While you say "sources as given," this is actually cited to an obscure 1946 Polish secondary source to which none of us have access (not a German original document), so it is little better than hearsay. But assuming this is quoted accurately and the secondary source is correct, it does appear as if it is another curated transport of designated workers, which Mattogno has cherrypicked.
Why do we know it was curated? Because there are no children. It is statistically inconceivable that a transport of 1,946 randomly Jews could have no children. Therefore we can infer that the transport was not randomly selected, i.e. was curated.
As noted many times, the idea of Jews being admitted into Auschwitz who could not work immediately, but could work following a period of rest and recovery and treatment (e.g. from the flu), is completely consistent with the "mainstream" story established at Nuremberg. It is also consistent with all medical witnesses, including Primo Levi of This is a Man and gentile Polish slave laborer Dr. Stefan Budziaszek, both of whom also confirmed that only "working" Jews received health care and that Jews who could not recover from their illnesses were taken away and gassed.
Mattagno's work is not some dramatic revisionist discovery. It is the product of the 1943 policy change in which the Germans became desperate for slave labor and decided to preserve their slave laborers for a time to get some actual productivity out of them, rather than letting them waste away rapidly as even Mattogno concedes they had before.
It also makes sense. Sick slave laborers need health care to get back to work, and the Nazis needed productive slave labor for their war machine. Ergo . . .
That some Jews who were ill were nevertheless admitted into the camp as slave laborers may seem counter-intuitive. But then we have to recall that almost all the Jews were sick in some way after the brutal transit to Auschwitz in cattle cars. So to fulfill their labor quotas, they needed to select some "sick" Jews for labor - working-age Jews who e.g. had the flu or diarrhea and could recover with some rest, and then get to work for the Reich.
Still, the vast majority of Jews were killed asap after arrival, because they were either too old or young to work or could not recover from their maladies. This is ironically demonstrated by the census data provided by Mattogno, which shows that only a tiny percentage of Jews deported to Auschwitz were living at the camp as of 1943 and 1944. So where did the overwhelming majority of Jews deported to Auschwitz go?
On another note, you still have not answered my question about Natzweiler - why do you deny the gassings there given all the evidence including pictorial that we have shown you?
And the relevance of Natzweiler is that it completely discredits your absurd notion that the Auschwitz higher-ups cared about the well-being of the Jews, since if they did they would not send dozens of them to be gassed as part of some Nazi pseudoscience. Instead, health care was given to Jewish slave laborers out of ruthless pragmatism and the need for the Nazis to preserve their slave-laborers for war production.
While you say "sources as given," this is actually cited to an obscure 1946 Polish secondary source to which none of us have access (not a German original document), so it is little better than hearsay. But assuming this is quoted accurately and the secondary source is correct, it does appear as if it is another curated transport of designated workers, which Mattogno has cherrypicked.
Why do we know it was curated? Because there are no children. It is statistically inconceivable that a transport of 1,946 randomly Jews could have no children. Therefore we can infer that the transport was not randomly selected, i.e. was curated.
1. Source as previously given, with page number. And you have a problem with this..
2. Then you don't like the source used by Mattogno. The same guy Yitzak Arad uses?
3. Then we have fumbling with the concept of randomness and the assertion that any transport must accord to the broad demographic age set on any given day. Why? It just has to because you say so.
4. Of course we're introducing the paranoid concept of curating transports now too. Of course.
---
As noted many times, the idea of Jews being admitted into Auschwitz who could not work immediately, but could work following a period of rest and recovery and treatment (e.g. from the flu), is completely consistent with the "mainstream" story established at Nuremberg. It is also consistent with all medical witnesses, including Primo Levi of This is a Man and gentile Polish slave laborer Dr. Stefan Budziaszek, both of whom also confirmed that only "working" Jews received health care and that Jews who could not recover from their illnesses were taken away and gassed.
1. Yes. You can note what you like. No one else has to, and who exactly are you talking to anyway?
2. Why all this bluff and bluster and why continue to mention Levi? He already disproved the germans were monsters when he admitted he feared the Russians more than the SS.
Mattagno's work is not some dramatic revisionist discovery. It is the product of the 1943 policy change in which the Germans became desperate for slave labor and decided to preserve their slave laborers for a time to get some actual productivity out of them, rather than letting them waste away rapidly as even Mattogno concedes they had before.
It also makes sense. Sick slave laborers need health care to get back to work, and the Nazis needed productive slave labor for their war machine. Ergo . . .
Ergo what? That treatment wasn't provided? Or it wasn't for nice enough reasons?
Stop being silly.
That some Jews who were ill were nevertheless admitted into the camp as slave laborers may seem counter-intuitive. But then we have to recall that almost all the Jews were sick in some way after the brutal transit to Auschwitz in cattle cars. So to fulfill their labor quotas, they needed to select some "sick" Jews for labor - working-age Jews who e.g. had the flu or diarrhea and could recover with some rest, and then get to work for the Reich.
Except the transport numbers I just gave you tells a different story.
But they were "curated" now right?
Still, the vast majority of Jews were killed asap after arrival, because they were either too old or young to work or could not recover from their maladies. This is ironically demonstrated by the census data provided by Mattogno, which shows that only a tiny percentage of Jews deported to Auschwitz were living at the camp as of 1943 and 1944. So where did the overwhelming majority of Jews deported to Auschwitz go?
Other camps, died of typhus etc. And no, no one was killed on arrival as per the records. There was in fact, a selection, or a sorting if you will, but that's it. See attached.
On another note, you still have not answered my question about Natzweiler - why do you deny the gassings there given all the evidence including pictorial that we have shown you?
And the relevance of Natzweiler is that it completely discredits your absurd notion that the Auschwitz higher-ups cared about the well-being of the Jews, since if they did they would not send dozens of them to be gassed as part of some Nazi pseudoscience. Instead, health care was given to Jewish slave laborers out of ruthless pragmatism and the need for the Nazis to preserve their slave-laborers for war production.
I've read Pressac on this, and a few ancillary threads about extra details and listened to Rudolf and Carol Yeager talking about this. I haven't dug up Mattogno's treatment because codoh is down right now.
The situation on Natzweiler is mixed. It hasn't been extensively studied, though Mattogno gives some commentary and makes a conclusion, Rudolf thinks it requires full treatment.
The revisionist thought is that, despite the various problems, it could have happened as part of a phosgene experiment. However, it's occurrence confirms the revisionist model since the various victims here were sent from AB to be experimented/ killed rather than gassed there.
Then there's the question of who these people were. Why does this fellow identified surname Teffel have a strange tattoo? Where these people mostly or in part Jewish Bolshevik commisars as requested in the letter? Were they all Jews? Was this linked to the euthanasia process? Was this an experiment programme where the detainees are offered reward should they survive?
Moreover, there appears to be actual correspondence evidence of attempts to cover the situation up, whereas there is no such thing for all the millions allegedly killed elsewhere. Thus buttressing, again, of revisionism, and showing the holocaust for what it is.
As for caring about Jews. Nazis were happy to execute legitimate enemies they had already clearly declared and to euthanise those without a healthy future. That didn't mean they couldn't countenance good treatment even if they're also going to deport every jew from western Europe. Which is given to Jews not only in AB but in other camps too and not only to those who could work for them for all the various reasons already given but also demonstrated here where the record shows that the most vulnerable were not executed.
Plus of course, the Nazis were not purists, they were pragmatic. Their own whermact had thousands of soldiers with Jewish blood in their veins.
Plus, of course, while you try to castigate the nazis as invariably cruel you also ignore the releases of Jews I've told you repeatedly about.
You do this, you say, because the number of Jews released is "vanishingly small", without ever telling what limit applies here, your vague nonsense as usual, but of course, when you want to tell us about Stutthof, suddenly this relatively small number of dead, is of the utmost importance. Merely demonstrating the clear bias you offer, while you also try to denigrate others for 'bias'.
Moreover, your basic position is that no measure in this camp, because it was a work camp with difficult conditions, can be considered benign, or kind, or beneficial. Which is silly, because every prison in the west today provides, various amenities and also gets its prisoners to do work, for the benefit of the prison and the wider society.
