Euphemistically speaking

[Hebden]

On December 16th, 1942, Heinrich Muller, chief of the Gestapo, had circulated an order requiring the delivery in Auschwitz by January 31st of 45,000 Jews, 2,000 of them from Holland, 3,000 from Berlin, 30,000 from the Bialystok Ghetto and 10,000 from Theresienstadt. Only a quarter were expected to be fit for labour in Auschwitz, and of the Theresienstadt contingent a still lower proportion, for the order specified that 'half should be light workers and half incapacitated people.'

The action was timed to begin on January 11th, 1943, after the railways were free of Christmas-leave traffic. In fact the first three trains left Bauschowitz, the station for Theresienstadt, on January 20th, 23rd, and 26th. On February 17th Gerhardt Maurer of Department DII asked Hoess for a report, adding, as was his custom, that by now Jews should be at work at the Bunawerk factory or in the construction department of Auschwitz camp.

We possess the reply, sent on behalf of Hoess by the labour commitment officer, Lieutenant Schwarz - the most complete record of death that has survived from the archives of the crematorium. Out of the first transport 420 had been chosen for work from 2,000 people, out of the second 228 from 2,029, out of the third 284 from 993. The remainder were 'separated and disposed of' and the dates and numbers carefully entered. Schwarz was rather apologetic that 1,442 males had been 'specially handled,' but there had been more feebleness among the males than among the females, since most of them were children.

(Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution)


Compare with the actual message itself:

To: W.V.-Hauptamt
Amt D II
Oranienburg


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Re: Transfer of 5,022 Jews from Theresienstadt

Total size of arrivals on January 21, 1943
2,000 Jews; of that, selected for work detail
418 = 254 men and 164 women = 20.9%
on January 24, 1943, 2,029 Jews, of that, for work detail,
228 = 148 men and 80 women = 11.2%
On January 27, 1943, 993 Jews, of that, for work detail,
284 = 212 men and 72 women = 22.5%
On January 21, 1943, accommodated separately:
1582 = 602 men and 980 women and children
on January 24, 1943, 1801 = 623 men and
1178 women and children, on January 27, 1943, 709 = 197 men and
512 women and children. Special accommodation of the men occurs
due to too-great frailty, and of the women because the majority were
children."

Mr. Reitlinger's translation of 'Gesondert untergebracht' as 'separated and disposed of' appears rather inexact.

Now all we have to work out is where the 4,000 or so men, women and children deemed unfit for work could have been accommodated.

[Hannover]

Not all people at Auschwitz worked, simple. The mentioned people were either simply accomodated with housing and care, including medical, or they were sent somewhere else. There is no evidence to support any other conclusion.
And obviously Reitlinger 'interpreted' the document to the point of fraud, common among the profiteers of the 'holocau$t' Industry.
It's good to see this example, thanks.

- Hannover

[Sailor]

Now all we have to work out is where the 4,000 or so men, women and children deemed unfit for work could have been accommodated.

And Birkenau was not really a work camp in my opinion. The only work there was the operation and maintenance of the camp itself, and I don’t see any large industries right next to Birkenau. The Buna works Monowitz were 12km away, not exactly an easy commute distance.

In the book by Pelt/Dwork Auschwitz, 1270 to the present on Plate 19 is part of a camp layout shown with the caption: Plan to complete Building Section III as a large hospital and quarantine area for prisoners put to work in satellite camps, summer 1943.

The picture shows about 150 hospital and quarantine barracks for men and women, including housing for surgery, x-ray department, recovery room,etc.

Is it possible that those 4,000 Jews were supposed to be housed there?

This may be of interest also:

SB. = Schonblock
Es häufen sich Hinweise darauf, daß es in Auschwitz »Schonblöcke« gegeben hat für Häftlinge, die der Schonung bedurften. Es war auch die Möglichkeit zur Schonung durch Aufenthalt in der eigenen Wohnbaracke gegeben. Über diese vom SS-Arzt Dr. Thilo eingeführte Einrichtung berichtet B. Naumann in seinem Buch über den Auschwitz-Prozeß, Frankfurt.

There are more and more indications that there were “Schonblöcke” (blocks for recuperation) for inmates who needed recuperation. There was also the possibility for recuperation by staying in their own sleeping barracks. B. Naumann reports about this arrangement which was introduced by the SS-doctor Thilo, in his book about the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt (Auschwitz. Bericht über die Strafsache gegen Mulka u.a. vor dem Schwurgericht Frankfurt, Athenäum, Frankfurt/Main 1965)

(By the way, the site where the posted “Funkspruch” (radiogram) comes from, Haus der Wannsee-Konferenz, includes a wealth of photocopies of all kinds of German documents about the subject matter. Hans? Anyway, thanks).


fge

[Hebden]

And Birkenau was not really a work camp in my opinion. The only work there was the operation and maintenance of the camp itself, and I don’t see any large industries right next to Birkenau. The Buna works Monowitz were 12km away, not exactly an easy commute distance.

The strength of Mr. Van Pelt's book Auschwitz 1270 to the Present is the emphasis on the evolving and shifting role of the camp within German plans.

Whilst the Auschwitz main camp served as a concentration camp from its inception in 1940, Birkenau was originally intended to function as a POW camp, under the control of the SS, in order to provide a source of labour for a prospective IG Farben plant in the region (see Auschwitz 1270, pp.262-263).

Starting in late 1941, the camp had to be built from scratch so the first few months were taken up with ongoing construction work. Progress was slowed by the bad weather, lack of materials and the unfortunate habit the Soviet POWs had of dying. Following Goring's January 1942 decree - in connection with the Four Year Plan- that the labour of Soviet POWs should not be used for construction work, the Jews apparently became the preferred replacement.(see Auschwitz 1270 p.271-275)

See:

TRANSLATION OF
DOCUMENT NO-500
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 55

TELEPRINT FROM HIMMLER TO GLUECKS, 25 JANUARY 1942, REQUESTING PREPARATIONS TO RECEIVE UP TO 150,000 JEWS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS

[...]

TELEPRINT

SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks
Oranienburg

As no more Russian prisoners of war are expected in the near future, I shall send to the camps a large number of Jews and Jewesses who will be sent out of Germany. Make the necessary arrangements for the reception of 100,000 male Jews and up to 50,000 Jewesses into the concentration camps during the next 4 weeks. The concentration camps will have to deal with major economic problems and tasks in the next weeks. SS Gruppenfuehrer Pohl will inform you of particulars.

[Signed] H. HIMMLER

http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T0365.htm

In the book by Pelt/Dwork Auschwitz, 1270 to the present on Plate 19 is part of a camp layout shown with the caption: Plan to complete Building Section III as a large hospital and quarantine area for prisoners put to work in satellite camps, summer 1943.

The picture shows about 150 hospital and quarantine barracks for men and women, including housing for surgery, x-ray department, recovery room,etc.

Is it possible that those 4,000 Jews were supposed to be housed there?

Not as unregistered prisoners. And not in January 1943. Your plan - and it's only the plan - is dated Summer 1943.

The first half of 1943 saw the arrival at Auschwitz of literally tens of thousands of deportees who were not registered in the camp - from Poland, Germany, Holland and Greece.

This unresolved problem of locating where these Jews could have been specially accommodated is the putrescent albatross hanging around our collective necks.

Here is a long excerpt from Auschwitz 1270 dealing with both the existence of the satellite camps (which shows how important their role was by 1943) and the abortive fate of your BA III plan:

The transports had become larger, and the number of people selected for work as well as for death increased concomitantly. Birkenau had only two, relatively primitive delousing installations. These buildings could not handle so many newcomers at once, and in the late spring Bischoff proposed the construction of a new, large "central sauna," which could handle two thousand people if necessary. The building, designed to operate with a minimum of personnel and a maximum of efficiency, was completed in December [1943].

The sauna was to service not only the incoming transports but also an immense new subdivision, Building Section III, which was to support the penultimate of the many functions Himmler had added on to the camp in the five years of its existence. After the massive military losses in the summer of 1943, the German army began to draft every last German male, and the armaments industry impressed every available "free" person into its factories. Now slaves were needed for other industrial work as well as in the coal mines. Pohl negotiated with numerous businesses, and ultimately agreed to create and maintain a system of twenty-seven satellite camps located on industrial sites. The first of these was the Buna camp at Monowitz, established in November 1942; the Jawischowitz camp to operate the nearby mines at Brzeszcze and a small camp to support the Bata shoe factory at Chelmek followed in quick succession. Five more camps opened in 1943 and another nineteen in 1944. By that time, IG Farben utilized 11,000 prisoners at the Buna plant housed in the camp at Monowitz, also known as Auschwitz III, 7,000 inmates worked at other chemical plants, 7,000 in the steel and metal industries, and 8,000 in the mines. In total, 33,000 prisoners were in satellite camps and 4,000 were barracked in Auschwitz but worked in the fuse factory next to the camp. SS enterprises consumed another 4,500 prisoners. The camp made a hefty profit. The Kommandantur was paid 3 to 6 marks a day, while prisoner maintenance amounted to 1.34 marks. At the end of 1943 Auschwitz was taking in an average of 2 million marks per month.

Birkenau was to become a service station for the outlying posts, which were too small to maintain hospitals. Divided into four subsections, BA III was to accommodate 14,552 inmates in relatively spacious barracks: 4,088 men and 4,088 women in two quarantine camps, and 3,188 sick men and 3,188 sick women in two hospital camps. Each of the two hospital camps were to be equipped with a six-barrack treatment center that included a surgery, an X-ray department, and recovery rooms. (See plate 19.)

Of the proposed barracks, one-third were erected, none was completed, and in none was the designated function carried out. As soon as the roofs were closed, the buildings were crammed with deportees for whom there was no room elsewhere. There were no floors, no beds, not even roosts. The prisoners had no clothes except blankets. Someone thought they looked like Mexican Indians, and BA III became known as Mexico.

This may be of interest also:

SB. = Schonblock
There are more and more indications that there were “Schonblöcke” (blocks for recuperation) for inmates who needed recuperation. There was also the possibility for recuperation by staying in their own sleeping barracks. B. Naumann reports about this arrangement which was introduced by the SS-doctor Thilo, in his book about the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt (Auschwitz. Bericht über die Strafsache gegen Mulka u.a. vor dem Schwurgericht Frankfurt, Athenäum, Frankfurt/Main 1965)

fge

In connection with this you might be interested in the Nuremberg document (NO-1007, PS-1933) dated April 1943:

"The Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police has decided after consultation, that in the future only mentally sick prisoners may be selected for action 14-F-13 by the medical commissions appointed for this purpose.

"All other prisoners incapable of working (tubercular cases, bedridden cripples, et cetera) are to be basically excepted from this action. Bedridden prisoners are to be drafted for suitable work which they can perform in bed.

"The order of the Reichsführer SS is to be obeyed strictly in the future.

"Therefore requests for fuel for this purpose are unnecessary."

Does this mean that all selections of registered prisoners for the gas chambers at Auschwitz were subsequently forbidden? Could it explain the incongruity of thousands of sick and unemployed Jewish prisoners in an extermination camp?

[Hannover]

Hebden said:

This unresolved problem of locating where these Jews could have been specially accommodated is the putrescent albatross hanging around our collective necks.

I disagree. There is little logic in attempting to show that people were not murdered when there is no evidence that they were, it's a classic 'proving a negative'. We know for fact that Auschwitz also served as a hub for transporting labor to other camps, as others and even the dimwitted Van Pelt had to admit.

However, in general, I find it unreliable to base assumptions on Van Pelt's opinions. He has been shown repeatedly to be a liar, a judeo-supremacist, and a Believer in matters which are unfounded and scientifically impossible.

- Hannover

[Hebden]

Hebden said:

This unresolved problem of locating where these Jews could have been specially accommodated is the putrescent albatross hanging around our collective necks.

I disagree. There is little logic in attempting to show that people were not murdered when there is no evidence that they were, it's a classic 'proving a negative'.

We must wonder then why you are participating in a revisionist forum at all. As for proving a negative, we do it all the time, e.g. there is no elephant in our basement, Mr. Wallenberg did not save Hungarian Jews from being to deported to Auschwitz, etc.

We know for fact that Auschwitz also served as a hub for transporting labor to other camps, as others and even the dimwitted Van Pelt had to admit.

Let us remain with our 4,000 Jews from Theresienstadt. Lieutenant Schwarz specified that they consisted mainly of frail old men, and women with children, and had been 'specially accommodated'. Does that sound like labour camp material to you?

But if you would like to put some names to these camps of yours then we would be prepared to look into it.

[Hannover]

Nonsense, one would be silly to look for an elephant in his basement unless there was evidence there was an elephant in his basement, especially if the elephant wouldn't even fit into the basement.

Same for the Wallenberg myth; no evidence for 'extermination' of Jews, then no need to buy into the mythology about Wallenberg saving them from 'extermination'.

It's the classic 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?' argument.

What is your evidence that they were murdered?... I assume that is what you are attempting to imply. The onus is on the accuser to show supportive evidence for his assertion. Do you have such evidence?

As for why I participate...it's to show the absurdity of points like yours, which is to look for answers to problems which have not been demonstrated to exist. You seem to be working on the premise that the traditional story is basically true, and we must find ways fit events into a predetermined outcome.

You can chase your tail if you want, but I prefer a more logical method.

- Hannover

[Sailor]

http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T0365.htm

So Himmler plans to send 150,000 Jews to the various concentration camps. And not only to Birkenau, there are other camps. And the telex does not indicate that these people were to be liquidated either. “The concentration camps will have to deal with major economic problems and tasks in the next weeks.” I assume that the problems would mean housing and feeding, and hospital care.

Not as unregistered prisoners. And not in January 1943. Your plan - and it's only the plan - is dated Summer 1943.

How do we know that these people were unregistered? The radiogramm says

Special accommodation of the men occurs due to too-great frailty, and of the women because the majority were children.

This could mean special housing, permanent stay, registration.

True, the plate which I mentioned shows only a plan, this is correct. But why have such a plan if the intent is to rather gass all these people? Also the observation about the dates is correct. I don’t have a plan of the camp for January 1943. Krema II was not in operation yet.

This unresolved problem of locating where these Jews could have been specially accommodated is the putrescent albatross hanging around our collective necks.

Korherr received for his report up to the end of 1942 the statistical raw data from the RSHA. At least up to then the SS must have kept records about the deportations. It stands to reason to assume that the record keeping continued during the remaining years. What happened to these records?

Here is a long excerpt from Auschwitz 1270 dealing with both the existence of the satellite camps (which shows how important their role was by 1943) and the abortive fate of your BA III plan: […]

No doubt that things went totally out of control. Why send these many people to that camp in the first place? I simply don’t understand this. The following is a summary of a list of transports of inmates which arrived at Auschwitz:
a) 2,377 transports with male prisoners from May 20, 1940 to September 18, 1944. The arrivals were assigned the registration numbers 1-199531.
b) 1,046 transports with female prisoners from February 26, 1942 to March 26, 1944. these prisoners received the numbers 1-75697.
c) 78 of male transports ordered by the RSHA, from May 12 to August 1944 (registration numbers A-1/A-20,000).
d) 60 transports with male Jews from July 31, to September 1944, ordered by the RSHA (registration numbers B-1/B-10481).
e) 90 transports with female Jews from May 15, to September 20, 1944 ordered by the RSHA (registration numbers A-1/A-25378).
f) 171 transports with prisoners for re-education from October 21, 1941 to September 20, 1944 (registration numbers E/1/E-9.339).
This information is from Mattogno in an article not yet published (I have certain „privileges“), and is based on transcripts made on the sly by Auschwitz inmates who were employed in the political department. D. Czech also used this list for her Kalendarium


About my SB. = Schonblock quote:

Hans commented on this part of my message above on a Yahoo forum (I am observed. As Krishna Murti says: The observer is the observed ). He does not agree with the meaning of SB. as “Schonblock” at all. He thinks that I pulled a canard. But I did not.
On another thread we could discuss the various approaches to the words “Sonderbehandlung” SB. (special treatment), “Schonblock” or “Schonungsblock” SB. (recuperation block) and the desperate attempt by exterminationists to save the Holocaust story by using code words.

I don’t know whether these 4000 people were sent to something like a recuperation block. It is an assumption.

In connection with this you might be interested in the Nuremberg document (NO-1007, PS-1933) dated April 1943: […]

The continuation of the euthanasia in the camps is believable. This document actually indicates that people unable to work were not exterminated.
OT: I have copies of a correspondence between Himmler and Pohl about the camp Sobibor which clearly indicates the intended purpose of that camp as a labor camp (refitting Soviet ammunition) and not to exterminate these people.

Does this mean that all selections of registered prisoners for the gas chambers at Auschwitz were subsequently forbidden? Could it explain the incongruity of thousands of sick and unemployed Jewish prisoners in an extermination camp?

These are all good questions, as the TV comentator says when he has no answer.


fge

[neugierig]

....What happened to these records?

I think that’ it in a nutshell. According to Mr. Jackson, in his report to the President of June 7.1945, he was busy building a case to convict the German leadership. Here’s how the report start’s:

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to report accomplishments during the month since you named me as Chief of Counsel for the United States in prosecuting the principal Axis War Criminals. In brief, I have selected staffs from the several services, departments and agencies concerned; worked out a plan for preparation, briefing, and trial of the cases; allocated the work among the several agencies; instructed those engaged in collecting or processing evidence; visited the European Theater to expedite the examination of captured documents, and the interrogation of witnesses and prisoners; coordinated our preparation of the main case with preparation by Judge Advocates of many cases not included in my responsibilities; and arranged cooperation and mutual assistance with the United Nations War Crimes Commission and with Counsel appointed to represent the United Kingdom in the joint prosecution. "

Again, under Anglo-Saxon judicial procedure, the prosecution can and will ignore exonerating material, the same goes for the defence, but since the defence was not able to move around freely, this point is moot. Jackson continues with his effort to justify what he is about to do by asking:” 3. Whom will we accuse and put to their defense?....” Ridicules question. If there is proof someone violated existing law, charge him. He than babbles on about conscience and morality, even though, morality is not now, or has it ever been part of the criminal justice system.
My point. This whole exercise was an attempt to find the accused guilty. Why than leave exonerating material lying about? I’m sure, although I can’t prove it, documents showing prisoners transferred to other locations etc. were withheld or destroyed in order to make the case. Since, as stated above, this is perfectly legal under the Anglo=Saxon system, it’s a reasonable assumption.

Wilf

[Hebden]

OT: I have copies of a correspondence between Himmler and Pohl about the camp Sobibor which clearly indicates the intended purpose of that camp as a labor camp (refitting Soviet ammunition) and not to exterminate these people.

But this correspondence ( Nuremberg document NO-482) dates from July 1943 and so does not concern the operation of Sobibor since April 1942 beyond referring to it as a 'transit camp'. Admittedly it's curious that the Reichsfuhrer should intend to co-opt an allegedly functioning extermination facility into the concentration camp system, but, to us at least, it's not inconceivable, especially if the main function of the camp, the transit of Jews to the East, was nearing its end.

[Hebden]

http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T0365.htm

So Himmler plans to send 150,000 Jews to the various concentration camps. And not only to Birkenau, there are other camps. And the telex does not indicate that these people were to be liquidated either. “The concentration camps will have to deal with major economic problems and tasks in the next weeks.” I assume that the problems would mean housing and feeding, and hospital care.

This message dates from 25 January 1942, only 5 days after the infamous Wannsee conference in Berlin. At this time, the alleged plan to murder all deported Jews not needed for labour had not come into effect. Mr. Himmler's intention to induct 150,000 German Jews into the concentration camp system within 4 weeks seems highly optimistic and so it proved.

Mr. Reitlinger, as usual, has an interesting angle on events:

Now the last deportation trains had left for Russia within a few days of the Gross-Wansee conference and in March, when deportations of Jews from the Reich were resumed, the victims were sent no further than the Russian-Polish demarcation line to be dealt with in Poland inside the framework of the 'Einsatz Reinhardt' massacre programme. A few of these transports, particularly those from France and Slovakia, which started running at the end of March were, however, directed to Auschwitz. The question therefore arises whether the stupendous plan for making Auschwitz the extermination centre for all European Jewry had been decided before the Gross Wannsee conference and whether Heydrich's allusions to 'the occupied Eastern territories' were not a camouflage for the benefit of the civilian representatives who might have some qualms concerning 'falling out through natural diminution' in the Reich itself.

There exists a document which suggests that at the time of the Gross-Wannsee conference Himmler was trying to carry out a policy totally different from Heydrich's, for on January 26th [sic] he telegraphed as follows to Major-General Gluecks, his inspector of concentration camps:

'During the next few weeks 100,000 Jews and 50,000 Jewesses will be sent to concentration camps, which will have to deal with major economic problems and tasks. Major-General Pohl will inform you of particulars.'

Oswald Pohl, on trial for his life in the summer of 1947, denied that anything more than a fraction of the number of Jews, mentioned by Himmler, was sent to German concentration camps in the few weeks in question and this was indeed the truth. Himmler's plan may have been frustrated by Heydrich, for he seems to have sent this dispatch as the first move in a bid to remove Heydrich, now well preoccupied in Prague, from his control of the concentration camp system. Under an arrangement, dating from December, 1939, the economic adminstration of the camps through Oswald Pohl depended on Himmler, while discipline was maintained through Gluecks, the inspector, who came under Heydrich; but on February 1st, 1942, Himmler followed up his dispatch to Gluecks by a decree creating a new department of the SS known as Wirtschafts- und - Verwaltungshauptamt, the Economic and Administrative Head Office or WVHA. Oswald Pohl was thereby put in charge of all the works departments of the SS. Furthermore Glueck's Inspectorate of the Concentration Camps was now no more than 'Amt D,' a subdivision of Pohl's empire, which was ruled from his great mushroom wartime-establishment in Unter den Eichen at Berlin-Lichtenfelde.

Pohl was promoted as part of a long-cherished plan of Himmler's to get the utmost use out of the concentration camps, which he regarded less as a contribution to war production than as a means for financing the SS, should it ever lose the support of the head of the State. Thus the creation of the WVHA produced one of Hitler's recurrent drives for efficiency in the camp labour system. The nature of the system itself invariably doomed these drives to failure, but of this fact Himmler seems never to have been truly aware. It was in this state of unreal thinking that he wrote to Heydrich from the Fuhrer's headquarters on December 5th, 1941, that Hitler had commissioned 100,000 cubic feet of granite from the quarrying camps for his great plan to rebuild Berlin after the war. Five thousand masons and 10,000 bricklayers would have to be trained in readiness. The concentration camp inmates' lot must therefore be alleviated, their rations and clothing increased, the discipline relaxed, and the incentives improved. If Himmler's dispatches of December 5th and January 26th [sic] are considered together, it can be inferred that Himmler wanted not only to stop the wastage of concentration camp inmates in the interest of the finances of the SS, but also to make similar use of the doomed Jews in occupied territory - this being the origin of the plan for the huge Jewish camp at Auschwitz.

Not as unregistered prisoners. And not in January 1943. Your plan - and it's only the plan - is dated Summer 1943.

How do we know that these people were unregistered? The radiogramm says

Special accommodation of the men occurs due to too-great frailty, and of the women because the majority were children.

This could mean special housing, permanent stay, registration.

There is no record in the Auschwitz Calender of registration numbers being issued to these people. If there were no mass gassings at Auschwitz
then those unfit for labour would routinely have been accommodated elsewhere. In that sense, the Schwarz message is not especially incriminating. Whilst revisionists still have the problem of locating where all these people may have disappeared to, exterminationists might ponder on the reason why Lieutenant Schwarz sought to employ euphemisms beyond the supposedly standardised 'Sonderbehandlung'.

[Hannover]

Hebden persists with his illogical assertion that there needs to be an accounting for people he implies were murdered even though there is no evidence to support the assertion that they were murdered. Bizarre.

We would like to know...does he, or does he not have evidence that they were murdered?

- Hannover

[Hebden]

Hebden persists with his illogical assertion that there needs to be an accounting for people he implies were murdered even though there is no evidence to support the assertion that they were murdered. Bizarre.

There needs to be an accounting for people who are unaccounted for.

We would like to know...does he, or does he not have evidence that they were murdered?

- Hannover

We do not know whether they were murdered or not. That is what we are trying to find out.

[Hannover]

I suggest that they were sent to another labor camp, as there were many camps that received people via Auschwitz, this is a known fact. I see no evidence of foul play, I see no forensic evidence, I see no reason to believe they were murdered..it's all so simple.
Hebden says:

There is no record in the Auschwitz Calender of registration numbers being issued to these people.

So what? Relying on Danuta Czech's 'Auschwitz Calendar' has been demonstrated (see my post about Viktor Frankl) to be absolute folly.

French professor, Dr. Faurisson has this to say about this so called "calendar":

According to the 1989 edition of Danuta Czech's "Auschwitz calendar of events", E. Stein, her sister Rosa, and 985 other Jews were deported from the camp of Westerbork in the Netherlands, arriving at Auschwitz on the 8th (and not the 9th) of August 1942. D. Czech would have her readers believe that of these 987 Jews, 464 were registered for work (315 men and 149 women), while the other 523 were immediately gassed (2). As always in the "calendar", this latter assertion is not supported by any evidence; thus, for that matter, a number of Jews who, as I have been able to show, survived the war are listed by this "calendar" as having been gassed. These 523 persons, of whom D. Czech seems to have found no trace in the camp archives, may well have been set down at Cosel (a stop along the way) or, just as well, been sent directly to one of the sub-camps of the Auschwitz complex, or to any other concentration or labour camp.
2. Danuta Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-1945, Hamburg, Rowohlt, 1989, p. 269

So once again, relying upon Czech and this laughable "calendar" is as senseless as relying on statements of human soap & lampshades. Propaganda is hardly evidence.

The question remains for Mr. Hebden, does he have evidence for those he suggests were murdered? Yes or no? No evidence = no reason to suggest murder. It's the classic 'How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?' argument....when there are no angels in the first place.

- Hannover

[Hebden]

I suggest that they were sent to another labor camp, as there were many camps that received people via Auschwitz, this is a known fact.

We challenge you to name some of these camps. A dozen will do, for starters. Then we shall see how many people could possibly be accounted for.

I see no evidence of foul play, I see no forensic evidence, I see no reason to believe they were murdered..it's all so simple.

Head in the sand time. The evidence was presented at the Irving-Lipstadt trial:

http://www.davenportlyons.com/www/legal_services/defamation_media/irving_penguin_trial/section2.htm

Hebden says:

There is no record in the Auschwitz Calender of registration numbers being issued to these people.

So what? Relying on Danuta Czech's 'Auschwitz Calendar' has been demonstrated (see my post about Viktor Frankl) to be absolute folly.

One does not make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

French professor, Dr. Faurisson has this to say about this so called "calendar":

According to the 1989 edition of Danuta Czech's "Auschwitz calendar of events", E. Stein, her sister Rosa, and 985 other Jews were deported from the camp of Westerbork in the Netherlands, arriving at Auschwitz on the 8th (and not the 9th) of August 1942. D. Czech would have her readers believe that of these 987 Jews, 464 were registered for work (315 men and 149 women), while the other 523 were immediately gassed (2). As always in the "calendar", this latter assertion is not supported by any evidence; thus, for that matter, a number of Jews who, as I have been able to show, survived the war are listed by this "calendar" as having been gassed. These 523 persons, of whom D. Czech seems to have found no trace in the camp archives, may well have been set down at Cosel (a stop along the way) or, just as well, been sent directly to one of the sub-camps of the Auschwitz complex, or to any other concentration or labour camp.
2. Danuta Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-1945, Hamburg, Rowohlt, 1989, p. 269

So once again, relying upon Czech and this laughable "calendar" is as senseless as relying on statements of human soap & lampshades. Propaganda is hardly evidence.

Mr. Faurisson writes: 'D. Czech would have her readers believe that of these 987 Jews, 464 were registered for work (315 men and 149 women), while the other 523 were immediately gassed (2). As always in the "calendar", this latter assertion is not supported by any evidence'.

By the latter assertion, he means the claim they were gassed. Note he does not dispute the registration numbers of those inducted into the camp. Mr. Faurisson evidently accepts the authenticity and accuracy of the registration numbering system. So do we. If Mr. Sailor wants to continue in his unfounded belief that tens of thousands of unregistered Jews were held in Auschwitz during 1943, that is his business.

The question remains for Mr. Hebden, does he have evidence for those he suggests were murdered? Yes or no? No evidence = no reason to suggest murder. It's the classic 'How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?' argument....when there are no angels in the first place.

We are agnostic on the existence of angels. The 'how many angels on the head of a pin' argument would better be described as 'mythical' rather than 'classic':

Bob Berghout and Garry Tee (volume 20, nos. 1 and 3) ask about the origin of the ridiculous libel that the medieval scholastics examined "such matters as how many angels could fit on the head of a pin". The earliest mention I know of is in Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation (1638, reprinted 1972, 12th unnumbered page of the preface), where he accuses scholastics (unnamed, of course) of debating " Whether a Million of Angels may not fit upon a needles point?" As to the truth of the allegation itself, H.S. Lang, author of Aristotle's Physics and its Medieval Varieties (1992), and in a position to know if anyone does, writes (p. 284): "The question of how many angels can dance on the point of a needle, or the head of a pin, is often attributed to 'late medieval writers' ... In point of fact, the question has never been found in this form".

The middle ages attracts this sort of story: "In the middle ages it was believed the earth was flat", "Galileo showed medieval physics was wrong by dropping weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa", and so on. They are the equivalents in the history of ideas to urban myths like the cat in the microwave.

http://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/headsofpins.html