Was the tattooing of inmates widespread?

[Silbers]

Was it widespread throughout the system? How do revisionists deal with this issue?

[HansHill]

There was a thread about tattooing here which may contain answers to your questions.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=19972#p19972

I'm curious what you mean by "how do revisionists deal with this issue?" AFAIK, tattooing and gassing claims are mutually exclusive, so in my opinion do not require "revision" in the sense I seem to infer from your question. This is doubly true about survivors today (or postwar) who displayed their tattoos to the media. They were by definition not gassed since they survived.

The much more interesting question surrounding tattoos, is the tattooed skin presented at Buchenwald which has since disappeared. That imo is the meatier conversation that requires "revision".

[Silbers]

The tattoos are believed by some to be just more proof of the Holocaust. I just wanted to know how that sentiment could be put to bed.

Thanks for the link, it seems that if the USHMM is to be believed most were tattooed, not just Jews.

[HansHill]

proof of the Holocaust.

Yes this is unfortunate, and I guess you could say it's the calling card of low information or low resolution thinking. If debating the point it's probably best to note the mutual exclusivity of tattooing and gassing claims.

What it absolutely is proof of, is that tattooing inmates against their will would have been a violation of their human rights. The UN Declaration on Human Rights was only ratified in 1948 so obviously this wasn't in effect at the time. Additionally noteworthy is thatas part of the Geneva Conventions 1949, article 100 specifically addresses tattooing for identification purposes as forbidden:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/pt/ihl-t ... 25253Dnews

Identification by tattooing or imprinting signs or markings on the body, is prohibited.

That's kinda why I wanted to ask what part exactly you were addressing. I don't think many (if any) modern day revisionists would argue this point.

[Eye of Zyclone]

The tattoos are believed by some to be just more proof of the Holocaust. I just wanted to know how that sentiment could be put to bed.

What would be the point of tattooing someone you're going to kill? For the love of art? To secure material for the manufacture of tattooed-human-skin lampshades nowhere to be found afterwards? Asking it is too antisemitic to be answered?

Setting up and implementing a system of unforgeable identification numbers in order to manage a large contingent of forced laborers is obviously not proof of mass murder. Claiming otherwise makes no sense at all.

Did the SS blood group tattoos (German: Blutgruppentätowierung) prove that Hitler had planned to exterminate the Waffen-SS by mass murder in fictive gas chambers?

more proof of the Holocaust

More proof of an unproven thing is called confirmation bias, the best friend of foregone conclusions and the mother of all false beliefs.

[Wetzelrad]

Some points I would make if tattooing came up in debate:

- The SS had blood type tattoos, as mentioned above.

- The forced tattooing of prisoners was practiced in the 18th and 19th centuries on British convicts. Also in ancient Greece, Rome, China, and Japan. (See Wikipedia.)

- Tattooing proves killing was not the objective.

- Tattooing seems to have been implemented only in Auschwitz and only for some of the inmates, so its relevance to the Holocaust debate is limited.

- Resistance against the Nazis is something many Jews boasted proudly about after the war. One means or means to an end of resistance, in and outside the camps, was to change one's identity. For example, a Jewish organization called Zegota estimated that they printed 50,000 sets of false identity documents (discussed here). Tattooing ID numbers likely arose as a way to combat these acts of resistance (evidenced in part here).

[Eye of Zyclone]

The UN Declaration on Human Rights was only ratified in 1948 so obviously this wasn't in effect at the time. Additionally noteworthy is thatas part of the Geneva Conventions 1949, article 100 specifically addresses tattooing for identification purposes as forbidden:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/pt/ihl-t ... 25253Dnews

Identification by tattooing or imprinting signs or markings on the body, is prohibited.

As the apologists for Allied brutality usually say when they are cornered and need to justify and downplay the unprecedented bloodshed perpetrated by the greatest generation during WW2, "all is fair in love and war" anyway. And then you have less than 10 seconds before you hear them add "Muh Hitler's gas chambers" like unimaginative offended kids...

[Silbers]

Thanks everyone for your input! I've learnt a lot.

[borjastick]

The tattooing issue is a bit of a problem for the 6M deaded brigade because AFAIK it was only ever used in Auschwitz which sort of gives the lie to the notion that all the camps were part of a very well oiled machine controlled from Berlin and all camps carried out the same processes and systems. Unless that is you believe the notion that rules and instructions were conveyed by some sort of withcraft.

Even though it was only carried out at Auschwitz not all inmates were tattooed and then it stopped sometime later in the war. But the believers like to leave it hanging there as if it was all part of a sinister dehumaising action against all inmates in every camp. This is where they would show outstretched arms with sleeves rolled up and rough old tattoos on show against a back drop of old Yiddish violin songs and pale faces of the soon to be gassed etc.

The tattooing is used to promote the overall darkness of their holocaust claims but as mentioned above it was nothing to do with the holocaust as such. I have long held serious doubts about the tattooing on any level as the level of evidence for it and the process by which it was carried out is dodgy at best.