It’s Lucky They Weren’t Electrocuted

Auschwitz: truth too painful to believe

Try telling concentration camp survivors that Hitler didn’t exist.

GEORGE RYBA

Sydney Morning Herald

Date: 05/05/99

[…]

For a memorable 3½ years, I was a Polish political prisoner in Auschwitz. Beginning in October 1941, we prisoners were put to work building New Camp No 2 (Birkenau) to accommodate more than 200,000 new prisoners. As a construction electrician, I worked installing electrical power in four gas chambers and the adjacent crematoria. Later, during gassing, wires and cables were often ripped off by victims gasping for air and writhing in the agony of asphyxiation. We had to repair such damage when the still convulsive bodies were being lifted up for cremation.

Dozens of my Jewish friends in the camp died by gassing. Seven of my close non-Jewish friends (five Poles, one Slovene and one Corsican), unable to carry out heavy work when weakened by typhus and malaria, were thrown naked in winter frost, one on top of another, like sardines, screaming onto a truck, 80 to a load, for the 15-minute journey to the gas chamber. In the aftermath of the German defeat at Stalingrad, from the middle of 1943, the Nazis restricted gassing to Jews and Gypsies and still managed to exterminate 1.5 million people before the Red Army liberated Auschwitz in 1945.

I was still there till about three weeks before liberation, when the SS demolition squads were blasting away anything indicative of what had been going on in Auschwitz for nearly five years.

All this I described in painful detail while giving evidence against Himmler’s deputies, Kaltenbrunner and Pohl, and eight SS leaders during the first two main trials of war criminals at Nuremberg in 1945-46. My testimony withstood long and forceful cross-examination by dozens of the best German lawyers defending the Nazi elite.

[…]

George Ryba, a Sydney resident, is a survivor of Auschwitz and was a leader of the camp’s underground resistance.


Webmaster note: It may be true that the truth about Auschwitz is too painful to believe — that certainly would go a long way toward explaining the thousands of lies that are told by so-called “survivors” and eye-witnesses such as Mr. Ryba.

I’ll never forget the (non-existent) gas chambers at Dachau

THIS SPRING break I had the opportunity to travel to Germany with my school, and out of the whole trip there is one place I will always remember. We visited the concentration camp in Dachau. Up to that point the trip had been all fun. No one had spoken of or thought about the Jews or Kosovars. We were reminded daily of the effects of the Second World War and the Iron Curtain, but not what had gone on during the war. The day was cloudy and grey and I remember waking up, as all of us seem to do on such days, much like the weather. I knew we’d be going to Dachau but I didn’t know what to expect. A wave of something hit me when we walked through the gates, something telling me to run as fast and far as I could from the evil within. The first thing we did was view a short documentary on the history of the camp. Half of the people in the theatre could be heard sniffling. Occasionally, a solitary sob would escape someone. We walked around the camp and saw the buildings. We walked by the row of ovens, through the gas chambers, by the many graves dedicated to the unknown thousands who were murdered there. I wiped my eyes and took a deep breath. Two days later I learned what ethnic cleansing was. No one had told me before that it was merely a fancy term for genocide. I am home now and every time I watch the news or read the papers, all I hear about is NATO’s indecision. It is the same indecision that caused Neville Chamberlain to hesitate. His hesitation ended with the murder of over six million innocent people. How long will NATO hesitate? How long will the world listen to leaders like Bill Clinton as he says with bemusement that Slobodan Milosevic just had no reason to hold three American soldiers hostage? How much longer can the world sit back and watch the extinction of our fellow human beings?

Jennifer Barrett

(Tragically, genocide is taking place somewhere on the globe at all times.)

Letters | Edmonton Sun ([email protected]) | April 28, 1999

Crimes of the Holocaustologians

In 1977, the Israeli scholar Yehuda Bauer offered a heartfelt warning “against the creation of ‘Holocaustology’ and the careerism of ‘Holocaustologians.”‘ At first glance, Bauer’s warning seems peculiar. After all, what could be more honorable and more important than the study of the systematic murder of 6 million Jews — a study undertaken for the purpose of preventing such an act in the future? In the past 20 years, Holocaust studies has become a glamorous and exciting field for American academics, as money from Steven Spielberg and others earmarked for Holocaust studies is flowing like cheap wine all across the world. The Holocaust, the most unspeakable event of the modern age, has become a career for some folks — the source of their livelihoods.

Now Bauer’s fears are being realized, because Holocaustologians have decided they are beyond reproach and that anyone who dares utter a word of criticism against them is essentially guilty of an intellectual crime against humanity.

The crime I speak of is Holocaust denial — the disgusting field of pseudo-scholarship dedicated to “proving” that the murder of the 6 million did not take place. Now, one of the founders of the Annual Scholars Conference on the Holocaust and the Churches has accused the Jewish writer Gabriel Schoenfeld of “a subtle form of Holocaust denial.” The perpetrator of this assault on taste and reason is Franklin Littell, 81, who proves that you can spend 81 years on this earth and still be a damned fool.

In a series of brilliant articles last year, Schoenfeld took on the controversial topic of Holocaust scholarship and its inevitable descent into academic politicking. Far from denying the reality of the Holocaust, Schoenfeld argues that the Holocaust was the singular calamity of the modern age — and therefore that trying to use the Shoah to draw universal lessons about hatred and oppression is ignorant at best and intellectually corrupt at worst.

And yet the effort to draw comparisons between the Holocaust and other events is what motivates most Holocaustologians. Schoenfeld quotes a scholar named Joan Ringelheim as saying: “Women and minorities, the working class and the poor, prior to and after the Holocaust, have often lived in conditions similar in kind (although not always in degree) to those in the Holocaust.”

The conditions of the Holocaust were these: gigantic camps designed explicitly for the purpose of mass-murdering millions of people. Ringelheim knows this. But she cannot help comparing the plight of the working class to those consigned to the gas chambers.

This sort of thinking ought to have seen Ringelheim shunned by her fellow scholars. Instead, she runs the education department of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

“Today, not only are academic careers built on the Holocaust, but research into it has also been thoroughly academicized,” Schoenfeld wrote in Commentary, the monthly magazine where he works as executive editor (and which was edited by my father for 35 years). “The very language in which the murder of 6 million Jews is discussed has become in no way distinguishable from the language of agricultural macroeconomics or the sociology of chimpanzees — which is to say that even at its best, it is often full of the most egregious professional jargon.”

Outside the universities, the Holocaust has become the ultimate real-world horror-show that the whole family can enjoy. Schoenfeld writes of a list of “40 Fun Things To Do” offered to visitors in St. Petersburg, Fla. Number 11 is “Remember the Holocaust,” which you can do by visiting the city’s Holocaust museum — “where for $39.95 [you] can purchase a scale-model replica of a Polish boxcar used by the Nazis to transport Jews and others to the concentration camps.”

As a result, says Schoenfeld, “much of what goes by the name of Holocaust remembrance today … drains the nightmare of its horror, treating the most shattering event in modern history as a banality, or worse, an entertainment.”

With words like these, you would think the last thing people could accuse Schoenfeld of is Holocaust denial. But Littell, the 81-year-old fool, explicitly compares Schoenfeld with David Irving and Raymond Robert Faurisson, the world’s two leading Holocaust deniers. They are “vulgarians,” to be sure, whereas Schoenfeld is “more subtle” — but the impulse is the same, Littell says.

Another Holocaustologian, Stephen Feinstein of the University of Minnesota, says that Schoenfeld “has done as much damage as deniers.”

What can these men possibly mean? Simple: They now equate the field of Holocaust studies with the Holocaust itself. Thus, any effort to question Holocaust studies is itself a form of Holocaust denial in their eyes.

This was exactly what Yehuda Bauer feared when he expressed his concern with the rise of Holocaust studies — that the academics would confuse the scholarship with the Holocaust itself. That the effort to come to grips with an unimaginable horror would be replaced, in time, by the mundanities of academic life — careerism, corruption, naked ambition, and the thin-skinned inability to accept criticism.

Nobody would gainsay the inestimable value of the seminal scholarship about the Holocaust done by Raul Hilberg, Dorothy Rabinowitz and others. But they were not working in the field of Holocaust studies — they were historians trying to determine what happened and ensure that what happened would not be forgotten.

There is something indefinably questionable about making a permanent career out of the murder of 6 million people — especially when they themselves want to believe that they and their field of study are both beyond criticism.


Source:

John Podhoretz

New York Post, April 21, 1999

Mass executions at Buchenwald

Buchenwald: a reminder of Weimar’s somber past

Both Nazis and Soviets killed prisoners there

MARTA BARBER

Herald Staff Writer

BUCHENWALD, Germany — Its name can be translated as Beechwood Forest, and many majestic trees of this species still stand on the surrounding areas. But its history can’t be told without revulsion.

A visit to this notorious concentration camp is a must for anyone taking a trip to nearby Weimar, Europe’s Cultural Capital for 1999. Buchenwald not only was one of Hitler’s camps set up to exterminate Jews and Gypsies (1937-1945) …

[…]

At the beginning of 1945, 100,000 prisoners were incarcerated here, making Buchenwald the largest in the German prison-camp system. But nonstop executions and the relentless transportation of men, women and children to death camps elsewhere reduced the numbers dramatically. On the day of liberation, April 11, 1945, only 21,000 prisoners remained in the camp. Many were barely alive.

[…]

This two-level, L-shaped building is not large. Downstairs is a room outfitted with large iron hooks, where bodies of those strangled or poisoned once hung. The bodies would then be placed on a large dumbwaiter-like lift to be taken upstairs to the ovens.

[…]

Copyright 1999 Miami Herald

French Jews see restitution differently

FOCUS ON ISSUES

French Jews fear restitution focus will prevent setting record straight

By Lee Yanowitch

PARIS, March 29 (JTA) — French Jewish leaders, unlike their American counterparts, are taking a low-key approach to the restitution issue.

While multimillion dollar lawsuits against banks and insurance companies accused of profiting during World War II from looted Jewish assets have made international headlines, the Jewish leadership in France has focused its energy on setting the historical record straight.

CRIF, France’s umbrella group for secular Jewish organizations, believes that re-educating the French about their country’s role in the persecution of Jews is more important than material redress.

And they fear that stressing monetary compensation would obscure the message they are trying to get across.

“We are in the process of rewriting history. There is no price tag on teaching the French about their role in the Holocaust. It would pollute the subject if we started announcing figures,” Henri Hajdenberg, president of CRIF, told JTA.

Jewish leaders here have made repeated efforts to force the French to come to grips with their wartime past. It is only in the past few decades that the French have seen cracks appear in the French myth that their nation was united in their struggle against the Nazis, who occupied France from 1940 to 1944.

And it took until 1995 for a French president to publicly acknowledge the collaborationist Vichy administration’s active involvement in stripping Jews of their rights and deporting them to death camps.

“Everything we’ve done in the past 25 years is in danger of being destroyed by material demands, Hajdenberg said, suggesting that pushing France to confront its Vichy past is the “most important thing today in order to fight anti-Semitism and totalitarianism.”

Hajdenberg and his colleagues feel this is particularly pressing given that France’s extreme-right National Front, with 15 percent of the nationwide vote, is the most powerful fascist party in Europe.

Of all the European countries that came under the Nazi boot during World War II, France suffered the most widespread looting and confiscation of Jewish property.

Most of the 76,000 Jews deported from France during the war were immigrants from Eastern Europe. Only 2,500 returned.

France’s Sephardi Jews, most of whom emigrated from North Africa in the 1950s and 1960s, are less concerned about the problem of setting the record straight.

While most Ashkenazi Jews — who make up 30 to 40 percent of the nation’s 700,000-strong Jewish population — back the CRIF’s diplomatic stance on restitution, voices of discord are making themselves heard, accusing CRIF of not wanting to ruffle any feathers.

“It is a well-known fact that France’s Jewish leadership has always wanted to be in with the powers that be. But many of the heirs of Holocaust victims contest what the CRIF is doing,” said historian David Douvette.

At the same time, the New York-based World Jewish Congress is annoyed at being excluded from French negotiations on Holocaust-era claims. Some WJC officials have accused their CRIF counterparts of not asking for money because they are afraid of fomenting anti-Semitism.

But Hajdenberg contends that he, too, believes victims should be compensated; he just disagrees with the high-level pressure used to force countries to come to an agreement.

A compensation deal Hajdenberg had reportedly planned to sign recently with the French Banking Association fell apart at the last minute amid discord among French Jewish leaders.

The banks went ahead with the proposal anyway, announcing last week that they would take “comprehensive measures” to compensate survivors for lost assets.

News of the deal triggered a threat of resignation by members of the Matteoli Commission, a French government-appointed panel investigating the looting of Jewish assets during the war.

Hajdenberg is also under fire from his colleagues for going on a “peacemaking” tour of the Middle East earlier this month, where he met Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah. He was not received by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In protest, CRIF’s single largest member, the Consistoire, which tends to the religious needs of French Jews, has pulled out of the umbrella group.

Consistoire President Jean Kahn is furious that he was not consulted about either the bank deal or the Middle East trip.

There is even talk of forcing Hajdenberg to resign.

Meanwhile, Jean Matteoli, a concentration camp survivor and former Resistance fighter who heads the commission that bears his name, outraged French Jews by saying in a newspaper interview that Jewish victims of the Nazis should be treated no differently than other victims.

The interviewer then suggested that a distinction should indeed be made, given that Jews were deported to death camps for the sole reason that they were Jewish.

Contradicting the widely proven fact that the Vichy regime drew up the lists of Jews who were arrested by French police and deported on French trains, Matteoli answered: “It was the Germans who made that distinction.”

Hajdenberg declined to comment about Matteoli’s remark, but a high-ranking source inside CRIF called for Matteoli’s resignation.

“These remarks are unacceptable and totally incompatible with his role as president of the commission,” the source said.

Using the Holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel

Netanyahu links Nazi genocide to recognition of a Palestinian State

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Jerusalem

La Presse, Montreal, Friday 26 March 1999, page A9

Israel invoked the genocide of the Jews in Europe perpetrated by the Nazis as the basis for rejecting in advance, yesterday, any decision by the European Union leaning towards recognition of a Palestinian State.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu notably disputed the validity of whatever declaration that the leaders of the fifteen countries of the European Union, meeting at a summit in Berlin, might issue, which might call upon Israel to accept a Palestinian State.

“It is all the more regrettable that it is Europe, where one-third of the Jewish nation perished (during the Shoah), that now presumes to impose a solution that puts in peril the Jewish State and flies in the face of its own interests”, stated Mr. Netanyahu.

[…]

Webmaster note: For Mr. Netanyahu to be consistent, he would also have to reject the Balfour Declaration, which many feel legitimized the formation of the State of Israel in the first place.

Smoking Crematories

By RODNEY TANAKA

The Los Angeles Times

GLENDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE — The audience received an unforgettable history lesson, and the speaker hopes to keep it that way.

George Brown spoke at Glendale Community College Tuesday, describing his experiences during the Nazi Holocaust.

The event was organized by GCC students David Osipitan and Michael Ibarra for the One America Project, a series of events highlighting diversity. Brown visits many schools through the Los Angeles-based Museum of Tolerance.

Brown’s family, originally from Hungary, were taken to Auschwitz, the forced-labor and extermination center in Poland, by train in 1944.

[…]

The Nazis murdered more than 2 million people at Auschwitz between 1941 and 1945.

The smoke from the crematoriums rose from the chimneys all the time, Brown said. A block leader for his barracks explained the situation to him when he first arrived.

“He said, `The only way you leave this place is through the chimneys,’ ” Brown said. “Eighty percent of the people left through the chimneys.” The Jewish people in the camp lost their identities and were treated worse than prisoners, Brown said. He was separated from his brothers and sister, and learned they all died by the end of the war, Brown said.

He managed to stay with his father when they were sent to labor camps in Austria. On Feb. 12, 1945, Brown turned 16 years old. His father told him he hoped at age 17 he would be free and be able to tell the world about the Nazi atrocities.

[…]

“Someone has said the Holocaust never happened,” Brown said. “If so, what happened to my family?”

Annihilation through Catholicism

Re: Kieslowski (Fox)

Author: Tamar Fox = [[email protected]]

Date:=20 Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:04:20 -0600=20

Reply-To: H-NET List for History of the Holocaust

Sender: H-NET List for History of the Holocaust

From: Tamar Fox [[email protected]]

The Jewish woman wears a gold crucifix on a chain, given her during the war when she was in hiding. Now, apparently, she is a devout Catholic, while the Polish woman is an atheist.

I have not seen this film and am not impressed by the summary and the too-heavy symbolism described there. The above-quoted line seems to me to convey the message that the Jew’s survival/redemption depends on her conversion to catholicism, a message I find rather distatsteful. In fact, the Jew has not been saved, but annihilated. It is a new, Catholic person that emerges from the ‘hiding’.

Tamar Fox

Non-white, Nazi, Gestapo-like park rangers

You have nothing to lose but your leashes

Dog owners are rebelling against what they see as draconian pet law

Douglas Martin

Tuesday, March 16, 1999

New York Times News Service

In cities and towns across the continent, a chorus of politically influential voices cries out in unison: Woof!

From leash laws to legislation to curb dangerous animals to regulations limiting the number of dogs per household, canine questions have become the new hot button of local politics.

[…]

In Minneapolis, Seattle, San Francisco, and scores of other cities, people scream for more dog space in city parks. In Santa Fe, N.M., last year, a resident filed a $2-million (US) suit against the city, charging “Gestapo-style” enforcement of the leash law.

[…]

The New York City parks department says that surveys of parks favoured by dog users show that most people in the parks do not come with dogs; mail is running more than three to one in favour of its crackdown. People are irked that dog owners berate low-paid park rangers, often minorities, as Nazis, and exultantly unleash their dogs after an enforcer turns the corner.

[…]