My main doubts about the Auschwitz I gas chamber is its proximity to other buildings and issues of pouring Zyklon B through the holes. Unless all SS and civilian workers are complete animals, which is highly unlikely, it is a very odd place to put a homicidal gas chamber. There are clear risks to others nearby such as what if there was a fightback by those waiting to be gassed and shooting started? What about wind catching the Zyklon B as it is poured?
Why do you find it odd, such that the SS and Kapos would need to be animals? What if there was a fight? What do you believe would happen if the "wind caught the Zyklon B"?
The fact that you even ask that questions shows you know almost nothing about Zyklon B nor the gas it produces. What is its density compared with the general atmosphere?
My main doubts about Krema II as pretty much as above. Then thousands upon thousands of people queued up with minimal guards, near to barracks of other inmates and a football field. They were shoved into the chamber 2000 at a time.
On the inside of the building, where no one else would see....
The log jam caused by the lift, which was not built for such a purposed of removing 2000 bodies at a time, but makes far more sense if it was a mortuary.
Can you find any documentation or testimony at all the says it was?
Then there are the holes, which have been so tampered with it is inconclusive as to whether they were there or not as described so that the wire mesh columns could be used as described.
Read
this and get back to us.
Its use as a crematorium at a place where disease, mistreatment and murder by beatings and shootings meant a very high death toll fits with its purpose and location.
You do realize the Krema gave the capacity for 30,000 corpses per month? Can you document a death rate for the above causes anywhere near that?
Then we know that false stories of gassing are possible as they happened at Dachau.
What false stories are those?
Because we have a mountain of evidence supporting the normative view, while you have "it doesn't feel right to me".
Then there is the problem of tampering with evidence as Krema I is heavily altered
Was, and then was reconstructed.
Kremas II -- V were blown up.
Both have also been in Soviet hands and they cannot be trusted with physical evidence.
Because ... ?
Why would the Soviets try to create or maintain a hoax in "benefit" of the Jews?
Then as I say I am not a denier, so I think some gassings did take place which explains where the witnesses come from and the stories.
Why do the things you say about KII not apply to the others in that building?
But leading onto figures David Cole's visit and interview with Dr Piper covers the main points of doubt. (Cole's visit and goes back to cover one of my earlier points about the public being mis-informed).
No, it goes back to our earlier point about deniers lying and distorting the facts. You *do* know he has since recounted, right?
As for revision of the figures, even at 1.1 million gassed that seems very high and because of how and where Krema I and II functioned.
Then what happened to all of the rest who are documented as being put on trains to Auschwitz and were never heard from again?
The Action Reinhard death camps match an evidential standard far better than Auschwitz. We know about the motive to kill Jews. The ability of the Nazis to do what they did. Their guilty knowledge of what happened. Their intent to remove Jews from Europe, the conduct after the crime as they destroyed the sites, the opportunity to commit the crime out of sight in a much better controlled situation, their preparation for the crime as the sites had no other reason to exist.
The gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau do not match such a standard particularly with the conduct after the crime where no effort was made to hide what had happened, the opportunity was poor as they were surrounded by witnesses and the environment was less controlled and the preparation of the site was clearly for coping with expected dead of a concentration camp.
I cant answer re Van Pelt or Pressac as I don't have the detail as yet.
Don't you feel you should review the basic literature before you make yourself look foolish as you did above?
