Homicidal gas chambers: Some questions for deniers

[David Thompson]

Konrad -- My question was:

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?

You remarked:

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)

Hundreds of people said they saw something. If that something was never there, why did all those people say it was? How exactly is the question too broad and vague to answer? Why is it too difficult to debate?

WalterS -- You said:

This thread is rather pointless.

If you feel that way, your non-participation is welcome.

[DrG]

Hundreds of people said they saw something. If that something was never there, why did all those people say it was?

When, in this thread: Did the US drop booby-trapped toys in WWII, I wrote:

if the presence of "explosive pens" was so feared by people (even today by old ones), there must have been a real base.

you dismissed sarcastically my point:

I suppose that because the "evil eye" (mal occhio) was so feared by people (even today by old ones), there must have been a real basis for that, too.

But now, when it's time to help your own position, you use my same reasoning (by the way, at least I didn't state that booby-trapped toys were used, I was just trying to rationalize that claim).

[David Thompson]

DrG -- You said:

When, in this thread: Did the US drop booby-trapped toys in WWII, I wrote:

DrG wrote:
if the presence of "explosive pens" was so feared by people (even today by old ones), there must have been a real base.

you dismissed sarcastically my point:

David Thompson wrote:
I suppose that because the "evil eye" (mal occhio) was so feared by people (even today by old ones), there must have been a real basis for that, too.

.
But when it's time to help your own position, you use my same reasoning (by the way, at least I didn't state that booby-trapped toys were used, I was just trying to rationalize that claim).

Your observations are wide of the mark:

(1) In that thread, you presented no witness testimony as to who, if anyone, dropped the pens.

(2) In your statement "if the presence of "explosive pens" was so feared by people (even today by old ones), there must have been a real base. "; you did not distinguish between witnesses (persons who had some personal knowledge of the event), and persons who were uninvolved in the event, but nonetheless were fearful even today. There is a difference between belief in a widespead rumor and a demonstrable fact, just as there is a difference between faith or belief, and truth. The latter can be verified, the former cannot. If you feel that pointing out that distinction is sarcastic, so be it.

(3) Because I consider that the pen-bomb allegation, if true, was a war crime, I went to some lengths to determine whether there was a basis to the story and who was responsible for it. Until now, we're not getting that approach here.

Needless to say, I did not propose a variation of Friedhof Meyer's definition of "witness" for the pen-bomb occurrences. Consequently I did not ask or require you or anyone else to provide the names and accounts of witnesses who saw the pen bombs manufactured, who saw then packed with an explosive, who saw them loaded onto an aircraft, who saw the pen-bombs dropped, and who then saw a child pick one up and then saw the pen-bomb explode in the child's hands, as a prerequisite to prove the proposition true.

In this discussion, things are a little different:

(1) There are many witness statements, referenced by url.

(2) We are actively trying to distinguish here between persons who had some personal knowledge of the event, and persons who merely heard about the homicidal gassings without having been directly involved; and

(3) There is no question as to whether there is a basis to the "gas chamber story," nor is there any question as to who was responsible for the gas chambers. There were homicidal gas chambers, which were constructed and used by the Nazis, and there were people who saw them used to kill folks.

[DrG]

David Thompson, I know near to nothing about gas chambers, or, more generally about the Holocaust. Thus I cannot tell if the important assumption of your last point ("There is no question as to whether there is a basis...") is correct or not, but given that there are members that are questioning their existance or at least their homicidal purpose, I don't find it logic.
How can people debate a topic, if the moderator decides, from the beginning, what shall be the outcome of the debate?
"Homicidal gas chambers existed because there were witnesses of them, who (at least some of them) cannot be liars becase... homicidal gas chambers existed."
It's, in my humble opinion, a tautology.
With this, before being banned from the Axis History Forum to which I wish to contribute in the topics where I have more knowledge, I leave the discussion.

[David Thompson]

DrG -- You asked:

How can people debate a topic, if the moderator decides, from the beginning, what shall be the outcome of the debate?

The outcome of the debate is that the readers get to make up their minds for themselves, after reading the best arguments to be given for both sides.

You then ironically remarked:

"Homicidal gas chambers existed because there were witnesses of them, who (at least some of them) cannot be liars becase... homicidal gas chambers existed."

If anyone can show that any or some or all of the witnesses were liars, this is their chance -- here and now. There's nothing tautological about it. How is it that all those witnesses, from all those countries, at different times and places, were induced to lie? Are all of them lying? Step right up, and spare the readers the disgruntled murmuring about tautologies.

You conclude:

With this, before being banned from the Axis History Forum to which I wish to contribute in the topics where I have more knowledge, I leave the discussion.

FYI, while I may disagree with you, I do not consider that you have offended against the rules, nor have I ever had occasion to mention your name to Marcus or the other moderators.

[Dan]

In a case like Höß who we know grossly lied once, and had a work history involving corruption, would you insist on using his testamony to prove a point in what you consider a fair trial?

[xcalibur]

In a case like Höß who we know grossly lied once, and had a work history involving corruption, would you insist on using his testamony to prove a point in what you consider a fair trial?

In a case where a witness has lied about a particular detail it seems fair that one could infer that his testimony as a whole can be dismissed. Having said that, it also depends on what that witness said about other details which can be corroborated or denied by other testimony and evidence. Presumably that's why juries deliberate about this kind of occurence.

In the particular case of Hoess, I would agree with you that he "grossly lied" but am not willing to throw out his entire testimony based on that particular lie. In the example you provided earlier (the woman from Washington) it is abundantly and demonstrably clear that she fabricated that entire story. With Hoess it is not that easy.

[David Thompson]

Dan -- You asked:

In a case like Höß who we know grossly lied once, and had a work history involving corruption, would you insist on using his testamony to prove a point in what you consider a fair trial?

The current belief is that Hoess exaggerated the number of persons killed, and that he is wrong about some dates. There are also other anomalies in Hoess' statements. So to answer your question ("would you insist on using his testamony to prove a point in what you consider a fair trial?"), only to this extent, and under these conditions:

In assessing his credibility, it is important to distinguish between what may have been a lie and what may have been a mistake. It is also important to determine how, if Hoess were involved in corruption, that circumstance might have affected his subsequent testimony. For that reason, I think it is important to have as much of Hoess' testimony and statements as possible corroborated by other testimony and/or evidence. Any testimony, including that of Hoess, which cannot be verified or corroborated needs a careful evaluation, and not an unconditional acceptance.

[WalterS]

It is typical of the non-denial deniers to sieze on a discrepancy or an error and use that to throw out everything else. They also don't tell the whole story.

Ironically, the Höss statement in question, far from destroying his credibility, was quite accurate. In his testimony, Höss said that 2.5 million were killed at Auschwitz. But in his memoirs, he makes it clear that this estimate came from his superior officer, a Gruppenführer Glücks, who received it from Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann, and his deputy SS Hauptsturmführer Hans Günther, he added, were the only ones who had access to the information needed to calculate such a figure. Höss claimed that he never knew the number, and had no way to make an estimate. [4] He later made it clear that he regarded the figure as "far too high," noting that "Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities." [5]

So we see that Höss believed Eichmann to be mistaken, as he was. The various guesses about the victim count, accurate or inaccurate, in no way affected Höss' credibility when he described the gassing process itself, and other anecdotes about the camp:

By the will of the Reichsführer SS, Auschwitz became the greatest human extermination centre of all time...he himself gave me the order to prepare installations at Auschwitz where mass exterminations could take place, and personally to carry out these exterminations. [6]

Protected by a gas mask, I watched the killing myself. In the crowded cells death came instantaneously the moment the Cyclon B was thrown in. A short, almost smothered cry, and it was all over. [7]

The killing of these Russian prisoners-of-war did not cause me much concern at the time. The order had been given, and I had to carry it out. I must even admit that this gassing set my mind at rest, for the mass extermination of the Jews was to start soon and at that time neither Eichmann nor I was certain how these mass killings were to be carried out. It would be by gas, but we did not know which gas or how it was to be used. Now we had the gas, and we had established a procedure. [8]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniqu ... ss-01.html

[xcalibur]

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

So does this mean that none of the SS personnel qualify as eye witnesses?

[Konrad]

WalterS wrote:

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

Shouldn't it rather be:
"I think or it is my opinion, that the ultimate goal […] etc. etc"?
There may be occasions where this is so. I agree. But always?

David Thompson:

Hundreds of people said they saw something. If that something was never there, why did all those people say it was? How exactly is the question too broad and vague to answer? Why is it too difficult to debate?

A statement like "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" would form in my opinion the basis of a belief. And I don't think that I care to debate someone elses believes. That is asking for trouble.

If the the debate is about the testimonies of specific eye witnesses, survivors or perpetrators, or trials like the Auschwitz trial in Franfurt or the Münster trial, then we can swing.

xcalibur:

So does this mean that none of the SS personnel qualify as eye witnesses?

The testimonies of former SS-men during the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, Germany, are extremely vague as far as the homicidal gas chambers are concerned. See Langbein "Der Auschwitz-Prozess".

Konrad

[David Thompson]

So far, no one has completely denied the existence of Nazi homicidal gas chambers, and no one has tried to answer my questions directly. It's starting to look like the existence of homicidal gas chambers is generally conceded, and the question is now where these were located. Kogon, Langbein and Rueckerl say that there were homicidal gas chambers at KLs Auschwitz, Belzec, Majdanek, Mauthausen, Natzweiler-Struthof, Neuengamme, Ravensbrueck, Sachsenhausen, Sobibor, Stutthof, Treblinka and perhaps Dachau, mobile gas vans, and the euthanasia killing facilities.

[xcalibur]

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?

I've always found this to be the more compelling question. And , 'tis true that no one has bothered to address this directly.

[Deterance]

Perhaps the crux of the question of homicidal gas chambers at Aushwitz is not the existance of the gas chambers, but the scale of the gassings.

Anyways since the topic cant be explorred in detail here....

The Scholars Debate Section in the RODOH Forum is a debate centered around the question of the existance of homicidal gas chambers at Aushwitz.

The debate between the "Veritas Team" and the "Negationist Team" includes former members of this forum. A great deal of technical and archival information is presented by the debaters. In addition, though holocaust denial is permitted....this section of the RODOH forum is free of the vicious anti-semitic, Neo Nazi statements common in other revisionist forums.

Whether one is a denier, a believer, a "50% believer" or undecided, you can learn a great deal here. I dont intend to aggressively promote a revisionist site on this forum, but only wish to say that a great deal of information on the topic presented by both points of view can be found there.

[Toivo]

Regarding Höss's statement:

Protected by a gas mask, I watched the killing myself. In the crowded cells death came instantaneously the moment the Cyclon B was thrown in. A short, almost smothered cry, and it was all over. [7]

In Simonov's book mentioned that in Majdanek various witnesses gave from 2 to 10 minutes for death through choking. Also it was mentioned the SS in guard who watched results did it without gas mask, through peephole which was covered with thick glass and protected by wires.

So did Zyklon B kill instantly or indeed it was possible to survive for minutes? Considering notes from Simonov's book that gas chamber was 6x6 meters, 2 meters high. In average there were 250 victims in. So this room should have been very short in air after couple of minutes prisoners were sent in and death should have been instant?

All questions I have asked about Holocaust recently are based on logical thinking. I do not believe everything witnesses say can be taken as pure gold, same goes for any witnesses about anything in life.

Regards