another fake document: Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report'

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9865
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

another fake document: Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report'

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:08 am)

One of the key components of the 'holocaust' as alleged is the assertion that Hitler gave an order for the 'extermination' of Jews residing in Europe.

Try as they may, the Believers have never found any such 'Führer Order'.

For the unscrupulous 'holocaust' Industry that presented no problem, they simply forged a reference to this 'Führer Order' in what is known as the Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report'.

Have a look at the excerpt below from an important work by Revisionist of note, Brian Renk. Then see the full text here:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p261_Renk.html

excerpt:
A key document cited by Fleming in his book is a two-page report entitled "Umsiedlungs-Aktion der Juden" ("Resettlement Action of the Jews," although Fleming calls it "Resettlement of the Jews", which describes mass killings of Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz and makes explicit reference to the "Führer Order." This document, said to be part of a longer report, is alleged by Fleming to have been composed by SS Sturmbannführer (Major) Alfred Franke-Gricksch, a highranking official in the SS personnel main office in Berlin, shortly after an inspection tour of Auschwitz-Birkenau in May 1943.

The "Resettlement Action" document was apparently first cited by the American historian Charles W. Sydnor (in his book Soldiers of Destruction (Princeton Univ., 1977, p. 3371). More recently, it was published-both in facsimile and in English translation-by the French anti-Revisionist historian Jean-Claude Pressac in his Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989 [pages 236-239]).

The importance Fleming attaches to this report is indicated by the fact that he devotes an entire chapter of Hitler and the Final Solution to it. He gives this chapter the title "An Official Report from Auschwitz-Birkenau."

If authentic, the "Resettlement Action" report would seem to confirm several key points of the Exterminationist thesis:

The phrase "resettlement of the Jews" was a euphemism for a policy of mass extermination, particularly by "gassing."
Mass killings at Auschwitz were part of a secret program ordered by Hitler to exterminate the Jews.
Homicidal gas chambers in the crematorium complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau were used to kill Jews during the spring of 1943.
But is the "Resettlement Action" report authentic? In this paper, we shall establish that it is almost certainly not. A careful examination of the text, as well as Fleming and Pressac's analysis of that text, will reveal the following:

The "Resettlement Action" report is almost certainly a postwar forgery. No original, carbon copy or facsimile of the document, let alone the longer report from which it is supposed to have been excerpted, has ever been produced or is even known to exist.
Orthographic peculiarities in the German of the "Resettlement Action" report suggest that the man who is supposed to have transcribed it did not have a German original before him.
Specific details about Auschwitz-Birkenau given in this report are demonstrably false.
Fleming and Pressac have ignored or glossed over numerous factual "errors" and gross implausibilities in this "report," indicating shoddy and perhaps even unethical scholarship.


Comments invited.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Jan 08, 2003 1:15 pm)

Hannover wrote:
The phrase "resettlement of the Jews" was a euphemism for a policy of mass extermination, particularly by "gassing."
Mass killings at Auschwitz were part of a secret program ordered by Hitler to exterminate the Jews.


Since there exists no evidence that would document the alleged Jewish genocide, the hoaxers had a brilliant idea: The use of secret code words, of euphemism. A children’s game.

A favorite book of Germanistic Holocaust hoaxers is:
Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas. Eine Dokumentation. (Nationalsocialistic Mass Killings by Poison Gas. A Documentation),
concocted by the Three Stooges: Kogon, Langbein and Rückerl.

This book in the section "Unmasking the Code Terms" enlightens the reader to the effect that he can only understand the documents correctly if he interprets them as saying something other than what they actually say.

How serious historians can go for this crap is simply beyond me. :D

fge

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:11 pm)

The content of the Franke-Gricksch document itself is so rediculous that there can be no doubt about some hanky-panky:

[…]Because fresh corpses burn particularly well.

[…]People are put to sleep in one minute.

[…]A few minutes later, the door on the other side, which leads to an elevator, is opened.

[…]The present capacity of the "resettlement action" ovens: 10,000 in 24 hours.

[…]It has been observed that Jews have hidden jewelry objects, gold, platinum, etc., in hollow teeth.
(This I would like to see!)
:D
fge

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Jan 08, 2003 7:20 pm)

The Jew Gerhard Flehinger was raised in Mannheim in Germany. He changed his name to Gerald Fleming after he left Germany during the time of the Third Reich when he went to England.
Fleming enjoyed doing a little “doctoring” himself. In his quite mediocre book Hitler and the Final Solution edition 1994, a book of low quality, he published lengthy texts from the interrogation protocols of the Topf engineers Sander, Prüfer, Schultze and Braun by Smersch in Russia.

In these protocols Engineer Sander talks about several crematoriums and huge transportations of Greek Jews for the year 1942 to Auschwitz. (At that time there was only one crematorium and no Greek Jews in Auschwitz).
In order to correct this anachronism, Fleming then changed the year in the protocol to 1943 (several times) when he reproduced Sander’s testimony.
This suited his philosophy so much better. :D

fge

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Re: another fake document: 'Resettlement Action Report'

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:34 am)

The "Resettlement Action" report is almost certainly a postwar forgery. No original, carbon copy or facsimile of the document, let alone the longer report from which it is supposed to have been excerpted, has ever been produced or is even known to exist.
Orthographic peculiarities in the German of the "Resettlement Action" report suggest that the man who is supposed to have transcribed it did not have a German original before him.
Specific details about Auschwitz-Birkenau given in this report are demonstrably false.
Fleming and Pressac have ignored or glossed over numerous factual "errors" and gross implausibilities in this "report," indicating shoddy and perhaps even unethical scholarship.


But let's suppose that this or some other report did not exhibit the numerous problems that Mr. Renk identfies - either because it was genuine or because it had been forged by more skilful hands. How many Revisionists would be willing to accept it?

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:44 am)

Sailor wrote: In these protocols Engineer Sander talks about several crematoriums and huge transportations of Greek Jews for the year 1942 to Auschwitz. (At that time there was only one crematorium and no Greek Jews in Auschwitz).
In order to correct this anachronism, Fleming then changed the year in the protocol to 1943 (several times) when he reproduced Sander’s testimony.
This suited his philosophy so much better. :D

fge


If you have Mr. Fleming's book to hand, we would like to see the relevant part of Mr. Sander's testimony.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Thu Jan 09, 2003 12:26 pm)

Hebden wrote: If you have Mr. Fleming's book to hand, we would like to see the relevant part of Mr. Sander's testimony.

I don’t.
But it is on page 205 of his book.

A copy of the complete interrogation protocol of the Topf engineers by the Soviets is in the hands of the Revisionists.

According to the protocol Smersch-Captain Schatanowski questioned Sander:

“Question: This means that you knew that in the concentration camps in Auschwitz completely innocent people were killed?
“Answer: Yes, I knew since the summer of 1942, that in the concentration camps in Auschwitz completely innocent people were killed and then their bodies burned in crematoriums. Prüfer told me of huge transports of people, who arrived from Poland, Greece and other countries in the concentration camps in Auschwitz and who were killed there.”


Fleming quoted Sander as follows:
“In the Summer of 1943 Prüfer and Schultze told me, that many people were gassed in Auschwitz and their corpses cremated in crematoriums (…).” “Yes, I knew since the summer of 1943 that in Auschwitz innocent people were gassed and then cremated in ccrematoriums.”

:D

fge

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1165
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: another fake document: 'Resettlement Action Report'

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 1 week ago (Thu Sep 05, 2019 9:34 pm)

Another debunking of this report, which has shown up in a recent post on the HC Blog:
The Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report' A Fabrication

The Franke-Gricksch Report is considered by many to be an extremely important document in making the case for mass exterminations. Gerald Fleming, for example, devotes an entire chapter of his book "Hitler and the Final Solution" to an evaluation of this document.

According to legend, the original document was supposedly found in Major Alfred Franke-Gricksch's career file by Eric Lipman, an officer with the War Crimes Branch of the U.S. Third Army (supposedly Lipman was tipped to its existence after finding a carbon copy of the document somewhere in Bavaria ). Lipman supposedly excerpted the Report from the document by making a typescript copy (that is, typing a copy in German from the German original). The carbon copy of the original was then turned over to the prosecution team at Nuremberg, while the original (according to Pressac) is now thought to be preserved in the National Archives Collection reference NA RG 238. However, the original seems to have become lost, and as of the middle of 1991 no one else has seen hide nor hair of it.

The American prosecution team at Nuremberg never made use of this document, which raises the question as to whether they ever received it, which in turn raises questions at to whether it even exists.

On Gerald Fleming's part, on February 19, 1991, Brian Renk requested a copy of the carbon copy of the original document from which the Report was allegedly excerpted. Fleming responded by sending a photocopy of the Report ONLY, this in spite of the fact that Fleming has claimed to have in his possession one of three carbon copies of the original document.

Fleming doesn't mention that the Franke-Gricksch "report" is but part of a larger document, and that is just one of the problems he has with this document. For example, in his book he fails to state that the document to which he devotes an entire chapter is nowhere signed by Franke-Gricksch. He also erroneously stated in a private letter to F-G's widow that her husband had signed this Report. He also avoids mentioning the peculiarities in the document (discussed below). He also finds fault with only one portion of the Report, and then goes on to quote Filip Mueller as an expert on the topic! Therefore, Fleming is ignorant of the true source of the document, and overlooks (conceals? misrepresents?) problems in the document in order to make his point.

Fleming does not let the F-G report off the hook completely, however. He states:

Franke-Gricksch's account of 'the execution of the Fuehrer-order," namely, the lowering of 'certain materials' into a large cellar room resembling a 'shower bath' and activation and release of 'particular substances that put people to sleep in one minute' is a fraudulent and cynical white-washing of death by gassing.

What we are left with then, is no original or carbon copy thereof, and the only evidence we have of this document's existence is the excerpted Report, the deficiencies of which I shall examine now.

Among of the most obvious things wrong with this "document" is the accidental use of English words in place of German words. Some of these anglicisms were corrected on the typescript copy, some were not. For example, on the first line of the report, "had" for "hat;" "der," the second word of line 2, typed over "the;" and on line 3, "hier" typed over "here." On line 8 of the second page of the report, the alleged copyist typed "had," but corrected it to "hat," only to begin the following word with "t" (evidently for "the") before catching that and typing the correct German definite article "die." Furthermore, in the final paragraph of page 1, the English participial ending "d" is twice typed for the German "t," that is "ausgestatted" for "ausgestattet" on line 5, which has been corrected, and "gebaded" for "gebadet" on line 9. Last but not least, the verb "kommt" is used twice with the same subject in the sentence beginning on line 6 of the third paragraph of line 1.

All that aside, any reasonable person reading this "report" would immediately suspect something is wrong. Where is this "house?" Where are the hollow pillars? What "certain substances" are used? How is it possible to open the doors a few minutes after a lethal gassing when a deadly poison is supposedly still rampant in the air? How can the hair be cut off without first rinsing it of the poison gas? Just how big is this house that it has elevators for hundreds of dead people? Is it normal for large Polish houses to have ten large crematories? By what amazing physical property do fresh corpses burn particularly well? If it takes a modern crematory 2 to 3 hours to partially dispose of a human corpse, how can 10,000 corpses be disposed of in 24 hours with only 10 crematories?

French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac says (on page 244 of Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers), "On 28th June, following the handover of Krematorium III, the last one to be completed, Jaehrling calculated the overall throughput for the five Krematorien as 4,756 people in 24 hours, and sent this information to SS General Kammler in Berlin (Document 68). This official figure, coolly doubled when explaining operations to high-ranking visitors (ef. SS Major Franke-Gricksch's report above, giving a figure of 10,000 in 24 hours), had no basis in practice, and probably has to be divided by two or three to arrive at the true figure."

Pressac is also much less generous than Fleming regarding other aspects of the Franke-Gricksch "report." Among the points he notes in this report are:

  1. The "large house" is actually Krema II at Birkenau.
  2. There are not 5 or 6 steps into the Leichenkeller, but 10.
  3. There are not 3 pillars inside the "gas chamber" but 4.
  4. The "doors" cannot be closed when there is only one door involved.
  5. There is no door to open "on the other side" because again there is only one door.
  6. The lift does not take the corpses to the first floor, but to the ground floor.
  7. There are not 10 crematory furnaces but 5 three-muffle furnaces.
  8. There were probably not 500,000 Jews in killed in May, 1943, and true number is somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000.
  9. The capacity of Krema II was not 10,000 per 24 hours, but rather 4,756 for all FIVE crematoria combined, and even this is a theoretical output "that was never achieved in 1943, as proved by the Krematorium coke consumption." Pressac calls this claim "another Auschwitz SS propaganda figure passed on by Franke-Gricksch."
Some of these points, such as the actual location of the "large house" and the true number of Jews killed, are pure conjecture on Pressac's part.

To make up for the deficiencies in the F-G "report," Pressac concocts an elaborate scenario in an attempt to preserve the desirable portions of the Report while shrugging off the ridiculous portions.

Even so, Pressac misses some of the problems with this document. For example:
  1. He fails to explain how the Sonderkommando members could have resisted the lingering Zyklon B gas as they went to work hauling bodies from the gas chamber, removing gold teeth, etc., only "a few minutes" after the killings.
  2. Anyone visiting the ruins of Leichenkeller I can see that the four pillars are not hollow at all, but are solid, which would have prevented anything from being dropped down them.
  3. Pressac fails to address the assertion that "fresh corpses burn particularly well."
  4. Pressac ignores the Report's mention of a "special rail track into an area of the camp specifically set aside for this purpose." Although there was a rail spur into Birkenau, work was not begun on it until January, 1944. (This single reference, by the way, is enough by itself to show that this document is almost certainly a post-war forgery.)
Unmentioned by both Fleming and Pressac is the fact that nowhere in the report does it say that Franke-Gricksch saw the process he describes. In fact, the report claims he was given a tour of the facilities and the process was explained to him. We know from the records at Auschwitz that Franke-Gricksch was there from May 14-16, 1943.

These are certainly remarkable characteristics for what Fleming, Pressac, and others advance as a simple transcription of a German original. A less trusting (or perhaps more scrupulous) interpreter would be well within his rights to suggest that this document was based on an English-language, not German-language, source.

In short, what we have here is 1) a carbon copy of a typed copy of a carbon copy of an original document, and this original document has never surfaced, 2) gross errors in the typed copy that would lead any scholar to suspect that the "Report" was not copied from a German document, but translated from an English original (that is, forged), and 3) several inaccuracies in the Report itself, at least one of which damns the Report as a forgery.

Ask yourself this question: with all the tons and tons of papers removed from Germany after the war, with all the code intercepts during the war, with all the intelligence activity during the war, why do anti-revisionists find themselves forced to refer to transparent fabrications such as the Franke-Gricksch Report to support their position? The mass gassing of millions of Jews (and millions of others) is no easy task, and would certainly leave behind some trace. Without this trace, the only conclusion is that it never happened.
The Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report' A Fabrication
https://www.historiography-project.com/misc/fg.php or https://archive.is/MyD5q


Related thread:

Was the authentic Franke-Gricksch report discovered ?
viewtopic.php?t=8872
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Hieldner
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:21 am

Re: another fake document: 'Resettlement Action Report'

Postby Hieldner » 1 month 1 day ago (Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:45 pm)

Note that according to Brian Renk’s article, Franke-Gricksch was never enlisted in the Waffen SS under this name.

In his letter to the author of November 4, 1990, Ekkehard Franke-Gricksch wrote about his father's prewar activities:

My father, my mother, the Strassers, and Himmler had known each other since about 1927. They were dedicated National Socialists, and thus followed Hitler. My father joined the party in 1928 and left it in 1930. Gregor Strasser was the witness at my parents' wedding ...

When Hitler took control of the government in 1933, and distanced himself from his original National Socialist goals ... my father fled the country with Gregor [meant is Otto] Strasser ... The Reich Supreme Court sentenced my father to death in absentia for treason -- that is, because he was a member of the Strasser organization ... [However] my father came to an understanding with Himmler about the Party's betrayal of the National Socialist revolution. Himmler and my father came to an agreement, and my father [returned to Germany and] joined the Waffen SS under the name of Alfred Franke -- behind the back of the Party. Himmler only asked that he refrain from political activity for the time being, until the time was right for that.

»[Holocaust soap] odor, if captured and retained… would preserve the core of an individual soul… The undesirable smell of the extract spoke of the spectral Derridian trace… that continued to remind its consumers of their own bio-ontology.«—B. Shallcross

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1165
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: another fake document: 'Resettlement Action Report'

Postby Lamprecht » 3 weeks 2 days ago (Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:37 pm)

Some points on the "Report"

- The "report" is not written by German official Alfred Franke-Gricksch, but a text typed up by a certain Eric Lipmann

- No original has ever been reproduced

- The document and its history are full of various absurdities, Lipmann clearly made it all up

- There is another English translation of a report allegedly written by Gricksch, found in the British National Archives in the early 2000s, posted here: https://archive.is/kBLa

- There is no German original for this second report, but it doesn't even speak of Jews being killed, just their property being confiscated. It's in perfect agreement with the revisionist position

- Mainstream "Holocaust" historians claim both documents are genuine translations or originals, with the first being a "secret" document, but the total absurdities prove quite conclusively it's a fake


From:
The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed
PDF: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/22-trcfa.pdf
TXT: https://archive.is/dG7t4
7.6.2. The Franke-Gricksch “Report” and Pressac’s Comments


Pressac introduces the document in the following manner (ibid., p. 236):

“In the afternoon of the same day [May 4, 1943], SS Major Alfred FRANKE-Gricksch, adjutant to SS General Maximillian VON HERFF […], Head of the SS Central Personnel Office [SS Personal Hauptamt, 98 99 Wilmersdorferstraße, Berlin-Charlottenburg], accompanying the General on a tour of inspection in the ‘General Government’ [the half of the Polish territory occupied by the Germans and placed under the authority of Hans Frank], arrived in KL Auschwitz (although reported, the presence of General von Herff is doubtful). Franke-Gricksch visited Krematorium II and is supposed to have witnessed the gassing of those unfit for work from a convoy of 2,930 Greek Jews (from the Salonika ghetto). Following this visit, between the evening of 4th May and 16th May, he wrote a report on what he had seen at Auschwitz Birkenau for his chief, von Herff, and for Reichsführer SS Himmler. This report was entitled: ‘JEWISH RESETTLEMENT ACTION’.” (emphases by Pressac)

On the origin of the document, Pressac has this to say (ibid., p. 238):

“This report was shown to Professor Charles W Sydnor of Hampton-Sydney College, Virginia (United States) in 1976 by a person from Richmond (Virginia) who had discovered it after the second world war. This man, apparently Eric M Lippmann [sic] according to the signature, was at the time employed by the US Army on collecting documents and seeking anything that might be used as evidence in the Nuremberg trials. He seems to remember finding carbon copy of the original report among a set of documents in a place he cannot recall exactly, somewhere in Bavaria. The original was not there. Having immediately realized the value of this report, which described the whole process of exterminating the Jews in Auschwitz, he made a typed copy for himself, as he had to hand the carbon over to the American Prosecutor at Nuremberg. He certified in longhand that he had made a true copy, and signed it ‘Eric M Lipmann.’ The two sheets that he typed are now preserved in the Tauber Estate of Brandeis University with other documents from the Third Reich.”

Pressac publishes the document in question, drawn up in German; our translation is as follows:352

“Part of a report rendered by SS Sturmbannführer Franke-Gricksch on a trip through the General Government on 4 to 16 May 1943. [This heading is typed in English in Lipmann’s typescript]

R e s e t t l e m e n t – A c t i o n
of the Jews

A special task in the arrangement of the Jewish question has [been given to] the A u s c h w i t z Camp. The most modern measures enable the Führer order to be carried out within the shortest possible time and without major commotion.
The so-called ‘resettlement action’ of the Jews takes place in the following manner:
The Jews arrive, toward nightfall, in special trains (freight-cars) and are being routed on special tracks into dedicated enclosed areas of the camp. There, they are unloaded and examined, first of all, by a medical commission in the presence of the camp commandant and several SS officers to determine their fitness for work. Here, all those who can be integrated into the work process in any way, will go[353] into a special camp. The temporarily sick are moved immediately to the hospital camp and made healthy again by special food, the basic rule being: to maintain any kind of manpower for work. The former way of ‘resettlement action’ is refused in its entirety, as one cannot afford to continually destroy important work energies.
Those unfit go into a larger house, into the basement rooms which have access from the outside. One goes down 5-6 steps and enters a longish, well built and aerated basement room which is equipped with benches on its right and left sides. It is brightly lit and there are numbers above the benches. The prisoners are told that, for their new tasks, they will have to be disinfected and cleaned and must therefore undress completely to be bathed. In order to avoid any kind of panic or commotion they are ordered to fold their clothes properly and place them below the numbers they have been assigned in order to find them again after the bath. Everything proceeds in utter calmness. Then one passes through a small passage and enters a large basement room which is similar to a shower-bath. In this room, there are three large columns. From outside the basement room one can lower certain agents into these columns. Once 300-400 people are assembled in this space, the doors are closed and the containers with the substances are lowered into the columns. As soon as the containers touch the bottom of the column they generate particular substances which put the people to sleep within one minute. A few minutes later, the door at the other end which leads to a lift opens. The hair of the corpses is cut and other experts (Jews) break out the teeth (gold teeth). One has come to know that the Jews keep hidden in hollow teeth jewels, gold, platinum etc. After that, the corpses are loaded into elevators and are taken to the first upper floor. There, there are 10 large crematorium furnaces in which the corpses are burned. As fresh corpses burn particularly well, only ½ – 1 metric hundredweight [Zentner] of coke are needed for the whole procedure. This work is carried out by Jewish detainees who will never leave this camp.
Output of this ‘resettlement action’ to date: 500,000 Jews.
Present capacity of ‘the resettlement action’ furnaces: 10,000 in 24 hours. [Handwritten note:] I affirm, that this [is] a true copy of the original report. Eric M. Lipmann”

Leaving aside the certainly relevant question of the origins and the authenticity of the document – a retyped copy, appearing as late as 1976, of the carbon copy of an original that was never found, the carbon copy having been discovered at an unknown location and transmitted to an unknown person, with the carbon copy then disappearing as well – we will pass on immediately to Pressac’s critical comment (ibid., p. 239):

“Franke-Gricksch reports that ‘The unfit go to a BIGGISH HOUSE, into the basement…’ without saying that it is a crematorium, or which one. Later in his account we learn that the ‘house’ is equipped with ‘big cremation furnaces,’ so it must have been a crematorium. Only Krematorien II and III had semi-basements, whereas Krematorien I, IV and V had none. On 4th May 1943, only Krematorium II was complete and operational, while Kr III was not yet ready. Franke-Gricksch’s ‘biggish house’ can therefore be nothing other than Birkenau Krematorium II.

The errors in his report are:

[1] ‘5-6 steps’ (for the access stairway at the western end of Leichenkeller 2) instead of 10. Simple lack of attention on the part of a man who used this stairway only once. The error would be more serious on the part of a Sonderkommando member, using it several times a day.

[2] ‘three big pillars’ [columns for pouring Zyklon B] instead of four. The explanation of this error is that Franke-Gricksch must have just gone a few paces into Leichenkeller 1, not down to the end, and thus noticed only three of the four columns.

[3] ‘the doors [of Leichenkeller 1] are closed’ instead of the door, singular. This is probably due to confusion with the double door of Leichenkeller 2 leading to the corridor, through which he had just come before having a quick look over the threshold of Leichenkeller 1.

[4] ‘the door on the other side is opened, leading to a lift.’ There was not an entrance door at one end and exit at the other, but only one door to Leichenkeller 1, through which the victims entered and from which the corpses were removed. This is the most glaring fault, but may be explained by the route taken during Franke-Gricksch’s visit.

[5] ‘go to the first floor’ [are taken to the first upper floor; Ed.] instead of the floor above, or ground floor. A common mistake made by many witnesses.

[6] ‘10 large crematorium furnaces,’ instead of 5 three muffle furnaces or 15 muffles. As with Leichenkeller 1, Franke-Gricksch probably did not go the whole length of the furnace room, but stood at the western entrance in front of the first furnace and listened to the explanations given. It could be that the figure ten was the total he was given for the capacity of Krematorien II and III together (10 three muffle furnaces).

[7] ‘500,000 Jews’ [in May 1943], instead of a true figure of probably somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000. This figure would have been provided by the Auschwitz SS guide and Franke-Gricksch is merely repeating the inflated figure given to make the camp look efficient.

[8] ‘10,000 in 24 hours,’ instead of the ‘official’ figure of 4,756 per day for the FIVE Krematorien (I, II, III, IV and V), itself a theoretical figure that was never achieved in 1943, as proved by the Krematorium coke consumption. The maximum daily throughput of the 4 Birkenau Krematorien was in the order of 3,000 incinerations. What is more, in May 1943, Kr III was not yet in service. This is simply another Auschwitz SS propaganda figure passed on by Franke-Gricksch.”

Pressac then goes on to explain the error in connection with the two doors of Leichenkeller 1 which he touches upon under Item 4 above (ibid.):

“The most striking and serious error in his report is his stating that the gas chamber (Leichenkeller 1) had a door at each end. This can be explained only if there was some kind of break in his visit to the crematorium that caused him to lose his bearings somewhat.”

His mistake is claimed to become understandable if one assumes that he entered Leichenkeller 2 from the outside, then walked through it, into the corridor and the vestibule, then took a few steps into Leichenkeller 1, leaving the half-basement via the stairs on the north side (through the former Leichenkeller 3), then re-entering the ground floor of the crematorium through the door located on the north side, and viewing the furnace hall while listening in front of the first furnace to the explanations of his guide and going down into the half-basement by means of the freight elevator thus arriving in front of the gas chamber, “[…] (where, not recognizing the vestibule he had passed through some time before, he thought this was ANOTHER door to the gas chamber). He probably went back up to the ground floor on the corpse hoist and left the Krematorium through the main, north, door. The ‘break’ thus occurred when he emerged from the basement by the northern stairway, instead of more logically taking the corpse hoist directly up to the furnace room.” (ibid., p. 239)


7.6.3. Critical Analysis of Pressac’s Comments

Pressac’s remarks are a good example of the way in which a scholar with a fine critical and sometimes even very sensitive mind can get lost in useless suppositions and sophistications. His whole reasoning is grounded on the assumption that the document in question is authentic, although there is no proof for this, and hence his analysis aims merely at explaining the “mistakes” in the “report,” instead of checking into the veracity and, ultimately, the authenticity of the document itself. In other words, he pre-empts what he is going to find out.

Another serious error on Pressac’s side is the fact that he attempts to attribute the erroneous figures in the documents at times to Franke-Gricksch’s SS guide, at other times to Franke-Gricksch himself. The criterion for the one or the other is the alleged propagandistic exaggeration of the SS: wherever possible, the errors are to be ascribed to the SS guide – the 500,000 persons “resettled,” the cremation capacity of 10,000 corpses per day. Where this cannot be done, the mistakes are attributed to Franke-Gricksch’s faulty observations – the three columns instead of four,354 the two doors instead of one, the nonexistent door at the other end of the gas chamber, the ten cremation furnaces instead of five.

Actually, if it is unlikely that the guide had not correctly explained the equipment of the crematorium to Franke-Gricksch, it is altogether unbelievable that, when describing the alleged extermination of Jews, the guide would not have called things by their proper names, like not using the very name of the installation, crematorium, which the document refers to as a “house.” Not even Zyklon B is ever mentioned in this “report,” according to which the killing was done with “certain agents” or “particular substances which made the people fall asleep within a minute,” saying that “the containers with the substances are lowered into the columns.” Pressac has nothing to say about this, dwelling instead on insignificant “mistakes,” such as Items 1 or 5 in his remarks, and explaining the others in a laboriously sophistic manner.

His explanation concerning the closure of the “doors” of Leichenkeller 1 (Item 3) is quite obviously in error because we are clearly dealing here with the closure of the “doors” of a room which according to the document has precisely two doors. Pressac’s explanation concerning the existence of these two doors (Item 4) is an elaboration which is not only unprovable but against common sense: the inspection of the crematorium would have been carried out methodically: Leichenkeller 2, corridor, vestibule, Leichenkeller 1, to be interrupted there – nobody knows why – for a tour of the ground floor, only to continue in the semi-basement later. But in the account there is no mention of any “interruption,” the visit of the semi-basement having ended with the alleged look into Leichenkeller 1 and Franke-Gricksch having been led into the ground floor precisely via the flight of service stairs built for that purpose (see Section 2.9.1.).

It is extremely unlikely that an SS-Sturmbannführer would have been moved into the furnace hall by means of the freight elevator used for the corpses – which, in any case, would have been against safety rules. From the furnace hall, if we follow Pressac, Franke-Gricksch would have been taken back down into the semi-basement again via the freight elevator – what for? He had already gone through the basement earlier. Apparently this was claimed by Pressac only so that he could “explain” Franke-Gricksch’s alleged mix-up of the gas chamber door with some other door!

To support this ludicrous thesis, Pressac has to make a moron out of the SS officer – someone unable to recognize a room he had inspected minutes earlier, simply because he was now entering it through a different entrance! Without even taking into account that Franke-Gricksch must have been aware of the arrangement and the orientation of Leichenkeller 1 – either because he had entered Leichenkeller 2 from the outside yard where one could see the upper part of Leichenkeller 1 protruding from the ground, or because in the “report” the introduction columns for the sleeping agent introduced “from above, from the outside of the basement” are mentioned. Hence Franke-Gricksch would never have imagined another door at the far end of that room where there was only a wall and soil!

The explanation of the 10 furnaces (Item 6) makes no sense either, because if Franke-Gricksch had not seen one or several of the furnaces farthest away when standing near the first, then he would have given a figure less than 5 for the furnaces, or, for the muffles, a multiple of 3, e.g. 9 or 12 (as each furnace had 3 muffles), but certainly not ten. Actually, though, as we can see from the blueprints of the ground floor of the crematorium shown by Pressac such as No. 933(-934)(r) (ibid., p. 283), even standing one meter away from the first furnace, he could have seen the other four furnaces most distinctly. The other explanation, namely that the number of furnaces refers to Crematoria II and III together, does not hold water either, because the report speaks of the “present capacity” (jetzige Kapazität) of the furnaces, hence only of Crematorium II, for, as Pressac correctly states, “only Crematorium II was terminated and operational whereas Crematorium III was not yet ready.”

Just as silly is Pressac’s explanation on the subject of the “three large columns”: on the one hand, even taking only a few steps into Leichenkeller 1, Franke-Gricksch could not but see the four alleged columns, and on the other hand, his SS guide, when explaining their function, would certainly not have failed to tell him that there were four of them and why this was so.

When it comes to the cremation capacity of the furnaces in Crematorium II – 10,000 corpses in 24 hours – Pressac falls back on what he calls propagandistic exaggerations by the camp SS. However, the capacity given for the alleged gas chamber – “300-400 persons” – clashes most violently with that figure. It would mean that, in order to have the furnaces run flat out, there would have had to be 28 gassings per day on average. But then, for Pressac himself the gassing capacity was 1,000 to 1,500 persons at a time (ibid., p. 473), whereas for Tauber it was 3,000 to 4,000 persons (see Section 10.3.3.).

Thus Pressac, by far-fetched arguments, pretends to explain gross mistakes which remain inexplicable, if one considers the document to be authentic. In order to accomplish this, he has to bypass essential aspects of the “report” which do not fit into his interpretative framework.

I have already pointed out the omission, in his comments, of any details regarding the “substances” used in the alleged gas chamber. A further case in point is the coke consumption which the document ascribes to the furnaces of Crematorium II and which is in glaring contrast with Pressac’s conjectures (see Subchapter 9.4.). The most serious matter, though, is the following statement:

“The Jews arrive, toward nightfall, in special trains (freight-cars) and are being routed on special tracks into dedicated enclosed areas of the camp.”

However, the only railroad tracks which went into the Birkenau Camp were those which formed the so-called “ramp.” Pressac himself tells us, though, that this ramp “did not become operational until May 1944 for the arrival of the Hungarian Jews” (ibid., p. 253). In May 1943 the Jewish convoys were unloaded at the so-called “old ramp” or “Jewish ramp” of the Auschwitz railroad station (ibid., p. 162). Then how was Franke-Gricksch able to see tracks in May 1943 that were only laid a year later? This irresolvable conundrum demonstrates by itself that the Franke-Gricksch “report” cannot possibly be authentic, and precisely for that reason Pressac has said nothing about the matter.

This chronological impossibility, together with the gross mistakes of the “report” and its incredible disuse of elementary terms such as “crematorium” or “Zyklon B” shows clearly that it is a fabrication using testimonies of former detainees, which even betray the propaganda effort (cf. Renk 1991). Another striking example for this is this statement:

“One has come to know that the Jews keep hidden in hollow teeth [!] jewels, gold, platinum etc.”

...

352 Translator’s note: our translation differs somewhat from Pressac’s in its choice of words and its sentence structure. This was done in order to better reflect the sometimes journalistic and unmilitary style of Lipmann’s text, but it also leads to slight differences in some of the words when passages from Pressac’s text are quoted. The typed copy of the “original” has many spelling errors, some of them hinting at a native English or American typist.

353 The verb “kommen” is used twice in this sentence, the second occurrence is faulty German, transl.

354 But, for some strange reason, the “report” does not mention the seven concrete pillars holding up
the ceiling of the room.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1165
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: another fake document: Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report'

Postby Lamprecht » 2 weeks 6 days ago (Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:24 pm)

Also, Graf's new book destroys this absurd report. Apparently there are spelling/grammatical errors that indicate an English-speaking forger. Also, it claims Jews died in 1 minute from gassings. Very little would have outgassed in that time period (see: viewtopic.php?p=93737#p93737). It didn't even get the number of furnaces correct. :lol:

Auschwitz: Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust—30 Gas-Chamber Witnesses Scrutinized
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/36-aerapcoth.pdf
See: Chapter 3.4. The Franke-Gricksch Report

An excerpt:
First an immediate reference to a glaring anachronism that kills all attempts to declare this document authentic. In the German text we read:

“Die Juden kommen in Sonderzügen (Güterwagen) gegen Abend and [sic] und werden auf besonderen Gleisen in eigens dafür abgegrenzte Bezirke des Lagers gefahren.”

An accurate English translation would be:

“The Jews arrive in special trains (goods wagons) towards evening and are taken on special lines to areas of the camp especially fenced off for this.”

This depiction can only pertain to the platform at Birkenau, although this is only one area of the Auschwitz camp complex, and it wasn’t especially fenced off for this purpose, hence Pressac “adjusted” his English translation to reflect this. This ramp, however, was only built between January and May of 1944 (Pressac 1989, p. 253), so that Franke-Gricksch could not possibly have mentioned it in May 1943. The Canadian revisionist Brian Renk has pointed this out in an article published in 1991 (Renk 1991).

For the sake of completeness, the other absurdities will be mentioned as well:

1. According to Franke-Gricksch, Crematory II had ten furnaces. The actual number was five furnaces (or 15 muffles).

2. According to the document, 25 to 50 kg of coke were sufficient to incinerate 300 to 400 corpses (resulting in some 100 grams of coke per corpse), “As fresh corpses burn particularly well”!

3. The ventilation of the gas chamber only took several minutes – completely impossible.

4. Death of the victims occurred after a minute – entirely fallacious.

5. The burning capacity of the furnaces amounted to 10,000 corpses a day – practically tenfold of the theoretical maximum number.

6. The Jews were accustomed to hiding pieces of jewelry in their teeth. Who will demonstrate this feat to us?

7. By wordings such as “certain products” for Zyklon B and “certain substances” for hydrogen cyanide, the forger has apparently tried to mimic in a dilettantish manner the mythical “code language” of the Nazis. His multiple times speaking of “resettlement action” (most of the time in quotation marks) and even of “‘resettlement action’ furnaces”, can only be seen as an attempt to convince every last reader that “resettlement” was code language for “gassing.”

How debauched this forgery is can also be seen by gross orthographic errors in the German language such as “had” instead of “hat” and “gebaded” instead off “gebadet.” The forger presumably was a person whose native language was German but who had lived for such a long time in the English-speaking area that the endings of German verbs were mixed up with English ones.

Why did Pressac make this wretched effort part of his grand opus? Most probably in order to discredit the orthodox Auschwitz narrative – quite in contrast to Fleming, a third-rate Holocaust propagandist who apparently assumed that his readers would swallow everything he offered them.

An elucidation of this forgery case occurred in 2005 when the contents of the English translation of a German document were published on the internet. This document can be found in the British National Archive. It reflects the complete contents of a report Franke-Gricksch is said to have written after a business trip between May 4 and May 16, 1943 through Poland.100 So it’s about the same business trip, although “Aktion Reinhard” is described in it only in terms of pillaging the possessions of Jews who had been deported in the course of forced labor deployments or relocations.

The British historian David Irving found this document five years later in the British Public Records Office, and shortly afterwards Samuel Crowell presented the whole forgery case as follows (Crowell 2011, p. 346):

“There is nothing in the [authentic] report about mass killings, […]. There is no place in the report for a separate codicil or appendix to describe gassings at Auschwitz; […] and furthermore a description of gassings would be completely at odds with the tenor of the report as it stands. It follows therefore that the two-page [Lippmann] ‘extract’ from the Franke-Gricksch report […] is a spurious document.
But how was this spurious document created? A possible explanation lies in the fact that the British files no longer contain the German language original. We can surmise that the original was passed on to other parties who were in the process of preparing prosecution documents for the Nuremberg trials, and then someone in the chain of custody decided to withdraw the original report and substitute an inauthentic [Lippmann] extract.”


However, this does not stop the orthodoxy from claiming that both reports are genuine – the innocuous one had been intended for the files, while the other, the secret report (Lippmann’s “transcript”), represented a supplement intended to be seen by few.

In the face of the many absurdities in Lippmann’s “transcript,” the reader may judge for himself who is correct here.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 7 guests