Auschwitz."
In the Collier Books version paperback version page 140 he explains why he CHOSE to stay in Auschwitz rather than go west with supposedly the greatest murderers of Jews in the history of the universe. "It was not a question of reasoning: I would probably also have followed the instinct of the flock if I had not felt so weak; fear is supremely contagious, and its immediate reaction is to make one try to run away." The "fear" in this case is clearly fear of the Russians.

Just a couple of revealing examples of healthy inmates who remained at Auschwitz:

Healthy Jews of Auschwitz greet the Soviets.


Healthy Jewish children alive in the Auschwitz II (Birkenau) upon Soviet arrival. Still from a postwar Soviet film.


Propaganda and lies fall hard.

- Hannover

[Turpitz]

The reports I've read of what's in Weasel's book say that the inmates who were in the hospital for various reasons were offered a choice of whether to be evacuated with the rest of the prisoners, or to stay and wait for the Soviets.

Of course, no regular historian is going to put forward the idea that it might have been for humanitarian reasons,

Surely the very existance of a 'hospital' suggests humanitarian efforts were being made?

I have said before 'What sort of bloody death camp, has a hospital for inmates within it's walls?'

[TMoran]

Do we have any proof, meaning other than survivor accounts, that there was a forced march as described? Sixty thousand (60,000) Jews forced to march in the dead of winter, thousands falling by the wayside along the way?

[Bergmann]

Do we have any proof, meaning other than survivor accounts, that there was a forced march as described? Sixty thousand (60,000) Jews forced to march in the dead of winter, thousands falling by the wayside along the way?

As far as I know, the inmates had to march to the railroad station. From there they continued by train, possibly with interruptions.

[Hannover]

This fact that Auschwitz inmates were given choice to either stay and await the communist Soviets or retreat with the German SS, and the fact that most decided to leave with the German SS troops is something that always needs to be emphasized.

- Hannover

[onetruth]

Primo Levi, himself, decided to stay. One cannot 'decide' unless there is a choice.

When a person claims that the prisoners in Auschwitz where " offered a choice " to be set free or stay prisoners and go on death marches with the SS soldiers, one is left with no choice but to call it for what it is - a sickening distortion of history and common sense.

Himmler ordered the evacuation of all camps in January 1945 - many of those evacuations where on foot with those lagging behind shot. Left behind where those too sick to move and a few that where able to hide away.

Primo levi fell ill with scarlet fever and was placed in the camp's sanatorium Shortly before the camp was liberated by the Red Army that is the reason he was spared the death march.


Kindly bring evidence that the Germans asked prisoners in Auschwitz anything , specially if they would rather stay prisoners or released .

~

[Haldan]

Sanatorium? Spared? This alone contradicts the notion of systematic extermination in an 'industrialized manner'. It must be difficult to defend the 'holocaust' rubbish.

Regards,
-haldan

Primo levi fell ill with scarlet fever and was placed in the camp's sanatorium Shortly before the camp was liberated by the Red Army that is the reason he was spared the death march.

[Dresden]

onetruth said:

"Left behind where those too sick to move and a few that where able to hide away.

Primo levi fell ill with scarlet fever and was placed in the camp's sanatorium Shortly before the camp was liberated by the Red Army that is the reason he was spared the death march"

Here are some pictures of those "too sick to move" Auschwitz campers:

[Dresden]

I realize that I could be wrong, but maybe some of these children were left behind because they were too fat to walk.....ya think?





There are a lot more pictures, if you want to google "Auschwitz liberation".


Look at these fat....I mean "healthy" people!

So,onetruth.....how do these pictures of the Auschwitz "liberation" fit with your version of the Holohoax?

[Hegwood]

onetruth,

I have never read the book - and don't intend to - but didn't Eli Wiesel say in Night he was given the choice of evacuating with the Germans or remaining behind to be liberated. But then the reason I will not read the book is because it has no "truth" value to it. Anything it says may or may not be true.

Hegwood

[Breker]

Primo Levy said:

It was obvious that they were afraid to stay with the patients and were **deciding** to go with the healthy ones.

We then need to simply look at that statement:
"They" are obviously not the sick "patients", and "they", who were not sick, were "deciding" what to do, go or stay? Why? Because, as previously stated, they had a choice to make. It's nothing more than reading exactly what Levy said. It's basic English.

Mr. Onetruth has apparently hit the cognitive dissonance wall. He shouldn't worry (stress out) so much, we all experienced it on one level or another as we came to realize the ludicrous nature of the "Holocaust" narrative that we were indoctrinated into previously believing. It goes with the truth learning process. We all have to grow up sooner or later.
Some, such as Mr. Onetruth, for perhaps religious or ethic pressure reasons, have a more difficult time grappling with the facts even when the facts beat them over the head.
And yes Mr. Hegwood, we do believe the infamous Elie Wiesel also said there was such a choice to make.

Mr. Onetruth should now know better than to bring water balloons to a gunfight.
B.

[onetruth]

onetruth,

I have never read the book - and don't intend to - but didn't Eli Wiesel say in Night he was given the choice of evacuating with the Germans or remaining behind to be liberated. But then the reason I will not read the book is because it has no "truth" value to it. Anything it says may or may not be true.

Hegwood

I have not read the book as well , but a simple google search shows that during the evacuation Eli Wiesel was at hospital , in the same position of primo levi where he had a choice. But the march was not voluntary for the great mass of prisoners.

I have not researched this isuue before , but after being challenged on the matter by Mr Hannover i did put the effort of to search the internet and law and behold - i see that this issue was discussed many times in the past in other revisionists forums by no other than that MR Hannover.

here is one such discussion i found in the Carolyn Yeager ( hardly a holocaust sympathiser) website about Eli Wiesel :

by Carolyn

On May 18, 2012 at 9:04 pm

Hannover: Old ideas die hard, especially those associated with Elie Wiesel. Primo Levi was in the camp hospital at the time, reportedly with scarlet fever. As a hospital patient, he was allowed to remain there. But he was not forced to remain. The healthy prisoners, those NOT in the hospital, had to be evacuated; they didn’t have a choice. You seem to be talking about two different things: that since Primo Levi did have a choice, he wavered as to what to do (as did Elie, in his book anyway, which is very interesting) but that doesn’t mean they all had that choice.
So the march was not voluntary for the great mass of prisoners.

That this not stop Mr Hannover to continue this claim even after he was well informed the reason Primo levi was allowed to stay behind. I find the trend of repeating this claim over and over again without a shred of evidence disturbing specially after it was already pointed out to him.

The claim that most chose the stay imprisoned goes defies any reason and common sense . It is what it is - a sickening distortion of history and common sense.

Those who claim that a choice to stay behind was give please tell me how you know this choice was given. Repeating the same claim again and again does not make it true.

Can anyone here point to any evidence that a choice was given to Prisoners to say behind ?


~

[Hannover]

'onetruth' asks embarrassingly:

Those who claim that a choice to stay behind was give please tell me how you know this choice was given. Repeating the same claim again and again does not make it true.
Can anyone here point to any evidence that a choice was given to Prisoners to say behind ?

Well yes, I have as have BOTH Pimo Levy and Elie Wiesel have told us how the choice was made. And indeed, repeating irrefutable facts is often necessary to those who ignore those irrefutable facts for purposes of their own agenda.
The problem for Zionist 'onetruth' and the beleaguered Carolyn Yeager is that neither can substantiate their empty claims that there were "death marches" or that myself and that BOTH Primo Levy and Elie Wiesel are wrong in this regard. They can say whatever they wish, but the facts of the matter make 'onetruth' and Yeager appear foolish. And that's their problem.

here's more:

From:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5929&p=40831
yours truly posted this.

Here's more on the fact that Jews were given a choice to stay and wait for the Soviets, or retreat with the SS ... most chose to retreat with the SS.


Was Auschwitz Liberated or Merely Occupied by the Red Army?
by Germar Rudolf
[email protected]

Jan. 26, 2005

In the book for which Elie Wiesel is most famous, namely "Night" (Bantam
paperback edition, 1960), which is required reading in many public schools across
the globe, Wiesel paints a horrendous picture of life in Auschwitz from April
1944 to January 1945 when he was there. Although many hundreds of thousands of Jews were supposedly gassed there during this time, Wiesel makes no mention of gassings or gas chambers anywhere in his book, as Jürgen Graf and Robert Faurisson have pointed out to us.

(Cf. the table compiled by J. Graf at the end of R. Faurisson, "Witnesses to
the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz," in: G. Rudolf (ed.), "Dissecting the
Holocaust," 2nd. ed., Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL, 2003, p. 144, http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwitness.html.)

He does however claim to have seen flames from the crematory chimneys and Dr. Mengele wearing a monocle. Both claims are clearly lies, since the Auschwitz crematories, fired with coke, could not produce flames that could travel trough 15 m of flue and 30 m of chimney (see Carlo Mattogno, "Flames and Smoke from the Chimneys of Crematoria," "The Revisionist" 2(1) (2004), pp. 73-78, http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/1/Mattogno73-78.html.).

When the Russians were about to overrun Auschwitz in January 1945, both Elie and his father "chose" to go west with the retreating 'Nazis' and SS rather than be "liberated" by America's greatest ally. They could have told the whole world about Auschwitz within days--but, both Elie and his father as well as countless thousands of other Jews chose instead to trek west with the 'Nazis' on foot at night in the middle of one of the coldest winters and continue working for the defense of the Reich thereafter. In effect, they chose to collaborate.

Some of Wiesel's exact words in "Night" are (p. 78 ):
"The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for
ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him [the father] entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. 'Well, what shall we do, father?' He was silent. 'Let's be evacuated with the others,' I told him."

Elie's tale in this regard is corroborated by other "survivor" accounts
including that of Primo Levi. In Levi's book "Survival in Auschwitz," we have his words for January 17th, 1945:

"It was not a question of reasoning: I would probably also have followed the instinct of the flock if I had not felt so weak: fear is supremely contagious, and its immediate reaction is to make one try to run away."

But he's talking here about running away with the 'Nazis'--and not 'Nazis'
who were mere rank and file party members but supposedly the worst of the worst. He's talking here about running away with the same 'Nazis' and SS who had supposedly carried out the greatest imaginable mass murders of Jews and others in the entire history of the universe. He's talking about running away with the people who supposedly did the actual killings of thousands daily for several years. But, according to his own words he would probably have gone with them nonetheless, except that he was not feeling good that day; he was feeling weak.
The "fear" that he overcame was clearly fear of the Russians and not the
'Nazis;' there is no mention of fear of what the 'Nazis' and SS might do when the evacuees entered the forest or sometime later.

The choices that were made here in January 1945 are enormously important. In the entire history of Jewish suffering at the hands of gentiles what moment in time could possibly be more dramatic than this precious moment when Jews could choose between, on the one hand, liberation by the Soviets with the chances to tell the whole world about the evil 'Nazis' and to help bring about their defeat--and the other choice of going with the 'Nazi' mass murderers and to con tinue working for them and to help preserve their evil regime. In the vast majority of cases, they chose to go with the 'Nazis'.

The momentous choice brings Shakespeare's Hamlet to mind:

"To remain, or not to remain; that is the question:" to remain and be liberated by Soviet troops and risk their slings and rifles in order to tell the whole world about the outrageous 'Nazis'--or, take arms and feet against a sea of cold and darkness in order to collaborate with the very same outrageous 'Nazis'. Oh what heartache--ay there's the rub! Thus conscience does make cowards of us all.


"In the entire history of Jewish suffering at the hands of gentiles ..." Of course one has to now wonder how accurate those claims of "suffering at the hands of gentiles" really were/are. Another reason why Jewish Supremacists don't want a discussion of the absurd 'holocaust' tales.

- Hannover

This is just too easy.

BTW: 'onetruth', how are those 'Treblinka excavators' working out for you?

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[borjastick]

Surely the number of inmates who were in the camp, by choice one would assume, gives the lie to the claim that ALL healthy inmates were ordered to leave on a so called 'death march'? There were, I believe 6000-8000 inmates in Auschwitz on liberation. Were they really all ill, in hospitals beds or in the sanatorium or too ill so as to be confined to their barracks and blocks?

The numbers of inmates support the claim, by those who were there such as Wiesel and others, that they had a choice.