Scrapbookpages Blog

May 3, 2013

What’s wrong with the caption on this photo which shows the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum?

Filed under: Holocaust — Tags: , , — furtherglory @ 12:57 pm
Photo shows the interior of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Photo shows the interior of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

The caption on the above photo, which is on this website, is this:

Visitors to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum pass under this gate, a cast taken from the original entrance to the Auschwitz death camp, inscribed with the ironic phrase Arbeit Macht Frei (Work Makes One Free).(Photo: U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum)

The slogan “Arbeit macht Frei” was NOT put on the entrance of any of the death camps. According to the Holocaustianity religion, there were 6 death camps: Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek, and Auschwitz II (Birkenau). The Auschwitz I camp, which has the Arbeit macht Frei sign was not a “death camp.”

Map shows the six death camps of the Holocaust

Map shows the six death camps of the Holocaust

The map in the photo above is from the web page on “death camps” on Wikipedia.

I tried to explain the meaning of the Arbeit Macht Frei sign in a previous post which you can read here.

In the photo of the interior of the USHMM, notice the photo on the wall underneath the letters AR in the sign.  That photo is shown below.

Photo on the wall of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum

Photo on the wall of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum

The caption underneath the photo above reads: “On May 14, 1946, Rudolf Hoess, the former commandant of Auschwitz, signed a declaration stating that during his tenure in office, 2 million Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz and another 500,000 killed in other ways. Hoess overestimated the number of Jews gassed by about 1 million.”

The Auschwitz-Museum now claims that only 1.1 million people died in the three Auschwitz camps and that 900,000 of these people were Jewish. The number of Jews, who died of all causes at Auschwitz, is now estimated at 900,000 which means that less than 900,000 were killed in the gas chambers.  Others died in the two typhus epidemics at Auschwitz.

It is time for the USHMM to pay more attention to the captions on photos.

19 Comments

  1. Noting mistakes should not be an excuse for denial.

    Comment by Rose Nooteboom — May 4, 2013 @ 7:43 am

    • As you probably know, the wordpress software weeds out spam posts that promote a website. Fortunately, your comment was not classified as spam, and it got through. I went to your blog and read your last two posts. Very impressive. I will be spending a lot of time reading all of your past posts. You are an excellent writer and with your background, you have a lot of important information. Thanks for your comment and the link to your blog at frombrokenbones.wordpress.com

      Comment by furtherglory — May 4, 2013 @ 8:41 am

      • thank you!
        I am not sure whether information is what I am about though….not being the booky type. Hopefully I am coming more from the place of experience and witness and trying to figure things out without becoming polarised

        Comment by Rose Nooteboom — May 4, 2013 @ 10:40 pm

    • I have not yet looked at your website, but you are ignoring that what is being referred to here are not “honest mistakes,” they are falsehoods made on purpose.

      Usually in this comment section that distinction does not need to be made, but in your case it does. So let’s get it clear — there are no honest mistakes at this so-called museum, except for those that don’t really matter. What does matter to the narrative cannot be an honest mistake.

      Comment by Carolyn Yeager — May 4, 2013 @ 9:51 am

      • I think it is important to correct mistakes as they are recognised.
        Whether mistakes are honest is not at issue. I am commenting on the tendency of making mistakes an excuse to justify denial or denigration of the holocaust story as some of the comments seem to do.

        Comment by Rose Nooteboom — May 4, 2013 @ 10:30 am

        • Rose – How do you suggest the innumerable “mistakes” made by the USHMM be corrected? If I should write to the director of the museum, Sara Bloomfield, would anything be done?

          Comment by Carolyn Yeager — May 4, 2013 @ 9:40 pm

          • Mistakes are made on all sides if for each only one point of view is the focus.
            It may not always be possible to correct mistakes made by others, but it is possible to correct our own.

            Comment by Rose Nooteboom — May 5, 2013 @ 7:43 am

            • Oh my, have you been sitting up on a mountaintop staring at your navel? You sound a bit like Elie Wiesel, spouting out cliches, but in such a quiet, meditative way. There are no mistakes on my side, and it is up to you to point out what they are, not to just assume they must be there.

              You spoke truly when you said you were not about information but about experience and witness. You and Elie.

              Comment by Carolyn Yeager — May 7, 2013 @ 10:48 pm

            • I want to add a challenge to Rose. Go to this website http://eliewieseltattoo.com and point out where the mistakes are. There is a lot posted there so there must be plenty of them, according to your theory that mistakes are made on all sides. Sort of in an equal way, so it all balances out in the end?

              I really do want to correct any mistakes, unlike the USHMM. Since you didn’t answer my previous questions, I hope you will answer this one.

              Comment by Carolyn Yeager — May 8, 2013 @ 1:43 pm

              • to both of the above:
                Personally, I am very thankful for the mistakes in the exhibit to be pointed out. ..I admire that some have energy and passion to find and point out those sort of details. I don’t have that sort of focus…my concerns tend to be about how we treat each other, mistaken or not.

                Comment by Rose Nooteboom — May 8, 2013 @ 8:25 pm

      • I wrote about the exhibits in the USHMM after my visit in the year 2000. The exhibits might have changed since then, but I was highly critical of them at the time that I visited. In my opinion, the exhibits were not honest because they left out important points.

        Here is an excerpt from what I wrote about the exhibits after my visit:

        There was a significant number of Communists incarcerated as political prisoners in the major German concentration camps at Dachau, Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen, but you would never know it from seeing this exhibit. Not mentioned are the asocials, the work-shy or the criminals who were sent to a concentration camp after they finished their prison time for their second offense. All these categories of people, and also the Jews, were called “enemies of the state” by the Nazis and were put into the concentration camps.

        The museum exhibits consistently downplay the fact that numerous Communists were sent to the Nazi concentration camps, barely mentioning it in passing. In the section about the German invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the reason given for the invasion is that the Nazis wanted “Lebensraum,” or living space, not that they were fighting against Communism.

        I did not see any mention of the fact that the policy of incarcerating the “enemies of the state” without benefit of a trial began when thousands of Communists were rounded up, after the burning of the Reichstag in February 1933, and imprisoned at Dachau, the first concentration camp.

        This display says that “homosexuals were targeted because of their sexual orientation” but doesn’t mention that there had been a law against homosexual acts on the books since Germany became a united country in 1871. A video monitor shows mug shots of homosexuals who were arrested but there is no mention of the fact that they were arrested for breaking an existing law. According to the museum, a total of 10,000 homosexuals and a total of 220,000 Gypsies were sent to the Nazi concentration camps. Before 1942, Gypsy men were sent to the camps under the category of asocials because they traditionally didn’t work at a regular job and had no permanent address. They were arrested under a law which said that every person in Germany had to have a permanent address.

        This section includes a large Gypsy wagon, which looks like a pioneer Conestoga wagon without the white canvas cover. On the wagon is a violin which was owned by a Gypsy man. Nearby is a glass case with a Gypsy woman’s outfit of clothing, consisting of a black Persian lamb jacket, a silk blouse and a black skirt of expensive looking material. Silver bracelets and tortoise shell hair combs are on the wall of the case, along with a studio portrait of a well-dressed Gypsy woman. The owner of these clothes must have owned a fancier wagon than the one on display. Most people are familiar with the colorful painted caravans that the Gypsies traveled around in; if one of these horse-drawn vans could not have been found, the museum should have at least displayed a picture of one, so that visitors would not be puzzled by the juxtaposition of the expensive clothes and a wagon made of rough, unpainted wood with no top.

        P.S. The most important mistake, in my opinion, was the statement that Germany invaded Russia to gain “lebensraum”.

        Comment by furtherglory — May 4, 2013 @ 12:42 pm

    • Rose Nooteboom: “Noting mistakes should not be an excuse for denial.”

      The revisionists don’t need excuses for denial because they debunk the holofraud with hard facts. Only very insecure people with no strong evidence in their hands need to call them “deniers”. The revisionists are not people in denial for pleasure or political purposes as the holocaustians depict them. The exterminationists are the people living in denial. They refuse to admit there would already exist tons of compelling evidence if the holocaust had really happened but there is none. They persist in believing that “the golden proof” confirming their faith will appear one day or another.

      Many exterminationist ‘experts’ confessed there are no proofs of the holocaust and especially of the gas chambers.

      Here are just a few of them:

      “The archives torn from the bowels of the Third Reich, the depostions and accounts of its chiefs permit us to reconstruct in their least detail the birth and the development of its plans for aggression, its military campaigns, and the whole range of processes by which the Nazis intended to reshape the world to their pattern*. Only the campaign to exterminate the Jews, as concerns its completion, as well as in many other essential aspects, remains steeped in fog. Psychological inferences and considerations, third- or fourth-hand accounts, allow us to reconstruct the developments with a considerable verisimilitude. Certain details, nevertheless, will remain unknown forever. AS CONCERNS THE CONCEPT PROPER OF THE PLAN FOR TOTAL EXTERMINATION the three or four principal actors are dead. NO DOCUMENTS REMAINS, AND HAS PERHAPS NEVER EXISTED.” – Leon Poliakov, Breviaire de la haine (Breviary of Hate) , Paris, 1979, p. 134.

      * It’s now known that most of (if not all) those documents were forgeries like the Hossbach protocol and Hermann Rauschning’s book.

      “there was a Holocaust, which is, by the way, more easily said than demonstrated.” – Raul Hilberg, Is There a New Anti-Semitism? A Conversation with Raul Hilberg, Logos Journal. Volume 6 – Issue one-two.

      “Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.” – Robert jan Van Pelt, A Case for Letting Nature Take Back Auschwitz, The Toronto Star, December 27, 2009.

      “it is necessary to recognize that the lack of traces involves the inability to directly establish the reality of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.” – French historian Jacques Baynac

      “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable.” – Professor Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, 1988.

      “Most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.” – Professor Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, 1988.

      “In the meantime, there is no denying the many contradictions, ambiguities, and errors in the existing sources.” – Professor Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, 1988.

      “The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archaeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence.” Judge Gray, Irving-Lipstadt trial, 2000.

      “most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies.” – Jewish historian Samuel Gringauz, Chairman of the Council of the Central Committee Of Liberated Jews In The American Zone of Germany, issue of Jewish Social Studies about survivor testimonies, 1950:

      “A certain degree of reserve is necessary in handling all this material, and particularly this applies to the last section (“survivor narratives”). For instance, the evidence concerning the Polish death camps was mainly taken after the war by Polish State Commissions or by the Central Jewish Historical Commission of Poland. The hardy survivors who were examined were seldom educated men. Moreover, the Eastern European Jew is a natural rhetorician, speaking in flowery similes.” – Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution (London: Sphere books, 1971 edition) p. 581.

      “Survivor accounts of critical events are typical of all testimony, that is, they are full of discrepancies. About all matters both trivial and significant, the evidence is nearly always in dispute. In part the unreliability of these accounts derives from imperfect observation and flawed memory, but in larger part from the circumstance that they are not constructed exclusively on the basis of firsthand experience. In order to present a coherent narrative, the author has likely included a large measure of hearsay, gossip, rumor, assumption, speculation, and hypothesis.” – Jewish holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz, A Holocaust Reader, 1976.

      “For the scientific historian a witness statement does not represent real history. It is an object of history. A witness statement counts for little, many witnesses’ statements count for no more, if there is no solid document to support them. One could say without much exaggeration, the principle of scientific historiography is, No paper(s), no proven facts.” – Jacques Baynac.

      Comment by hermie — May 4, 2013 @ 5:36 pm

  2. Thanks for writing this piece, FG … for pointing out how sloppily inaccurate the USHMM is in their exhibits. To call Auschwitz I a “death camp” is inexcusable even in the context of their own erroneous belief in “death camps.” Hundreds of photos (many of them fake and photo-shopped too) are mislabeled by this so-called museum.

    It’s also extremely funny that this so-called museum should write in the caption “Hoess overestimated the number of Jews gassed by about 1 million.” Haha, if we are expected to take his testimony seriously, how could the Camp Commandant not know what went on in his camp?? That gives it away that he was just giving his interrogators the number they wanted (under torture).

    Good job!

    Comment by Carolyn Yeager — May 3, 2013 @ 10:01 pm

    • Carolyn Yeager wrote: “It’s also extremely funny that this so-called museum should write in the caption “Hoess overestimated the number of Jews gassed by about 1 million.” Haha, if we are expected to take his testimony seriously, how could the Camp Commandant not know what went on in his camp?? That gives it away that he was just giving his interrogators the number they wanted (under torture).”

      If Hoess really overestimated the number of jews gassed by ‘only’ a million, it would mean nobody died from typhus and other natural causes at Auschwitz – what is a total nonsense. The Holocaustians like saying 1.1 million people were gassed at Auschwitz. But with a death toll of 1.1 million (still vastly overestimated) there could be a maximum of a few hundreds of thousands of jews gassed (assuming the gas chamber story is true) because non-jews also died at Auschwitz and because it’s known there were hundreds of thousands of people dying from typhus and other diseases at that camp.

      Comment by hermie — May 4, 2013 @ 7:52 am

  3. Your theory is not compelling at all, FG. You wrote there was a sign at Auschwitz I but not at Auschwitz II (Birkenau) because Auschwitz II was a death camp and Auschwitz I wasn’t. But according to the Holocaust fable, there were gassings at Auschwitz I (Krema I) too. So your theory “sign = concentration/labor camp, no sign = death camp” can’t hold. And if the Jews and the Bolshevists lied about Auschwitz I (when they claimed it was a death camp with a gas chamber), what makes you think they told the truth about Auschwitz II?

    Don’t you think the Nazis simply had more useful things to make with iron than signs (like weapons for instance) when they established Birkenau in October 41?

    Comment by hermie — May 3, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

    • As soon as I finished my post, I realized that I had made an error. The Auschwitz main camp allegedly had a gas chamber. However, the alleged gas chamber at the Auschwitz I (main camp) cannot be a gas chamber for these reasons:

      1. The gas chamber is located in an unlikely spot: between the SS hospital and the SS administration building.

      2. The gas chamber has no vent pipe to vent the gas out of the room.

      3. There is no way to collect the Zyklon-B pellets after the gassing: no perforated steel column, no wire basket, etc.

      4. The gas chamber is not air tight. Especially, the openings in the ceiling are not air tight.

      5. The gas chamber is right next to the oven room which was putting out a lot of heat. It was necessary to heat the pellets to release the gas, but the oven room was generating too much heat, which would have caused an explosion.

      6. There was no undressing room and no large space outside the building where the victims could have undressed.

      7. There are no tell-tale blue stains on the walls which could indicate that Zyklon-B was used in the room.

      8. The main camp was a camp for “political prisoners,” not Jews.

      9. As the gas chamber looks now, it has a floor drain in what was formerly the wash room before this room was claimed to be part of the gas chamber. If Zyklon-B pellets had gone down the drain, it would have poisoned the whole camp.

      10. There was no morgue to store the bodies until they could be burned in the ovens, since the gas chamber was in the space where a morgue should have been.

      Comment by furtherglory — May 4, 2013 @ 6:11 am

      • If the Holocaustians lied about Krema I, why should they be trusted in about Krema II, III, IV and V? Maybe I’m a bit “old school”, but when I’ve been lied to I tend to doubt the people who have lied to me.

        A remark on heating: It would have been stupid to heat the entire “gas chambers” in order to vaporize hydrogen cyanide while the Nazis could just heat the Zyklon B pellets as they were doing in their delousing gas chambers (http://www.nazigassings.com/zyklondelousing.html). The “Kula columns” have a stupid design. If the Germans had really conceived those columns, the wire basket would have been a electrically-heated device, not a simple wire basket going up and down. Moreover if the Nazis had made Michael Kula build wire mesh columns for their alleged homicidal gas chambers, he would have been killed as soon as his macabre job was done and not left alive to ‘testify’ about their ‘crimes’. Kula didn’t only ‘testify’ about his magic columns but he also observed that the corpses turned greenish after exposure to the gas (while they would have turned reddish – see Friedrich Paul Berg’s works on that matter and books of toxicology).

        Comment by hermie — May 4, 2013 @ 9:44 am

  4. Making 11 million people (6 million Jews + 5 million others) disappear is the greatest magic trick of all time!

    L.A. museum traces Jewish influence on magic

    LOS ANGELES –Many people know that Houdini was Jewish and his real name was Erich Weiss, son of an itinerant Rabbi. But who is Jewish of the following? David Copperfield, Max Maven, David Blaine and Teller of the team, Penn and Teller? All of them! David Copperfield was born David Seth Kotkin; Max Maven is Phil Goldstein. David Blaine’s mother is Jewish. Who would think a Jewish heritage is in the history of prestidigitators such as Malini, Leipzig, Lafayette, Okito, Fu Manchu, Ballantine and Flosso? All have Jewish roots. http://www.magician.org/node/1127

    Comment by who dares wings — May 3, 2013 @ 2:37 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: