Homicidal gas chambers: Some questions for deniers

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 26 Jun 2004 20:16

If there were no homicidal gas chambers, what is the explanation for the hundreds of victims, defendants, bystanders, subsequent witnesses and court proceedings, involving a dozen or more nations over a time frame of 60+ years, who said that there were homicidal gas chambers?

How is it, if it is true that there were no homicidal gas chambers, that the defendants in all of the numerous trials held in various countries failed to raise that circumstance as a defense, and chose instead to claim the defenses of superior orders or non-involvement instead of challenging the fact of the existence of homicidal gas chambers?

Helly Angel · Post by **Helly Angel** » 26 Jun 2004 23:34

The worst part is that those not German that defend al government of Hitler and deny the Holocaust protected after the excuse to require tests in spite of the immense quantity of testimonies and material that has been presented in the judgments, today I gave would be SLAVES of the reich.

If the German thing they recruited Indues, Russian, Italian, Spanish, French and arabians for the Army SS was by need of service to stop the Russian advance, by more nothing, us do not we deceive.

Because neither Italian, neither Russian, neither Dutch neither swedish would be allies of the III Reich, would be their slaves, the only masters would be Germans.

Konrad · Post by **Konrad** » 27 Jun 2004 02:16

To deny the existence of homicidal gas chambers is to my understanding equivalent to denying the Holocaust. And this is against the rules of this forum and will result in the banning of the poster. Please correct me if I am wrong.

To deny the Holocaust can be punished in Germany with up to five years in jail. Even the legal defence of a Holocaust denier in Germany is difficult if not impossible because the defending attorney may find himself in a situation of Holocaust denial. Too bad.

The debate of the existence of homicidal gas chambers is on this forum a dangerous topic.

Konrad

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 27 Jun 2004 03:33

David, how would you explain this evidence claiming homicidal gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen, as we know for certain there weren't any there?

Eden Zhang · Post by **Eden Zhang** » 27 Jun 2004 04:44

Is this a clever ruse to lure out holocaust deniers on these forums, David?

xcalibur · Post by **xcalibur** » 27 Jun 2004 04:56

Dan wrote:David, how would you explain this evidence claiming homicidal gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen, as we know for certain there weren't any there?

Dan, might this be a reference to to Moshe Peer's stories which appeared in Canadian newspapers in the early to mid-'90's?

If so, I think there's certainly more than sufficient evidence to suggest that Mr. Peer was suffering from: a) an overactive imagination, coupled with, b) either senile dementia or Alzheimer's.

I'm not aware that he ever gave evidence under oath as a witness in any court proceeding, though that may be my ignorance. It was, however, clear that his statements to the press were irresponsible, lurid, and more sadly, the products of an aged and diseased mind.

More unfortunate, of course, is the fact that the press was willing to leap on the story without the scantiest efforts in checking the facts of his statements.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 27 Jun 2004 05:24

For the record, I do believe that one must admit that there were large scale homicidal gassing at locations such as Bunkers 1 and 2 outside the Auschwitz compound. But I have seen many references to gas chambers at Bergen, Dachau, Mauthausen and a few others where there is at best a "jury still out" by holocaust historians. But the type of evidence given by David in his post is the same type of evidence given for these other camps. The French camp recently discussed here is another example.

It is a complecated subject. Here is one explaination for a small percentage of eye witness accounts.

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/ ... lauren.htm

Toivo · Post by **Toivo** » 27 Jun 2004 06:38

Firstly - why ask it from deniers if deniers ain't allowed here by the rules?

Secondly - wether gas chambers existed for real in one or another camp has been now proved pretty well. In some camps it looks like there wasn't gas chambers after all, in others it is proven.
That's how it looks to me after reading various sources, isn't it so?

Regards

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 27 Jun 2004 08:28

Toivo asked me:

Firstly - why ask it from deniers if deniers ain't allowed here by the rules?

and Eden Zhang asked:

Is this a clever ruse to lure out holocaust deniers on these forums, David?

I'm asking the question of those who deny that there were homicidal gas chambers. Presumably, those who deny the holocaust would not find this section of the forum of much interest.

Konrad remarked:

To deny the existence of homicidal gas chambers is to my understanding equivalent to denying the Holocaust. And this is against the rules of this forum and will result in the banning of the poster. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It is possible to answer my questions without denying that the holocaust took place. It is also possible that a poster might have the opinion that the Nazi government did murder millions of Jewish, Gypsy, Polish and Russian civilians, but committed the killings by gunfire and other forms of lethal ill treatment rather than gassing. And posters are free not to answer the questions at all.

Toivo also asked:

Secondly - wether gas chambers existed for real in one or another camp has been now proved pretty well. In some camps it looks like there wasn't gas chambers after all, in others it is proven.
That's how it looks to me after reading various sources, isn't it so?

I think that's accurate.

Dan asked:

David, how would you explain this evidence claiming homicidal gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen, as we know for certain there weren't any there?

Dan, I'm not familiar with the claim of (a) homicidal gas chamber(s) at Bergen-Belsen, or the evidence that's supposed to support the claim, or the evidence that demonstrates that there never was a homicidal gas chamber there. We can open a thread on it, if you think xcalibur's post does not explain the problem. My idea was to start with the issue of whether there were any homicidal gas chambers at all, and then narrow it to discussions involving individual camps, as we did with KL Majdanek and KL Auschwitz. The question of whether there was a homicidal gas chamber at this or some other camp, or how how many people might have been killed in one or another gas chamber seems like a fair subject for discussion here.

Dan also remarked:

For the record, I do believe that one must admit that there were large scale homicidal gassing at locations such as Bunkers 1 and 2 outside the Auschwitz compound. But I have seen many references to gas chambers at Bergen, Dachau, Mauthausen and a few others where there is at best a "jury still out" by holocaust historians. But the type of evidence given by David in his post is the same type of evidence given for these other camps. The French camp recently discussed here is another example.

It is a complecated subject. Here is one explaination for a small percentage of eye witness accounts.

I agree that the quality and amount of the evidence varies considerably from camp to camp, and that this is a complicated subject. I think it would be a good idea to collect accounts and evidence for each of the camps and let the readers evaluate and discuss them.

Lucius Felix Silla · Post by **Lucius Felix Silla** » 27 Jun 2004 11:40

Konrad wrote:To deny the existence of homicidal gas chambers is to my understanding equivalent to denying the Holocaust. And this is against the rules of this forum and will result in the banning of the poster. Please correct me if I am wrong.

To deny the Holocaust can be punished in Germany with up to five years in jail. Even the legal defence of a Holocaust denier in Germany is difficult if not impossible because the defending attorney may find himself in a situation of Holocaust denial. Too bad.

The debate of the existence of homicidal gas chambers is on this forum a dangerous topic.

Konrad

A really democratic spirit, free thinker can prove only a sense of true desperation and horror for these horribles laws, which can only reminds us all the worst aspects of the NS system: the pure instruments to limit the freedom of expression.

The only guidelines for a true democratic and a real antinazicommunist coscience are the words of Voltaire: "I have horror for Your opinions, but i will sacrifice my life in order to permit that You could be free to speak what you want"

Best Regards

LFS

Konrad · Post by **Konrad** » 27 Jun 2004 15:40

Mr. David Thompson wrote:

It is possible to answer my questions without denying that the holocaust took place. It is also possible that a poster might have the opinion that the Nazi government did murder millions of Jewish, Gypsy, Polish and Russian civilians, but committed the killings by gunfire and other forms of lethal ill treatment rather than gassing.

You may want to check this with the bossman.

And posters are free not to answer the questions at all.

No kidding!

The topic actually is a classic:

If there were no homicidal gas chambers, what is the explanation for the hundreds of victims, defendants, bystanders, subsequent witnesses and court proceedings, involving a dozen or more nations over a time frame of 60+ years, who said that there were homicidal gas chambers?

How is it, if it is true that there were no homicidal gas chambers, that the defendants in all of the numerous trials held in various countries failed to raise that circumstance as a defense, and chose instead to claim the defenses of superior orders or non-involvement instead of challenging the fact of the existence of homicidal gas chambers?

Firstly a definition of who is a witness. May be Fritjof Meyer's definition would be acceptable?
"A gas chamber witness would be one who observed all three events subsequently: the entering of the victims into the gas chamber, the insertion of Zyklon-B into the chamber and finally the removal of the corpses." (From his reply to the Auschwitz Museum director Dr. Piper.)

This would leave for Auschwitz/Birkenau in my opinion only six eye witnesses:
Tauber, Höß, Bendel, Nyiszli, Müller and possibly Paisicovic. Could you suggest any additional witness for Auschwitz/Birkenau? I checked through Langbein's "Der Auschwitz-Prozeß" and can't find any more.

Konrad Bergmann

Lucius Felix Silla · Post by **Lucius Felix Silla** » 27 Jun 2004 16:08

Dear Mr. Konrad,

You wrote:

This would leave for Auschwitz/Birkenau in my opinion only six eye witnesses:
Tauber, Höß, Bendel, Nyiszli, Müller and possibly Paisicovic.

So if i proves that these six eyewitnesses have stating untrue facts on the gassings at Birkenau, You can concedes to me that i have reason?

Best Regards

LFS

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 27 Jun 2004 16:55

Konrad -- You asked:

Firstly a definition of who is a witness. May be Fritjof Meyer's definition would be acceptable?
"A gas chamber witness would be one who observed all three events subsequently: the entering of the victims into the gas chamber, the insertion of Zyklon-B into the chamber and finally the removal of the corpses." (From his reply to the Auschwitz Museum director Dr. Piper.)

Meyer's definition is so artificially narrow that even a lawyer would laugh at it. In history, the existence of an event is established by any combination of reliable evidence, including statements relating to the entire event or parts of it.

Konrad · Post by **Konrad** » 27 Jun 2004 19:19

David Thompson wrote:

Meyer's definition is so artificially narrow that even a lawyer would laugh at it. In history, the existence of an event is established by any combination of reliable evidence, including statements relating to the entire event or parts of it.

On the other hand your reference to " hundreds of victims, defendants, bystanders, subsequent witnesses and court proceedings, involving a dozen or more nations over a time frame of 60+ years" is so broad and vague that it becomes difficult to debate.
(debate = discuss the pros and cons of an issue)

Konrad

WalterS · Post by **WalterS** » 27 Jun 2004 19:53

This thread is rather pointless. According to Forum rules, denial of the Holocaust is not allowed. So, instead, we have folks who practice what I call non-denial denial. They will never come straight out and say "The Holocaust didn't happen." Instead, they will attack all of the various elements that, taken together, comprise the series of events that make up what we call "The Holocaust."

This is why you get posts claiming there was no intent to exterminate the Jews, that there was no plan, that the Wannsee Conference was called merely to discuss Jewish day care camps on the White Sea, that there were no "homicidal gas chambers," that Zyklon B wan't used to murder, only to delouse, that the Einsaztgruppen were employed only "to gather intelligence," that all of the witnesses who testified after the war, including Nazi officials, were Jews or Communists or somehow suspect and their testimony should be disregarded. In short, the non-denial deniers, while adhering to the letter of Marcus's rule, routinely violate the spirit. If someone posts, as several have, that there was no intent to exterminate the Jews of Europe, that, by definition, is Holocaust Denial because without intent it couldn't have happened.

The Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored murder of millions of Jews and many other victims by the Germans and their collaborators during World War II.

To carry out such an endeavor requires, first and foremost, intent. It also requires planning and dedication of resources. The non-denial deniers constantly attack these elements because it is those elements that distiguish the Holocaust from mere "battlefield crimes," or the acts of "exuberant local officials," which is what the non-denial deniers claim happened.

By attacking each element individually, the non-denial deniers seek to disprove, or raise doubts about, three basic elements of the Holocaust:

1) that millions of Jews were killed,

2) that they were killed purposefully as part of the Nazi's "final solution," and

3) that the Nazis killed many of their victims in gas chambers.

It is the goal of the non-denial deniers to convince people that these three things did not happen. If they are successful, then they will have rehabilitated the image of the Nazi government. After all, if you can remove from the Nazi regime the monstrous crime of murdering millions of people with the intent of murdering millions more, you can change the debate. This is what they wish to do. Change the debate.

This is why the non-denial deniers simultaneously attack the actions of Germany's enemies. They seek to establish a moral equivalency between the actions of a now Holocaust-free Germany and those of the Allies who defeated her. This is why we see silly threads such as "Churchill's War Crimes" and "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" and so on. These are all designed to create confusion and raise doubts about the judgment of history against Nazi Germany.

The ultimate goal, of course, is quite simple: to make
National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again.