Scrapbookpages Blog

August 22, 2010

My long-awaited answer to accusations on Paolosilv’s blog

Filed under: Dachau, Germany, Holocaust, World War II — Tags: , , , — furtherglory @ 1:32 pm

I am finally feeling well enough to wade through a long blog post accusing me of being a Holocaust denier, and to answer the accusations. You can read the accusations on Paolosilv’s blog here.

The long, tedious post on Paolosilv’s Blog reminds me of the Seinfeld show, which I watch in re-runs every evening.  The Seinfeld show is famously about “nothing” and it includes many long conversations in which the members of the cast argue about something that is very insignificant.  I don’t have the time, nor the motivation, to address all the points brought up on the Holocaust denier accusation blog post, but there is one point which I believe should be cleared up: the reason for the death marches out of the Nazi camps near the end of World War II.

I wrote this in a comment on my blog on February 22, 2010:

“Towards the end of the war, trains were scarce in Europe. The Germans did not use valuable trains to bring prisoners from the Auschwitz death camp to camps in Germany, which were not death camps, in order to kill them. The prisoners were brought to Germany so that they could work in the factories in the sub-camps.”

Paolosilv’s blog wrote this in answer to my comment:

This is again, untrue. The prisoners were ordered to Germany by Hitler/Himmler so they could not testify. The orders were that they were to be killed, as I have posted the quotes from the Nazis elsewhere.

Why would prisoners be marched all the way from Auschwitz -Birkenau to camps in Germany so late in the war (early January 1945)? Just for ‘labor’? Unlikelihood.

Where is the order from Hitler or Himmler, which said that the prisoners should be marched out of Auschwitz to Germany to be killed?  Was this order entered into evidence at the Nuremberg IMT?

What about all the survivors of the march out of Auschwitz who ended up in the sub-camps in Germany where they worked in factories?  Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank, said that the prisoners at Auschwitz were given a choice about whether they wanted to join the march or stay behind.  Did the order from Hitler or Himmler say that the Auschwitz prisoners had a choice between being killed or staying behind?

Why did 60,000 prisoners join the march, which was led through two feet of snow, by German soldiers?  Maybe because the prisoners knew the Germans would feed them and keep them in good health because Germany needed workers during World War II.

In America, women worked in the factories, but in Germany, most of the women stayed at home to take care of their six children.

I also wrote this on my blog:

So that leaves the question: Why didn’t the Nazis just kill the 67,000 Jews that were at Auschwitz and all of its sub-camps on January 18, 1945. Even with three large gas chambers still in operation on that date, it would have taken a long time to kill them all and burn the bodies. The Germans had to leave in a hurry because they knew the Soviet soldiers were close by. If they left all the prisoners behind, there would be 60,000 healthy Jews on the loose who would potentially take revenge on the German people, plus 7,000 sick Jews and children. Besides that, the Nazis needed prisoners to work in the German munitions factories, building Messerschmitt airplanes and V-2 rockets so Germany would have at least some chance of winning the war.”

So, actually the “death march” out of Auschwitz does make historical sense.

In answer to the above statement, Paolosilv’s said this on his blog:

Here he denies that there were death marches, or puts them into quotes so as to deny their purpose.

Paolo is still insisting that the prisoners were marched out of Auschwitz in order to kill them.  In fact, he is not the only one who believes this.  Even college professors, who teach the Holocaust, believe that the “death marches” were a means of killing the prisoners so that they could not testify against the Nazis after the war.  So why leave 7,000 prisoners behind, who could potentially testify?

Another quote from Paolosilv’s blog:

Furtherglory writes that the Nazis did not want them to take revenge on the civilian population, as happened at Weimar.

It makes no sense at all. Most of these people were in rough shape, and were not able to work. You would not march people in the dead of winter hundreds of miles so that they could work. This is utter bullshit.

The prisoners, who were marched out of Auschwitz, walked 50 kilometers (around 35 miles) to Gleiwitz which was on the border between what had been Poland and Germany in 1938.  From Gleiwitz, the prisoners were put on trains to camps in Germany and then transferred to sub-camps where they were, in fact, put to work in factories, no bullshit.  The 7,500 prisoners who “were not able to work” were left behind in the three Auschwitz-Birkenau camps.

If the purpose of the death marches was to kill the prisoners, why weren’t they, in fact, killed, as planned?  The prisoners who were marched out of Auschwitz wound up working in the sub-camps of the major camps in Germany.

The most famous prisoner, who marched out of Auschwitz, was Elie Wiesel, who says that he got up out of his hospital bed and voluntarily joined the marchers.  He was taken to Buchenwald where he survived.  Primo Levi, another famous Auschwitz survivor, stayed behind and also survived.

I have already addressed the issue of whether or not the Jewish prisoners at Buchenwald were taken out of the camp to prevent them from taking revenge on the civilians in Weimar.  The original Yiddish version of the book “Night” tells about the Jewish prisoners who did, in fact, go to Weimar to get revenge, just as the Nazis had anticipated that they would.

In February 2010 I wrote this on my blog:

Dachau was a camp for political prisoners who had a good chance of being released. There was a special badge for prisoners who had been released and then re-arrested, which means that there were numerous prisoners that were given their freedom after they had been “rehabilitated.”

Paulosilv wrote this on his blog, in his answer to the above statement:

Here he overlooks the unregistered deaths at Dachau, some of whom were Jews. Others were Poles, Russians and assorted prisoners.———-

If these deaths were “unregistered,” how do we know that the deaths occurred?  Maybe the reason that some deaths were “unregistered” is because the deaths never happened.

There were, in fact, prisoners who were brought to Dachau, given a shower, and then were never seen again.  All of them turned up later, very much alive, at the eleven Kaufering sub-camps.  The Official Army Report, by the American liberators of Dachau, mentions these prisoners who disappeared. The Official Army Report says that their alleged deaths were “unregistered.”  That is the origin of this false information.

I am beginning to feel like Jerry Seinfeld, arguing with George about nothing, so I will end this post now.


  1. Gasan-“How many Rosenblats like him are still around, feeding us with their stories?”

    Probably a similar percentage to the number of Guy Sajers and other such imposters with any such historical event. Harping about the Wiesels and Rosenblats, who most historians of the Holocaust don’t take too seriously anyway, does not damage the credibility of the numberous gas chamber witnesses and related evidence.

    But, as Gasan accepts no other type of evidence besides DNA-forensic testing, I doubt if any historical events could be considered “proven” in his mind…

    Comment by Wahrheit — August 26, 2010 @ 6:31 am

  2. Die Wahrheit hat ein Unsinn geschrieben.
    The real “HD” is nobody else, but Herman Rosenblat who acknowledged to TV reporter that the whole story existed in his mind ONLY!
    How many Rosenblats like him are still around, feeding us with their stories?

    Comment by Gasan — August 25, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

  3. Gasan is a classic example of why HD is such a fringe sect that no one can honestly take it seriously…

    Comment by Wahrheit — August 25, 2010 @ 11:02 am

    • Wikipedia defines HD (Holocaust Denial) as:

      “the rejection of any of the following: that the German Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews for extermination as a people; that more than five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies; and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers.”

      Notice that denial of ANY of these three elements of the Holocaust constitutes Holocaust denial. Questioning whether or not the hair cut from the heads of the prisoners at Auschwitz was made into cloth is not Holocaust denial, unless you say this someplace where a German citizen can hear it — then you could be put into prison for 5 years or more.

      Comment by furtherglory — August 25, 2010 @ 11:26 am

      • Wikipedia should add that rejection of the statement that Hitler ordered the genocide of the Jews is also Holocaust Denial. David Irving became a denier when he wrote in 1977 that Hitler didn’t know about the Holocaust until 1943.

        Comment by furtherglory — August 25, 2010 @ 11:31 am

  4. […] My long-awaited answer to accusations on Paolosilv’s blog « Scrapbookpages Blog Says: 08/22/2010 at 4:32 pm | Log in to Reply […]

    Pingback by “Furtherglory” aka “scrapbookpages”, I accuse you publicly of being a Holocaust denier or reviser. « Paolosilv's Blog — August 22, 2010 @ 10:59 pm

  5. They can display as many bolt cloth as they want. Were there any chemical/forensic proofs, regarding where those rolls of fabrics came from? What I was asking is an actual piece of apparel made of human hair made in Germany from 1939 to 1945.
    Those rolls of fabris do not impress me, Show me the the mattrasses and naval cables.

    Comment by Gasan — August 22, 2010 @ 10:16 pm

  6. I have photos of the Auschwitz exhibits on this page of my website:
    Scroll down to near the bottom of the page and you will see a photo of a bolt of cloth that was allegedly made from human hair.

    Comment by furtherglory — August 22, 2010 @ 9:33 pm

  7. I am sorry, if I missed my guess again. Clothes from human hair?
    Is there any records in human history about the clothes made out of human hair on industrial basis?
    I have just checked out a couple of extravaganza websites, which are in the process of JUST discussing making clothes like that.
    Same thing would apply to the story about the mattresses made out of jewish hair. And let us be honest; would German women let their children to sleep on the mattresses made out of the filthy hair of Eastern European Jews, who were notorious for their uncleanness. Watch again “The Fiddler on the Roof” (in reality it was and is worse than that)and look at the surroundings and then compare with the pictures of German cities and towns. Did you get the picture?
    Another use of jewish hair was the ropes of German U-Boots. The ropes for submarines? Did they mean sea cables? For submarines, those are usually made out of steelwire. The German U-Boots were fighting in the waters of Arctic Ocean, fully submerged. For how long the ropes/cables from jewish hair could be exposed to salt waters of nearly freezing temperatures?
    The bottom line is:
    Show me one cloth’s item, even a bikini, made out of jewish hair, or a twin mattress, or a 10 inch segment from naval “rope”/cable.
    None of the above was ever found or ever made.
    Without any material proves, all those claims are dismissed.

    Comment by Gasan — August 22, 2010 @ 8:50 pm

  8. If its any consolation I don’t think you are a Holocaust denier – cf our mutual discussions re Majdanek.

    He is been peppering me with questions asking if I am Holocaust Denier. In another words he is something of an obsessive, of the type not uncommon on the internet.

    Comment by lgr — August 22, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

  9. Ahahahahaha. Thank you for giving me such a good time reading this. Yes, you must be feeling better; you are in good form.

    Paolo is in his usual form … “unlikelihood” … what a riot. I looked at his blog page and it was impossible for me to make sense of it. That’s good, I suppose; no one else can either.

    It’s good he has decided you’re a denier if it means he won’t be commenting here anymore. Don’t fight it … hahaha.

    Comment by Skeptic — August 22, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

  10. I have found it absolutely pointless to reason with the people, who’s knowledge is not driven by the sense or reason, but the profit, ethnic cronism, psychopathy or religious delusion.
    We have seen the horrible movies, pictures, have read and listened to the testimonies. But we are still entitled to our own judgement about the evidence which is being presented to us. Did Herman Rosenblat told us the truth? No, he acknowledged to the ABC reported that he lied.
    Look at this unrepentant liar:

    Do you believe you could reason with this person and present him arguments?
    And something else: Those piles of shoes at Auschwitz prove nothing, but being just the piles of shoes,
    We don’t know how they got there in the first place. Even a MILLION pair of used shoes DO NOT prove even a single death. How simple is that!

    Comment by Gasan — August 22, 2010 @ 2:50 pm

    • The leather shoes at Auschwitz are deteriorating, but the leather suitcases are not. This proves that the shoes were deloused with Zyklon-B in preparation for being sent to Germany, but the suitcases were not. The hair at Auschwitz is deteriorating badly which means that it was also subjected to Zyklon-B. But did the Germans cut the hair from the heads of the prisoners before or after they were gassed? Holocaust historians claim that the hair was left on the heads of the prisoners until after they were dead, so the case full of hair at Auschwitz proves that the prisoners were gassed. In any case, the hair would have been disinfected at some point because the Germans were planning to use it to make cloth.

      Comment by furtherglory — August 22, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

    • Immediately after I saw Herman Rosenblatt on the Opera show, I e-mailed her at the address on her web site and told her that I thought Rosenblatt was lying. I didn’t get an answer. Opera never brought it up after it was revealed that he was lying. I think she should have done a follow-up show and confronted him about his lies, but she didn’t.

      Comment by furtherglory — August 22, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: