It's all part of the Holocaust, like it or not.
Actually what you're doing is mixing up different sites. It's as bad as if you mixed up the Pentagon, Flight 93 and the Twin Towers when discussing 9/11. All four locations on 9/11 were struck by airplanes but there were differences. All the death camps had gassing facilities but there were differences.
Meh. Electrocution chambers anyone? Not in Treblinka admittedly. Also in a bath house though. Eastern European jews weren't exactly known for their good hygiene, this could explain all the horror involves showering.
I end my quotation here, and I call the attention of the Tribunal to Page 136 on the reverse side of the document book; this is from a report of the Polish Government, which shows that the Camp Sobibur was founded during the first and second liquidation of the Jewish ghetto. But the extermination on a large scale in this camp really started at the beginning of 1943. In this same report, in the last paragraph on Page 136 of the document book, we may read that Camp Belsen was founded in 1940; but it was in 1942 that the special electrical appliances were built in for mass extermination of people. Under the pretext that the people were being led to the
576
19 Feb. 46
bath-house, the doomed were undressed and then driven to the building where the floor was electrified in a special way; there they were killed.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-19-46.asp
Again, a wartime report. Neither the 1944 Soviet nor the 1945 Polish investigations of Belzec mentioned electrocution.
Make that some things and don't try to deny that forgery, coercion and orchestration did NOT happen. Now THAT would be revisionism of a bad kind.
I will deny that forgery, coercion and orchestration happened because no evidence of such things has ever been presented, contrary to denier wishful thinking.
What we do find is evidence of cock-up, as indicated by the recycling of inaccurate wartime reports, and the lack of prompt submission of postwar investigative reports to IMT.
But most of all we find evidence matching on point after point with only a small handful of anomalies left over for deniers to yelp about.
Seems like you think I'm a keeper. It would keep me busy alright.
It's telling, isn't it, that the prospect of actually having to do some work and reading on this subject basically terrifies you.
Let me see how you did that. Still wading through the hundreds of posts.
Read my sig. Follow the link. Read 570 pages. Don't bother to come back with nitpicks, the critique has more than 2,000 footnotes and the relevant chapter on the gas chambers is a substantial one.
I see, special interpretation saves the day yet again. All things "Sonder" similarly equal death. Where would we be without Holocaust historians giving us translations for the rich German language? Anyway, so if Eichmann at his trial says a Russian submarine engine was used (even if there is no record of the Germans capturing one intact), it was a GASOLINE engine? Makes sense, Russian engineering, put a gasoline engine in a submarine.
If you doubt that machines are misnamed, then please tell us why American soldiers routinely misidentified the German leFH 10.5cm field howitzer as an '88'. No 'special interpretation' is required since several of the testimonies plainly state that prisoners not in direct line of sight to the engines
were told that it was a diesel.
Eichmann was a brief visitor to an experimental site in the winter of 1941/2, and was not going to be accurate about the type of engine when testifying nearly 20 years later after the war on such a detail.
You're not going to successfully dispute the point that witnesses who worked directly with the gassing engines are more trustworthy than those who didn't, or those who visited once, by dredging up a witness who visited once.
I'm almost laughing out loud. Bunkers is very specific and you do realize that the original Krema I gas chamber had been converted by the Germans into an air raid shelter in September 1944 even according to conventional history right? Bunkers sounds so out of the blue. Should have given anyone a clue that it is a place for gassings.
Laugh away, because denier guru Carlo Mattogno was so bothered by the coincidence that he invented an unsourced and implausible claim that the Poles got on the phone to the British to inform them that the correct term for the first gas chambers (in peasant houses) was 'Bunker'.
Aumeier left Auschwitz in August 1943, at precisely the same time that Krema I was shut down, and long
before Krema I was converted into an air-raid shelter.
But you're half-right about the metonymy, since Krema I was installed in a converted Polish ammunition bunker, and the term stuck, being transferred across the various gas chambers as slang.
It still doesn't explain how a Nazi SS captain and a Polish Jewish Sonderkommando both KNEW to discuss converted peasant houses turned into gas chambers called 'Bunkers'. You've still not accounted for this at all.
Sweet, corroborating evidence on wire mesh columns which were never found. I guess those thievy Soviets needed scrap metal BADLY.
Since the witnesses report dismantling the wire mesh columns in December 1944, there's no reason why the Soviets would have ever encountered them at all.
And once again, you fail to explain the independent corroboration of a detail of witness testimony.
Fine, give 10. I feel lenient.
Feel free to show me ten. I'll show you one who was tortured.
But I guess I should stop blethering.
It's your job to identify the Auschwitz SS witnesses captured in 1945-46 and provide proof that they were tortured. Not mine. You're the one who is trying to dispute the gas chambers of Auschwitz. Not me.
You can try it on with Hoess and I will simply point to the fact that there were 30 more such SS witnesses captured in the same time frame. I don't need to spell them out because their identities are in the history books, which you ought to have read if you're hoping to make a serious claim. Unfortunately denier gurus tend to ignore large numbers of these witnesses so you may be wasting your time scurrying back to VHO or the JHR.
I don't. I guess I'm stupid.
Not knowing something = ignorance. Specifically, because you evidently haven't read very much on this subject.
Funny how for most topics it's generally accepted that in order to participate seriously in a discussion you do need to learn something, but deniers and CTs throw that out the window
If I have some spare time after wading through all the posts here, I'll go looking for your SS witnesses to the gas chambers. They'd better be there.
LOL at if you have spare time. No, you'll go off and do some reading, or earn more derision.
I wouldn't mention Eichmann if I were you. See above.
And yet you fail to explain why it was that Eichmann testified to knowing about extermination and visiting killing sites to a Dutch Nazi wannabe denier while a free man.
Your dodging is transparent.
If there was ANY document that CONCLUSIVELY proves gas chambers did exist, there wouldn't be nearly as many revisionists, wouldn't it?
But there
aren't very many revisionists. That's the thing you don't seem to have realised. CODOH forum still only has 650 members after 10 years of existence, and some of those have actually
died of old age. Most of the rest have given up. On JREF, we've seen maybe a dozen deniers out of a forum membership of over 30,000. We ran two polls and not even that many bothered to turn out to vote.
One common denominator among deniers is they become deniers long before they are familiar with the evidence. Dogzilla was ignorant of the gas vans documents when he first turned up here. You're ignorant it seems of Pressac and can't even recognise a reference to the 'Vergasungskeller' document. Since every major denier from Butz onwards has discussed the 'Vergasungskeller' document and called it that, then you don't even seem to be very familiar with 'revisionism'.
Deniers become deniers out of ignorance and prejudice. They remain deniers out of bigotry even after they have cured themselves of some of their ignorance. Yet very, very, very few deniers ever bother to read and learn very much.
What makes you think you know how many documents there are relating to gassing anyway? Which books did you read BEFORE you came to that conclusion?
So you're saying this sign is wrong in TWO ways? It actually WAS used as a gas chamber AND it was not a Gaskammer but a Vergasungskeller?
http://www.sannhistoria.org/grap/dachau1.jpg
Try again buddy. Gas chamber is Gaskammer in German. Vergasungskeller IS NOT.
If you don't know what the 'Vergasungskeller' document refers to then you need to go off and do some very basic reading on this subject. The document comes from
Auschwitz not Dachau.
I couldn't give a hoot whether you have a million documents saying Vergasungskeller, a Vergasungskeller is a gassifying basement or cellar, not a gas chamber.
LOL the linguistic gambit rides again. No, 'Vergasung' was quite clearly used to refer to gassing in multiple contexts in 1940s documentation, including in connection with the use of Zyklon B in delousing. Thus a Vergasungskeller was a gassing cellar.
What you fail to grasp is that documents are not interpreted on their lonesome but as chains of documents. The 'Vergasungskeller' document comes from the paper trail relating to the construction of the crematoria in Birkenau. That paper trail doesn't indicate any 'carburetion chamber' or 'gasifying' facility. So that intepretation is ruled out entirely.
The task of a coherent denial of the gas chambers would be to present an interpretation of the entire run of documents that makes sense and acknowledges context. So far that has not been forthcoming from deniers despite millions of words expended to discuss the paper trail.
I'm sure you're happy to have me buggered.
I'm very happy that
your document angle is buggered. I'll leave dubious fantasies to you.
I am sorry but the available documentation seems to suggest that one body can be cremated in 15 minutes WITHOUT mentioning this is done by shoving in more than one body per muffle. Apart from other issues with those documents, this clearly indicates forgery.
Once again you ignore OTHER DOCUMENTS that indicate that multiple corpse cremation was precisely what was intended. More specifically this one, an application for a patent by Topf in November 1942 (cited
here)
In the gathering camps in the occupied territories in the East with their high mortality rate, as they are affected by the war and its consequences, it has become impossible to bury the great number of deceased inmates. This is the result of both the lack of space and personnel and the immediate and longterm danger to that immediate and farther surroundings that is caused by the burial of the dead who often succumbed to infectious diseases.
Therefore there is a need to quickly, safely and hygienically dispose of the constantly great number of corpses. In that process it will, of course, be impossible, to operate according to the legal stipulations that are valid in the territory of the Reich. Thus it will be impossible to reduce to ashes only one corpse at a time, and the process cannot be done without extra heating. Instead it will be necessary to incinerate continuously and simultaneously many corpses, and during the duration of the incineration the flames and the gasses of the fire will have to engage the corpses to be incinerated directly. It will be impossible to separate the ashes of the simultaneously incinerated, and the ashes can only be handled together. Therefore one should not really talk in the depicted disposition of corpses of "incineration," but it really concerned here corpse burning.
To realize such corpse burning--following the principles sketched above--a number of multi-muffle ovens were installed in some of those camps, which according to their design are loaded and operated periodically. Because of this these ovens do not fully satisfy, because the burning does not proceed quickly enough to dispose off in the shortest possible time the great number of corpses that are constantly presented.
and another one, explicitly referring to the Auschwitz crematoria, from a Topf employee written in mid-September 1942, found
here in facsimile. Crucial lines:
Man hilft sich also mit einer Viezahl von Oefen bezw. Muffeln und mit einem Vollstopfen der einzelnen Muffeln mit mehreren Leichen
There are more than a dozen documents indicating rapid cremation and/or the multi-corpse per muffle technique. This is well in excess of what is required to accept that as a historical fact using all conventional standards of evidence.
It's been suggested by promotors of the conventional Holocaust that children and those emaciated people were good candidates. They'd like to forget that they claim most people were allegedly gassed upon arrival and hence not emaciated.
I honestly don't know where you pull these strawmen out from. Outright emaciation happened in
some Polish ghettos and inside concentration camps. 300,000 out of 1.1 million Jews deported to Auschwitz came from Polish ghettos. They were going to be thinner than the deportees from Hungary but not 'emaciated' per se. 'Muselmaenner' sent to the gas chambers inside Auschwitz were certainly emaciated, and the surviving Sonderkommandos say their corpses were harder to burn.
You're mixing up two different groups. The Reinhard camps saw far more emaciated new arrivals because they killed Jews from ghettos in the Generalgouvernement where conditions were worse than in the annexed territories, and far worse than in western Europe.
A better idea would be to give up the ridiculous claims that up to 4700 people or so could be cremated a day at Auschwitz, but that would be equivalent to admitting at least one case of good forgeries exists. So no can do.
Why? Because you say so? The paper trail regarding cremation capacity is well supported and is certainly not forged. There is nothing implausible about the multi-corpse cremation technique for starters. There is no evidence of forgery.
But there are further problems for you re: the '4756' document. Firstly, the Soviets knew about this document but suppressed it from immediate publication because they were convinced the totals were
even higher. Yet the NKVD picked this one out as practically the first document to discuss when they were reviewing the contents of the captured Zentralbauleitung archive after it had been transported to Moscow. A secret report, of course. Were they lying to themselves about their own forgery?
Secondly, the chief doctor of Auschwitz, Eduard Wirths, was interorgated in September 1944 by the British, at a time when the '4756' document was not yet publicised or known, and certainly hadn't been made available to the western Allies. He was confronted by the exaggerated 4 million figure and said that the true number had to be much lower because the gas chambers and crematoria did not have enough capacity to kill 4 million. He also explicitly stated that the daily capacity was to his knowledge, 5,000. Hmmm.... why might he have given that figure? Rounding up from a document he saw?
If you've ever watched "Defamation", you'll see that the Israelis still demonize the Polish living around Auschwitz as having used those ashes as fertilizer on their land.
Like I care what a play written decades after the war says about what actually happened.
Well, NOW you're adding nuance.
Indeed. And your point was shot down, which is why you evidently haven't bothered to respond with anything sensible or substantive.
Meh. I'll try looking for your SS witnesses to the gas chambers if I have time. I know 3 or 4, but 30?
Considering there were more than 3,000 SS serving at Auschwitz at the end of 1944, do you honestly think that it would be difficult to interrogate 30 of them in 1945-46?
