Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Wroclaw]

Because of wartime lack of chemicals - I already said.

You've yet to prove that, Bunny.

Have you got anything to demonstrate otherwise?

See quote from Pressac. They could have used another warning odor or a suffocant.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Thanks for the late edit. You're aware, I'm sure, that the telegram you post does not indicate any location at all, right?

Degesch sent a telegram to Dessauer Werke, the factory where Zyklon-B was actually produced, to tell them to continue producing Zyklon-B without an indicator. No camps are mentioned. However, we do know that trucks ran between Dessau and Auschwitz to transport Zyklon-B.

Bunny's next gambit will be to tell us all that Pressac produced this document as proof that, in fact, Zyklon-B was being made without indicator because of a shortage. However, Pressac also writes:



I.e., they could still have added an irritant or some other chemical that would warn human beings of danger. They did not.

But unless you can demonstrate that they added a novel warning agent for other customers but not Auschwitz then you are left whining about the poor OHS regulations of Nazi Germany in its final year.

If I could be bothered I could find a British report from late 1944 where they undertook a chemical analysis (on the basis of gas chamber rumours) of some Zyklon B liberated in Lyons - where they said they could detect no warning agent. But It would take me 30 minutes to track down and frankly its not worth it.

The fact remains warning agent was removed due to wartime shortages. End of story

 

[Wroclaw]

But unless you can demonstrate that they added a novel warning agent for other customers but not Auschwitz then you are left whining about the poor OHS regulations of Nazi Germany in its final year.

Negative. All I needed to demonstrate, which I did, is that Auschwitz ordered the compound without an indicator. From there, we can conclude that it was produced without an indicator in general. Know why? Because the amount of Zyklon-B that Degesch sold went up markedly after January 1942. Any idea why, Bunny?

If I could be bothered I could find a British report from late 1944 where they undertook a chemical analysis (on the basis of gas chamber rumours) of some Zyklon B liberated in Lyons - where they said they could detect no warning agent. But It would take me 30 minutes to track down and frankly its not worth it.

So admit you're wrong and move o.

The fact remains warning agent was removed due to wartime shortages. End of story

Now take your ball and run home, crybaby.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Oh, and Bunny, tell us the date on NI-1210.

Thanks!

What is this document NI-1210 of which you speak?

But since you understand German, you will have no difficulty understanding this

Bei meiner Vernehmung durch Herrn von Halle wurde mir vorgehalten, Herr Dr. Heinrich habe offenbar wegen der Lieferung von reizstofflosem Zyklon an Gerstein Bedenken gehabt. Er habe deshalb in einer noch vorhandenen Aktennotiz gegen die Lieferung von reizstofflosem Zyklon Stellung genommen. Die Notiz wurde mir nicht gezeigt. Ich konnte mich schwach entsinnen, dass tatsächlich Herr Dr. Heinrich wegen der Lieferung von reizstofflosem Zyklon vorstellig geworden war. Heute, nachdem ich diese Aktennotiz kenne (Dok.NI 12110 Ankl.Exh.1800), weiss ich allerdings, dass dieses Vorstellig werden von Herrn Dr. Heinrich mit den Lieferungen an Gerstein nichts zu tun hatte, sondern dass es sich auf die ganz allgemeine Lieferung von reizstofflosem Zyklon seit Mai 1944 bezog. Das war bei mir Abgabe meines Affidavits nicht mehr gegenwärtig und ich bin infolgedessen von Herrn von Halle zu einer Schilderung dieses Vorgangs veranlasst worden, die dem tatsächlichen Hergang widerspricht. Ich bin also einer unrictigen Deutung dieses Dokuments durch Herrn von Halle zum Opfer gefallen. Zwischen der Angelegenheit Heinrich und den Gerstein-Lieferungen besteht kein Zusammenhang. Heinrich hat niemals wegen der Gersteinlieferungen Bedenken gehabt. Die Bedenken Dr. Heinrichs gegen die allgemeine Weglassung des Reizstoffes bezogen sich vielmehr darauf, dass er in Verbraucherkreisen ungünstige psychologische Rückwirkungen und ausserdem eine Erschwerung der Patentlage der Degesch befürchtet.

Nürnberg, 14. April 1948

Gerhard Peters

 

[Wroclaw]

All you're doing is proving my point. If Zyklon-B was shipped without indicator in general in 1944, it's only because they were producing it without indicator for Auschwitz, and Auschwitz was, by far, the largest consumer.

 

[Moss]

You do know that Gerstein's account sheet for account G36 does show invoices for Zyklon B without warning agent from June 1943 on?

 

[Wroclaw]

By the way, Bunny, a citation for what I assume is testimony of some kind by Peters (I don't think he was tried at Nuremberg, but rather stood trial several times in German courts) would be appreciated.

 

[little grey rabbit]

All you're doing is proving my point. If Zyklon-B was shipped without indicator in general in 1944, it's only because they were producing it without indicator for Auschwitz, and Auschwitz was, by far, the largest consumer.

Oh look, Breslau, here is a memo making it clear that warning stuff has been removed due delivery problems from a supplier - golly do you think there was a carpet bombing campaign going on?

 

[Saggy]

And this is based on what? A Stormfront poll?

Gut feeling. I've never talked to anyone who professed to really believe it, or who defended it, even though they would defend the hoax with 'arguments' like 'What about the tattoos', or 'It doesn't really matter how they died', etc.

 

[TSR]

Gut feeling.

.
The same kind of gut feeling that lead you to post a lie about the Mayer quote?
.

I've never talked to anyone who professed to really believe it, even though they would defend the hoax with 'arguments' like 'What about the tattoos', or 'It doesn't really matter how they died', etc.

.
Sure you have -- everyone here.

Well, every *thinking* person here...

And BTW: Why *does* it matter how they died? Are they somehow less dead?
.

 

[little grey rabbit]

You do know that Gerstein's account sheet for account G36 does show invoices for Zyklon B without warning agent from June 1943 on?

No idea, but here are deliveries from March 1944 to Oranienberg - 200 kg without warning agent
http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/imagedir/HLSL_NMT01/HLSL_NUR_00177002.jpg

So Breslau's claim it was specially for Auschwitz is definitively disproved.

Possibly the May 1944 correspondence was a protest on Degesch's part on a situation that had developed over some months.

 

[slowsmile]

Gut feeling. I've never talked to anyone who professed to really believe it, or who defended it, even though they would defend the hoax with 'arguments' like 'What about the tattoos', or 'It doesn't really matter how they died', etc.

You appear to have met a very narrow range of people. The only people I've met who deny the holocaust are members or fellow travellers of "nationalist" parties - ie public face is nationalist but the less public face tends very much towards fascism - eg the BNP in Britain.

 

[Dogzilla]

It's been established that it's cheaper to produce Zyklon B without the warning agent. If the Germans ordered Zyklon B without the warning agent, the price difference is a pretty good reason for doing so.

There's another "theory" that ordering the product without the warning agent is evidence for the extermination of the Jews. How does the lack of a warning agent make the product better for exterminating people?

 

[Moss]

No idea, but here are deliveries from March 1944 to Oranienberg - 200 kg without warning agent
http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/imagedir/HLSL_NMT01/HLSL_NUR_00177002.jpg

So Breslau's claim it was specially for Auschwitz is definitively disproved.

Possibly the May 1944 correspondence was a protest on Degesch's part on a situation that had developed over some months.

Actually it's exclusively Auschwitz and Oranienburg that got small shipments of Zyklon B without warning agent before May/June '44 according to the same account sheet. I have been unable to find an online reproduction.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Actually it's exclusively Auschwitz and Oranienburg that got small shipments of Zyklon B without warning agent before May/June '44 according to the same account sheet. I have been unable to find an online reproduction.

Why does the bolded part not surprise me.

I daresay I will be able to put Gerstein's account book from the HSP online for you eventually.
It would help if you could provide a reference for your claim in the meantime. Clearly you are sitting looking at a copy on your desk as you speak.....

 

[Moss]

I quoted it according to the decision of the Lfd.Nr. 415a: LG Frankfurt am Main vom 27.5.1955, 4a Ks 1/55. In case you want a reproduction of the account sheet you will probably want to contact the LG Frankfurt or possibly the Hessische Staatsarchive.

 

[MG1962]

There's another "theory" that ordering the product without the warning agent is evidence for the extermination of the Jews. How does the lack of a warning agent make the product better for exterminating people?

As a product nothing - However if you don't want to alert people of the potential danger it's a pretty smart move

 

[TSR]

It's been established that it's cheaper to produce Zyklon B without the warning agent. If the Germans ordered Zyklon B without the warning agent, the price difference is a pretty good reason for doing so.

There's another "theory" that ordering the product without the warning agent is evidence for the extermination of the Jews. How does the lack of a warning agent make the product better for exterminating people?

.
That being the case, why do you suppose that every single use of it in wartime Germany did not *also* have it removed?
.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I quoted it according to the decision of the Lfd.Nr. 415a: LG Frankfurt am Main vom 27.5.1955, 4a Ks 1/55. In case you want a reproduction of the account sheet you will probably want to contact the LG Frankfurt or possibly the Hessische Staatsarchive.

Are you reading the judgement directly or relying on a third party who has a reference to it

A cursory viewing on the judgement
http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/Excerpts/415inhalt.htm
I can't find the specific statement which you claim - but haven't read all of it. It might help if you quote the exact portion of the judgement and subsection you base this on.

I have located my copy of the account book of the Gerstein deliveries and it doesn't have any mention of Warnstoff on it, but it may not be the account book you are referring to.

 

[LemmyCaution]

So will it turn out like a bunnydoc (tm), dated early September and not dated at all?