BRoI wrote:Ah, deathcamps.org, where Jeff_36 conducts his "research".
No, as I stated explicitly, I think it must be taken with a grain of salt.
That wasn't my point; my point is about how and where you're conducting your "research". Incidentally, you *forgot* to cite the site from where you lifted those images:http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/589860
I decided to ignore it for now and concentrate on the archival docs and studies published in the 2010s.
Ahh, you omit evidence that is harmful to your beliefs. I'm not surprised.
Sure thing, dopey, that's why I admitted I was aware of it before you "discovered" the story on dc.org and swiped the images from rarenewspapers.com.
It's just that I have the novel of approach of checking things before jumping in feet first.
Karski didn't arrive in Britain until the 25.11.42 and was held by the British security services until the 28th; he wasn't even permitted to talk to a Polish officials until the 27th [FO 371/32231].
But M. Fleming writes [2014:149] that information Karski carried did reach London before he did. Poles in London sent a message to Warsaw 17.11.42 advising Karski was in Lisbon, and a further message from Stanislaw Mikolajczyk to Warsaw confirms receipt of Karski's material on 23.11.42. I provide further information on Mikolajczyk below, but for now it suffices to inform you that he was the man who compiled the reports arriving from Poland.
Therefore it seems highly likely that this press report is indeed partially based on Karski's claim to have visited Belzec and witnessed packed trains leaving the camp and its occupants died from the fumes and burns they received from the lime the nazis put in the carriages.
Obviously you will object to this well source information by shrilling about the report saying survivors of the lime trains are sent to B,S,T. Indeed it does, but Mikolajczyk's information wasn't entirely based on Karski; the Poles had what they evidently considered better information on Belzec dating back to March 1942. At this point the London Poles believed the Jews were electrocuted at Belzec, as is confirmed in Mikolajczyk's report that he forward to the British a few days later, which incidentally, Karski's is referred to once again [see below].
I am curious - if you now accept extermination in the AR camps, why on earth are you desperately clinging onto this painfully obvious dead-end?
I will happily accept Karski went to Izbica, I just want to see the alleged proof that he admitted it in his later years after sticking to his guns for the previous 50-odd.
Secondly, this whole thread has warped from one about Karski into one in which I'm obliged to endlessly correct your comically brazen claims based on the scantest research [recte: googling].
BRoI wrote:As if Karski would ever have called Belzec "a city"! He had nothing whatsoever to do with that propagandistic article
You yourself state that the very article you mention was produced as a result of stenographic notes of a conference where Karski participated. You are now contradicting yourself.
Er, no, he had nothing whatsoever to do with that propagandistic magazine article that bastardised his account, so there is no contradiction.
SPECIAL OFFICIAL ENVOY GENTILE ESCAPE AND ARRIVED HERE LEFT CAPITAL THIS OCTOBER SAW WARSAW GHETTO ON LAST AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER WITNESSES MASS MURDER OF ONE TRANSPORT SIX THOUSAND JEWS AT BELZEC SPOKE TO HIM YESTERDAY 3 HOURS [...]
That's cute. The first iteration of his "experience" was a description of a place that clearly was not Belzec.
Why is Schwarzbar's iteration, "the first iteration" [actually it wasn't, remember the Mikolajczyk reports?; discussed above and below] "a description of a place that clearly was not Belzec"?
As he mentions in his 1944 book, Karski also spoke with Arthur Koestler who subsequently wrote an article from Karski's point-of-view which was also published in 1943. It tells virtually the same story as Karski does in his book [and would do for the next 50+ years]:
As I have proven, his account developed, and the 1944 version was far from the original. The Kostler article does you no service at all, it contrasts the 1944 account on two points, the nationality of JK's disguise, and the fact that he stated he was "one of the executioners", something that was not mentioned at all in his 1944 account.
All you have proven is that you're constantly playing catch-up with information, in form of original documents and facsimiles of original publications, I keep posting; items you claim, unironically, to be "spam"! So, you've also kinda proven you're not receptive to information that's contra to your desired outcome.
We don't even know who was the NY based author who wrote TGS version, and there's not a scrap of evidence to show Karski was even aware of its existence. You should attempt to track down the alleged "stenographic notes" if you want to prove this magazine article is faithful to what Karski said in London. Good luck doing that with just google.
It's irrelevant that Kostler's version contrasts Karksi's book on minor points. Karski was only mindful not to tell the truth about wearing a "Ukrainian uniform", and Koestler's description of the Hiwis at Belzec as "executioners" in his condensed article seems a logical choice to me. Karski wrote that Koestler "... could describe it with greater force and talent than I" [1944:334].
Karski writes about the "endless grind of interviews and meetings" whilst he was in London between Nov 1942 - July 1943 [1944:337]. "Since my arrival in London I had been swamped with literally hundreds of conferences, conversations, contacts, and reports. I had been involved in them from 9:00 A.M. to midnight every day" . Michael Fleming writes: "Karski spoke with many British officials - intelligence, military, propaganda personnel - but the contents of these conversations are not known." [2014:156] In July 1943 with Karski had meetings with "US military and intelligence officials" and the following month with "representatives of a number of different Jewish organizations" . Below I provide details of another significant meeting, but Karski's schedule documented in this paragraph shown the utter lunacy of your claim to have "proven" how "his account developed" based on just his book and TGS article—which you've never even seen the original of [you hadn't even acknowledged the existence of the Koestler one when you first posted your braggadocio: "I have proven..."]!
Jeff_36 wrote:What we have here is a case of an ever changing, self-contradictory narrative that must be taken in its original incarnation - i.e not the version you spam like an autistic child to prove your ridiculous preconceived notions.
Like a spoilt brat you stamp your feet about this "original incarnation". TGS magazine article is not the "original incarnation", and, significantly, we have no idea who even wrote it.
Non sequitur of course. Just because the propagandistic article in TGS 01.03.43, written by persons unknown in New York, is based on "stenographic notes" made at an early December meeting in London, that does not mean it accurately reflects what Karski told Szmul Zygelbojm and later Ignacy Schwarzbart.
It was based on conference notes for a meeting attended by a number of persons who had spent most of the war in London, and one person who had just returned from Poland - the setting of the article. Thus, it can be locically concluded that Karski's account had a great influence, perhaps the only influence, on the article. Whether it was true or not is a different story altogether, but you cannot deny that it was the inspiration for Karski's later accounts. It's genisis (2/12/42) predates every other statement by Karski on this matter, including the one that you have spammed twice.
I don't need to "deny" anything, Mr Googler, I can prove you're wrong:
1. Karski meet Zygelbojm and Schwarzbart on separate occasions, respectively the 2nd [probably] & 4th of December. Karski [1944:334f] writes of his meeting with Zygelbojm at Stratton House, seat of the Polish Ministry of the Interior and mentions no one else being present and nothing of a stenographer. Therefore the preface of TGS article is wrong about them meeting him together after being "summoned" on the 2nd to the "Polish Ministry of the Interior".
2. There's is no evidence that Karski was even aware of this magazine article written and published in New York, some 4 months before his arrival in the U.S.
3. Claiming this article "genisis (2/12/42) predates every other statement by Karski on this matter" is completely wrong. Karski passed on information in Lisbon that arrived in London on the 23.11.42 and was used in the 25.11.42 NYT article. Furthermore information from Karski's account was included in Stanislaw Mikolajczyk's report which Frank Savery of the FO had translated by 03.12.42. In his covering letter he writes: "[Jan] Librach asked me not to give away the fact that some of the details had been obtained from a Polish policeman whose worked took him into the ghetto." Instead of Karski's, Mikolajczyk went with an older report on Belzec that claimed Jews were electrocuted there, which is a shame, as Savery stated that the "evidence does not seem to me quite convincing". [FO 371-31097, C12185] Michael Fleming [2014:153].
I'll just borrow DasPrussian's tent-peg twatting mallet for a moment to knock some facts into this crude braggart:
Following the US entry into the war in December 1941, the British were less concerned about gaining American Jewish favour. The situation for the Polish Government in Exile was somewhat different, for they continued to see both British and American Jewish opinion as important, and this divergence in perception fostered some tensions between the Poles and the British.
- Michael Fleming, Auschwitz, the Allies, and Censorship of the Holocaust, 2014:89
The London Poles were out to gain the favour of British and American Jewish for two main reasons. Firstly, they sought an ally to support the Polish cause over her territory east of the so-called Curzon Line; territory they feared the British and Americans would happily ceded to the Soviet Union. Secondly, they had themselves supported the mass emigration of Jews from Poland prior to the war, and nor was this policy completely abandoned whilst the war raged. The Polish government were strong supporters of the Zionist claim for a homeland in Palestine, even if this meant the annoying the British who were currently their hosts. Furthermore, the policy of the London Poles to appease Jewish groups in the US and UK is well covered in the literature [e.g. The Holocaust Encyclopedia, p.484].
A document I first saw cited by Fleming reads:
General Sikorski in particular has in the past given us reason to suspect that he was not averse from embarrassing His Majesty’s Government if he could at the same time appease influential Zionists.
[Frank Roberts to Godfrey Lias, 21 August 1942; in FO 371/30917]
So it's not likely that Sikorski's men would be telling influential Zionists about Polish policemen being regulars in nazi death camps.
As I detailed earlier in the thread, recent editions of Karski's book have corrected the information in the original edition which was camouflaged for political reasons whilst the war still rage; his claimed to have an Estonian guide and uniform now reads Ukrainian guard and uniform.
Considering all of the above, the assertion in TGS article that Karski said he was wearing a Polish policeman's uniform is clearly absurd. Karski would never have given the impression to Zygelbojm and Schwarzbart that the Polish police force were involved in the nazis' death camps.
Koestler's 1943 article presents Karski's actual story fairly accurately because they actually met in London, and Karski's definitive account is of course his own book published in late 1944.
That is so wrong, Karski's 1944 account was a later version of a take that had it's origins in the article published in January of 1943. They are basically similar.
Once again; there's no evidence Karski or Koestler were even aware of the TGS article published in NY let alone that it "influenced" them. So, my point stands despite your bleating; Koestler's version presents Karksi's story fairly accurately in comparison to what Karski himself published in late 1944.
Karksi had no involvement with that article,
It was based on stenographic notes from a conference that he had participated in personally and it matches his later accounts almost to a T.
As I documented above, claims in the preface of TGS article are clearly wrong. Zygelbojm and Schwarzbart meet Karski separately; Zygelbojm and Karski met in the Ministry of the Polish Interior and Karski mentions nothing about anyone else being present, meaning there was no stenographer there. As is documented in the 05.12.42 Schwarzbart telegram, he met Karski on the 04.12.42. The wording of the telegram isn't entirely clear, but the paragraph on his meeting with Karski ends "SENDING REPORT", which would mean that he was going to compile a report on the meeting and send it to the WJC in NY.
it was written by unknown people in NY who bastardised Karski's account given to SZ and/or IS for their own propaganda needs. As a source for Karski story, it's worthless.
I'm gonna have to ask you to use your head, I know its very difficult, but hear me out: Why on earth would the writers in NY add in the detail of it being a sorting camp 50 kilometers away from Belzec? Would telling the story as if it were Belzec itself he had visited not be much greater for propaganda purposes? To say that they edited to look like that makes no sense.
Simple, because his story contradicted what was already known about Belzec, i.e. that Jews were sent there to be killed, not shipped off elsewhere. Stanislaw Mikolajczyk obviously saw similar issues with Karski's story, hence why he did something similar in the press release that appears in the NYT 25.11.42 and stuck with the account from March 1942 about Jews being electrocuted at Belzec in his lengthy report that Frank Savery had translated by 03.12.42, and only incorporated Karski's details on what was happening in the Warsaw ghetto.
The simple and easy conclusion is that the article is the best indicator of the earliest version of Karski's tale. If he had mentioned the "melting Jews in Train" detail and described it as Belzec itself, you could be sure that the NY publishers would have made sure that the article reflected it. But alas, that was not the case. Your beliefs don't change facts. Facts change your beliefs.
Quite wrong of course. As you now know the "melting Jews in Train" from Karski was relayed to the London Poles from Lisbon on 23.11.42 and published in the NYT 25.11.42.
I hope these new facts I'm spoon-feeding you change your beliefs, otherwise you've problems.
You should know that Engel never found the Schwarzbar telegram, so many of his claims about Karski have been superseded.We know that because Karski mentioned the horrors of the "Jewish situation" in Warsaw during his interrogation by the British on 27.10.42 at the Royal Patriotic School in London. That was just 2 days after his arrival in Britain, and before he saw Sikorski.
The information given by Karski regarding this situation is incredibly general, and refers only to happenings in the Warsaw Ghetto. It is doubtful by the way, that he evewr visited there at all, as his description of goings on there are a it loopy and highly anachronistic. Despite whatever he may have said, the fact that did not devote so much as a letter to the situation in his formal report to the head of the PGE says a lot, as does the fact that it took him until December to come up with the Belzec tale. Obviously he would have mentioned it in his report to Sikorski, at least in passing. But he did no such thing.
This is all nonsense of course, fallacious assertion after fallacious assertion, all of which is exposed as the ramblings of a man who simply has done any research into this issue but has the temerity to draw supposed conclusions! But what more should be expected from an ideologue who's researching prowess consists of googling.