AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers
-
Sergey Romanov
- Member
- Posts: 1987
- Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
- Location: World
- Contact:
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
-
Hans Kloss
- Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: 30 Jul 2004, 16:11
-
Sergey Romanov
- Member
- Posts: 1987
- Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
- Location: World
- Contact:
-
Hans Kloss
- Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: 30 Jul 2004, 16:11
-
Sergey Romanov
- Member
- Posts: 1987
- Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
- Location: World
- Contact:
-
Hans Kloss
- Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: 30 Jul 2004, 16:11
-
White Rose
- Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 21 Oct 2004, 22:15
- Location: Canada
The conspiracy that vho and deniers advance to deny history.Hans Kloss wrote:Sorry but I'm a bit lost...what conspiracy are you referring to Sergey ?
"Alternative views" are whether the Nazi's intended to kill all of the Jews from their rise to power in the early 30's, or whether they decided that only during the war.
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
I note that Sergey Romanov has employed his usual technique of cutting off debate at the outset by misrepresenting the issue as one between "deniers" and "upholders of the truth".
However, readers need to be aware that Pressac's theses, which aim to show how the process of mass-killing using gas-chmabers actually worked, themselves represent a massive revision of the received version of history.
Pressac's main thesis is that Crematoria II and III in Birkenau were originally designed as normal corpse-disposal facilities, appropriate to a camp with a planned population of 200,000 inmates, but were converted to homicidal facilities through the alteration of the two subterranean corpse-storage cellars to an undressing room and a gas-chamber.
According to Pressac, that conversion took place in the middle of the planning process, after construction of Crematorium II had already commenced.
Now, Pressac's thesis is highly revisionist because not a single German or surviving inmate interrogated after the war, eg the camp commandant Hoess, said anything at all about a conversion of Crematoria II and III from a normal to a homicidal purpose.
Indeed, Hoess in his post-war testimony claimed that the two crematoria had been designed as homicidal facilities from the very outset, and had been ordered by him soon after he had been given the extermination order by Himmler. According to Hoess, the justification of the creamtoria on hygienic grounds, which he gave to the construction contractors, was simply camouflage.
So, if Pressac is right, and the crematoria were converted to homicidal facilities, why did neither Hoess nor any other member of the camp staff who would have been in a position to know, or any person involved in the design or construction of the crematoria, say anything about their conversion from a normal to a homicidal purpose?
On the other hand, Pressac shows that the original design of the crematoria is incompatible with a homicidal use. His analysis demonstrates that they could not have been originally designed for a homicidal purpose, and therefore the statements by Hoess and others that the crematoria were designed for a homicidal purpose from the outset must be false.
Thus, if Crematoria II and III were in fact used as homicidal facilities, they must at some stage have been converted from their original normal purpose. But no person in a position to know ever confirmed in testimony that such a conversion took place (even though Hoess described the conversion of the morgue of Crematorium I to a gas-chamber).
Why would Hoess not have confirmed the conversion of Crematoria II and III? Did the conversion claimed by Pressac in fact take place? If it did not, were Crematoria II and III in fact homicidal facilities?
The fact is that the revisionism implicit in Pressac's theses is generally concealed by those who use his work. Even Van Pelt, who at first enthusiastically endorsed Pressac's theses and based his own publications on Auschwitz on them, has recently begun to distance himself from Pressac, perhaps because he realised the revisionist nature of his theses.
However, readers need to be aware that Pressac's theses, which aim to show how the process of mass-killing using gas-chmabers actually worked, themselves represent a massive revision of the received version of history.
Pressac's main thesis is that Crematoria II and III in Birkenau were originally designed as normal corpse-disposal facilities, appropriate to a camp with a planned population of 200,000 inmates, but were converted to homicidal facilities through the alteration of the two subterranean corpse-storage cellars to an undressing room and a gas-chamber.
According to Pressac, that conversion took place in the middle of the planning process, after construction of Crematorium II had already commenced.
Now, Pressac's thesis is highly revisionist because not a single German or surviving inmate interrogated after the war, eg the camp commandant Hoess, said anything at all about a conversion of Crematoria II and III from a normal to a homicidal purpose.
Indeed, Hoess in his post-war testimony claimed that the two crematoria had been designed as homicidal facilities from the very outset, and had been ordered by him soon after he had been given the extermination order by Himmler. According to Hoess, the justification of the creamtoria on hygienic grounds, which he gave to the construction contractors, was simply camouflage.
So, if Pressac is right, and the crematoria were converted to homicidal facilities, why did neither Hoess nor any other member of the camp staff who would have been in a position to know, or any person involved in the design or construction of the crematoria, say anything about their conversion from a normal to a homicidal purpose?
On the other hand, Pressac shows that the original design of the crematoria is incompatible with a homicidal use. His analysis demonstrates that they could not have been originally designed for a homicidal purpose, and therefore the statements by Hoess and others that the crematoria were designed for a homicidal purpose from the outset must be false.
Thus, if Crematoria II and III were in fact used as homicidal facilities, they must at some stage have been converted from their original normal purpose. But no person in a position to know ever confirmed in testimony that such a conversion took place (even though Hoess described the conversion of the morgue of Crematorium I to a gas-chamber).
Why would Hoess not have confirmed the conversion of Crematoria II and III? Did the conversion claimed by Pressac in fact take place? If it did not, were Crematoria II and III in fact homicidal facilities?
The fact is that the revisionism implicit in Pressac's theses is generally concealed by those who use his work. Even Van Pelt, who at first enthusiastically endorsed Pressac's theses and based his own publications on Auschwitz on them, has recently begun to distance himself from Pressac, perhaps because he realised the revisionist nature of his theses.
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
-
Hans Kloss
- Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: 30 Jul 2004, 16:11
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23724
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Hans Kloss -- You said: 
"? Your professed skepticism is starting to look more and more like a one-way street.
No. Why would you ask a disinformative question like that, before actually reading the book and without knowing what was in it? You seem to have read Mattogno's work, since you recommended it twice already in this thread. Now that the text is available, why don't you read what Pressac wrote, "just to keep it balancedDidn't Pressac actually admt in his book that there is no conclusive proof of "homicidal gassings" and testimonies of certain witnesses are are riddled with "errors," absurdities, " inventions" and contradictions ?
"? Your professed skepticism is starting to look more and more like a one-way street.-
Sergey Romanov
- Member
- Posts: 1987
- Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
- Location: World
- Contact:
MIKEY
DAVID
Why "however"? How is it incompatible with my words? Mikey's red herrings, as usual.However, readers need to be aware that Pressac's theses, which aim to show how the process of mass-killing using gas-chmabers actually worked, themselves represent a massive revision of the received version of history.
Pressac's main thesis is that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz. The rest are details.Pressac's main thesis is that Crematoria II and III in Birkenau were originally designed as normal corpse-disposal facilities, appropriate to a camp with a planned population of 200,000 inmates, but were converted to homicidal facilities through the alteration of the two subterranean corpse-storage cellars to an undressing room and a gas-chamber.
Hoess said that he changed plans. That's your conversion.Indeed, Hoess in his post-war testimony claimed that the two crematoria had been designed as homicidal facilities from the very outset, and had been ordered by him soon after he had been given the extermination order by Himmler. According to Hoess, the justification of the creamtoria on hygienic grounds, which he gave to the construction contractors, was simply camouflage.
So, if Pressac is right, and the crematoria were converted to homicidal facilities, why did neither Hoess nor any other member of the camp staff who would have been in a position to know, or any person involved in the design or construction of the crematoria, say anything about their conversion from a normal to a homicidal purpose?
Let's see these statements, Mikey.On the other hand, Pressac shows that the original design of the crematoria is incompatible with a homicidal use. His analysis demonstrates that they could not have been originally designed for a homicidal purpose, and therefore the statements by Hoess and others that the crematoria were designed for a homicidal purpose from the outset must be false.
Of course they were, as reasonable people know.If it did not, were Crematoria II and III in fact homicidal facilities?
DAVID
This is quite obvious, ain't it? ;]No. Why would you ask a disinformative question like that, before actually reading the book and without knowing what was in it?
1. The decision, as I understand it, to "exterminate" the jews was taken at the Heydrich conference in that small villa outside Berlin. I saw a dramatic reconstruction of it on tv a couple of years ago. Until then, they were just "a bloody nuisance". Does anyone have a date for that meeting?
2. Having visited Belsen I can quite rightly state that, in my opinion, the gas chambers were used and used frequently to "terminate people". The ovens were then used to remove the evidence. Some people argue that the ovens were to remove diseased bodies, maybe so, on a very small scale, but the chambers actually removed "life".
2. Having visited Belsen I can quite rightly state that, in my opinion, the gas chambers were used and used frequently to "terminate people". The ovens were then used to remove the evidence. Some people argue that the ovens were to remove diseased bodies, maybe so, on a very small scale, but the chambers actually removed "life".