Recently for Yom HaShoah (‘Holocaust Remembrance Day’) there was the predictable wave of ‘Never Again’ and ‘Never Again is Now’ posts from jewish accounts as well as slop history accounts. However, one particular claim stood out to me in the form of that of alleged ‘child Holocaust victim’ Istvan Reiner. (1)
Accompanying minimal information about Reiner was this photograph: (2)
This is a recoloured version of the following photograph in the ‘United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s’ (hereafter USHMM) catalogue, which originally looked like this: (3)
The interesting thing about this photo – and one that I got falsely community noted for on Twitter/X – is the origins of this photo in that I pointed out that it makes little sense in terms of ‘Holocaust’ history because you wouldn’t take photographs of those you are just about to ‘murder in gas chambers’ as it is pointless effort and a waste of scarce resources especially at the height of the Second World War.
Naturally my commentary was falsely community noted by jews and their myrmidons on Twitter/X who claimed it was ‘taken in a studio in the Hungarian city of Miskolc’.
This was based on the USHMM’s catalogue entry which states:
‘Caption
Studio portrait of Istvan Reiner, half-brother of the donor, taken shortly before he was killed in Auschwitz.
Date
1943 – 1944
Locale
Miskolc, [Borsod] Hungary
Variant Locale
Miskolcz’ (4)
This objection is based on the locale provided by the USHMM which is Miskolc and doesn’t list where it was taken but rather assumes it is a ‘studio portrait’ – why jews would be taking (and able to take) studio photographic portraits in 1943/1944 is not explained – but is directly contradicted by the USHMM’s caption, which states that it is the:
‘Studio portrait of Istvan Reiner, half-brother of the donor, taken shortly before he was killed in Auschwitz.’ (5)
This means that the photo and the information about it was provided to USHMM by Jonas Kovacs sometime after the Second World War (likely decades after) who was Istvan Reiner’s half-brother – same father, different mother with both brothers being known by their respective mother’s maiden names – (6) and we can already see the problem in that the caption that it was ‘taken shortly before Reiner was killed’ contradicts the idea that it was a ‘studio portrait’. Given that this implies it was taken days, weeks or at most a month or two before Reiner was ‘murdered in Auschwitz’; it is difficult to see this as being taken in Miskolc unless it was taken in the Miskolc ghetto which was created in April 1944 by the Germans and the Hungarian Arrow Cross. (7)
Further what my detractors didn’t notice – and which clearly indicates that this photograph was not taken in Miskolc but rather in Auschwitz is the clothing Reiner is wearing. He isn’t wearing ordinary civilian clothing but rather the famous haftlingskleidung (‘Prisoner Clothing’) – aka the blue and white stripped clothing made famous by a thousand ‘Holocaust’ documentaries and films – that was not issued to jews in ghettos or even inmates in every single camp (despite popular imagination otherwise), but was issued specifically in Auschwitz among others (such as Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald and Dachau) upon arrival and induction into the camp. (8)
So, if Reiner’s clothing is haftlingskleidung – and it almost certainly is looking at both the stripes and how it isn’t tailored at all (i.e., it is very generally sized and thus a mass-produced garment) – then this photo is not a ‘studio portrait taken in Miskolc’ but rather – in all probability – Reiner’s admission/induction photograph to Auschwitz sometime in – or after – June 1944 when the deportations of the jews in the Miskolc ghetto to Auschwitz began. (9)
Further there is no evidence whatsoever that Reiner was ‘gassed’ and/or ‘murdered’ by ‘the Nazis’ in Auschwitz; all we know as far as I can find from the Auschwitz Memorial Museum and the USHMM’s listings for Reiner is that he arrived at Auschwitz in – or after – June 1944 and we don’t know what happened to him. (10)
Reiner may have survived and simply been lost in the mix due to the geography of Auschwitz as well as how the German concentration camp system worked as well in the post-war confusion of borders and refugees (who were called ‘displaced persons’ at the time). (11)
The fact is that Reiner cannot be rightly seen as a ‘Holocaust victim’ and the fact that the Germans took his photography upon his admission/induction into Auschwitz sometime in – or after – June 1944 militates against the ‘Holocaust’ legend, because Reiner as a jewish child was a top priority target for gassing according to orthodox ‘Holocaust’ historiography.
So why would the Germans waste time and resources formally admitting Reiner to Auschwitz if the ‘Holocaust’ narrative were true?
The short answer is they wouldn’t.
So thus we can see the ‘Holocaust’ is again shown to contradict the evidentiary detail that it is allegedly based on.
References
(1) https://x.com/histories_arch/status/2043235514816647411
(2) Idem.
(3) https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1175018
(4) Idem.
(5) Idem.
(6) Idem.
(7) https://voices.library.iit.edu/ghetto/Miskolc
(8) See: https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-camps/ss-concentration-camp-system/uniform-and-clothing/
(9) https://voices.library.iit.edu/ghetto/Miskolc
(10) Implied by the commentary at https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1175018 (despite farcically claiming he ‘was murdered’)
(11) I have summarised this in the following article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-geography-of-auschwitz-and-origins
Karl’s SubstackRead More
T1
