Ravensbruck - Fact or Fiction?

[borjastick]

In Britain's Daily Mail this last weekend was a story all about the horrors of the womens only Ravensbruck concentration camp. They make some wild claims lifted from a new book based entirely on testimonies from survivors, so there is already a chink of light in the claims but I'll continue a little.

Here's the link; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l-men.html

Here's the top bullet points;

More than 50,000 women slaughtered at concentration camp Ravensbruck
It was Hitler's biggest all-female death camp, located in northern Germany
Pretty female guards with fashionable hair would release dogs on inmates
One guard, known as ‘beautiful bitch’, had penchant for torturing pisoners
‘Her eyes shone when she beat people,’ said one survivor 70 years later

By Sara Helm For The Daily Mail

Published: 22:22 GMT, 11 January 2015 | Updated: 08:17 GMT, 12 January 2015

And here is the opening paragraph of the report:

More than 50,000 women were slaughtered in the Nazi concentration camp of Ravensbruck. Now, the horrors of Hitler’s biggest all-female death camp have been detailed in a brilliant new book, based on the chilling testimonies of the prisoners. On Saturday, we told how they suffered horribly for not conforming to the Nazi ideal of womanhood. Here, in our final extract, we tell what sort of women became camp guards . .

Further down in the report which tellingly is written for the newspaper by the author herself she says the figure was 'up to 50000 deaths'. So which is it? i looked further and elsewhere on the net and found that the gas chamber as such was only installed in February 1945. Some comments suggest it was for disinfection purposes only, and in any case given the time left to run in the war in Europe, even if it was a death gas chamber it couldn't have processed many surely?

However when I read the page on the USHMM web site they tell a different story...

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10005199

The camp was used to do some experiments they say and surely some died there but it also makes this astonishing claim that up to 50,000 women were sent away for death at other camps. See here;

Camp authorities initiated a second round of killings at such “euthanasia” killing centers later in 1942, continuing until 1944. During this phase, around sixty transports left Ravensbrück for the “euthanasia” killing center at Hartheim, near Linz, Austria with between 60 and 1,000 prisoners each. The SS staff also murdered prisoners in the camp infirmary by lethal injection or by transferring them to the Auschwitz-Birkenau killing center. In early 1945, the SS constructed a gas chamber in Ravensbrück near the camp crematorium. The Germans gassed between 5,000 and 6,000 prisoners at Ravensbrück before Soviet troops liberated the camp in April 1945.

I suggest their story is muddled at best and deliberately full of double counting and lies at worst.

What is the truth? can anyone advise please?

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Carlo Mattogno, with pomp and aplomb, debunks the gas chamber claims about Ravensbrueck (see pages 182 - 199).
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/25-itgc.pdf

I wasn't particularly interested to learn of the legendary gassing train of Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck, as described by George Clutton of the British Embassy, Stockholm:

The existence of the second gas chamber was widely believed, but no one had ever seen it. It was said to have been brought to Ravensbruck at the end of 1944 by S.S. Obsersturmführer [sic] Brauning from Auschwitz where he had been in charge of gassing methods. It consisted of what appeared to be two covered railway wagons attached together and connected with two railway tankers containing the gas. The women put into the trucks were unaware of the fate in store for them and were generally under the impression that they were to be removed to another camp. The doors of the wagons were shut and the gas pumped in at either end from the tankers. Death was stated to have taken two hours.

But Ravensbrueck, despite its picturesque setting on the shore of Lake Schwedtsee, was not a pleasant place to be imprisoned and used as and effective slave labourer by the Germans—particularly during the final months of the war when disease was rampant. As was the case with other camps in Germany, such as Buchenwald, Dachau and Sachsenhausen, the majority of the deaths which occurred in the camp happened within the final few months, caused mainly by the Allied bombing campaign which had by then completely destroyed German infrastructure.

By the sounds of the Mail article, what Sara Helm is doing is relying, completely uncritically, on postwar confessions given by Germans with one eye on their trial defence strategy; and the countess affidavits collected by the British for the series of trials they held for Ravensbrueck in the years immediately following the war. The Brits, having learnt the lesson from the Belsen trial when the were roundly criticised for not executing enough of the defendants, likely ensured that they had several affidavits that "proved" individual acts of cruelty by each of the defendants to be tried.

The affidavits were collected from the prisoners by British war crimes teams who intended to use the affidavits as evidence in trials where they sought the death penalty for the defendants. No historians worthy of the title should be uncritically using these affidavits as "evidence" of what occurred in Ravensbrueck.

[Hannover]

The reliance on "eyewitnesses" / "survivors" just doesn't cut it. Over & over again the lies, contradictions, scientific impossibilities have been impeccably demonstrated by the rationally minded.

There are incentives & reasons for so called "eyewitnesses" / "survivors" to say anything & everything evil about the Germans:
'reparations', speaking fees, social deference, preferential treatment, political influence, the 'I'm so special' vanity trip, wanting to be part of 'history', senility, etc. But the problem is the lack proof.

There were thousands upon thousands of "eyewitnesses" and "confessions" to witchcraft and sorcery who gave sworn testimony in courts of law, who were supported by great minds and governments.

Just look at the bizarre fantasy being spewed out here with impunity.

Pretty female guards with fashionable hair would release dogs on inmates ..... One guard, known as ‘beautiful bitch’, had penchant for torturing pisoners ... ‘Her eyes shone when she beat people,’ said one survivor 70 years later

Imagine these type of liars in a real court of laws under cross examination? She would laughed out of court. Of course, that is an exemption that all these liars get. They are never held accountable for lying. The public is forced to accept the 'holocaust' crap unconditionally. But well, that will & is changing.

Now we have women touted as one of the current Politically Correct Victims, so of course they need a "chilling" tale just for them. After all 'holocaust' votes have been bought by expanding the lies to homosexuals & gypsies so why not sucker in women?

borjastick has also shown us examples of the contradictions that are part & parcel to the 'holocaust' narrative. It's always difficult for liars to keep their stories straight. As the saying goes, 'Always tell the truth, it's easier to remember.'

On Ravensbrück, Jewish 'holocaust' historian Olga Wormser-Migot remarks that there were no gas chambers at Ravensbruck:

... the declarations on the gas chamber at Ravensbrück place the beginning of its existence in Febr. 1945,
date of the arrival of those evacuated from Auschwitz, the date when the Ravensbrück detainees discovered
the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

- Le Système concentrationnaire nazi", Le problème des chambres à gaz, p. 544

More discussion here:
A pile of bodies at Ravensbruck in Oct 1944?

- 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.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

On Ravensbrück, Jewish 'holocaust' historian Olga Wormser-Migot remarks that there were no gas chambers at Ravensbruck:

... the declarations on the gas chamber at Ravensbrück place the beginning of its existence in Febr. 1945,
date of the arrival of those evacuated from Auschwitz, the date when the Ravensbrück detainees discovered
the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

- Le Système concentrationnaire nazi", Le problème des chambres à gaz, p. 544

That frequently posted translation makes little to no sense.

Mattogno contextualises her statement:

The circumstances in which the witness statements of former detainees took shape have been described most succinctly by Olga Wormser-Migot for the case of Ravensbrück:

It is striking that assertions as to the existence of gas chambers began to be made at Ravensbrück in February 1945, hence after the arrival of inmates evacuated from Auschwitz, when the prisoners at Ravensbrück learned about the [alleged] existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Quoted according to G. Tillion, Ravensbrück, Éditions du Seuil, Paris, 1973, p. 240.

p. 187: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/25-itgc.pdf

[Hannover]

TheBlackRabbitofInlé said:

That frequently posted translation makes little to no sense.

Then Wormser-Migot added "[alleged]" to Tillion's statement?

- Hannover

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

TheBlackRabbitofInlé said:

That frequently posted translation makes little to no sense.

Then Wormser-Migot added "[alleged]" to Tillion's statement?

- Hannover

Nope; Mattogno did that.

[Dresden]

Hannover said:

"The reliance on "eyewitnesses" / "survivors" just doesn't cut it. Over & over again the lies, contradictions, scientific impossibilities have been impeccably demonstrated by the rationally minded"

"Rationally minded"; that's the key.

From Mattogno - Inside the Gas Chambers page 196 on Ravensbruck:

"As logic demands, Himmler’s order therefore concerned the general evacuation, not the extermination of inmates who were sick, unfit for labor or unable to walk. These were actually left behind in the main camp as had happened before at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
In this context, all the other characters implicated in this Holocaust tale – Glücks, Heißmeyer, Sauer – appear in a much more believable light.

In view of the policy to hand over the inmates to the International Red Cross, the extermination of some of them would have been a form of schizophrenia, but this seems so only because it is filtered through the respective schizophrenia of orthodox Holocaustology"