Homicidal gas chambers: Some questions for deniers

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23712
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 28 Jun 2004 05:56

Toivo -- In any sort of "normal" concentration, Zyklon-B does not kill immediately. There is a WWII vintage materials handling sheet for Zyklon-B, produced by the German government, posted on this thread:

Dr. Miklos Nyiszli: An eyewitness from Auschwitz
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

If you look at the second page of the brochure, it lists first-aid treatment for Zyklon-B poisoning. I know that there was at least one incident at Auschwitz in which camp personnel were accidentally gassed, but survived.

In regard to Majdanek, remember that carbon monoxide gas was also used there.

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 28 Jun 2004 15:22

Dear Mr. David Thompson,

Hoess various confessions and statements, as elsewhere and already shown, were only a mass of falses and contradictory words.

Same as for Bendel testimony.

You can show for me, instead vague statements about this or this other witness, one single testimony on which You believe?

Some days ago, for example, on another thread You have written:

It's not clear to me what you're saying here -- what the burden of proof relates to. I intend to post testimony relating to the existence of homicidal gassing facilities at these locales. Are you saying that there is no testimony relating to Bunker 1 and/or 2, or that the Germans were unaware of the existence of the buildings called Bunkers 1 and/or 2, or that there never was a Bunker 1 and/or 2, or what?

So, for starting, why You don't have already posted these famous eyewitnesses of homicidal gassings at the Bunkers 1 and 2?

I suspect, because these witnesses are unreliables and contradictories one towards the other.


Best Regards

LFS

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23712
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 28 Jun 2004 18:15

LFS -- You fail to answer the two questions which are the subject of this thread:
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?
Why?

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 20:54
Location: Arlington, TX

Post by WalterS » 29 Jun 2004 00:52

LFS wrote:
Hoess various confessions and statements, as elsewhere and already shown, were only a mass of falses and contradictory words.
This is demonstrably false. Höss's statements were consistent with other facts and testimony. He did get a few details wrong, but his credibility as a witness to what went on at Auschwitz is unimpeachable.

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

From Session 95 of Eichman's Trial, Eichman is questioned about his relationship with Höss:
Q. And when Hoess talks about you in Appendix Three, he put you before Mueller and thus gave you the place of honour.

Judge Halevi: Is this book also available in German?

Attorney General: It is, Your Honour, but not with the appendices. We submitted the appendices separately.

"Eichmann was completely obsessed with his mission and also convinced that this extermination action was necessary in order to preserve the German people in the future from the destructive intentions of the Jews. This was the way in which he regarded his task, and he employed all his energy in fulfilling the plans for extermination which the Reichsfuehrer-SS had made."
Is this also not true, something which is said by someone who was close to you, who must have known you?
Accused: This could be countered by all my...

Q. Is it true, or is it not true?

A. No, no, it is not true, not in this form.

Q. Did you say the following in 1957 in Argentina? - "Hoess was my dear colleague and friend."

A. I would have had no right to use this term, since during my entire life I did not see Hoess more than at most, I would say, seven times, about seven or eight times, so one could hardly use such a precise, well-rounded term.

Q. In Argentina did you say: "Hoess was punctiliousness and accuracy personified"?

A. I do not know, but that would be true.

Q. And this man, who was punctiliousness and accuracy personified, also said the following about you:

"Eichmann was also a determined opponent of the idea of selecting from the transports Jews who were fit for work. He regarded it as a constant danger to his scheme for a `final solution,' because of the possibility of mass escapes or some other event occurring which would enable the Jews to survive. In his view, action should be taken against every Jew who could be got hold of, and such actions ought to be pursued to their conclusion as quickly as possible, since it was impossible to anticipate the final result of the War. Already in 1943 he had doubts about a complete German victory and believed that the end would be inconclusive..."
Is that true?
A. That is just as untrue as Wisliceny's statement along similar lines.

Q. So that is yet another lie.

A. Yes, that is an absolute untruth.

Q. Do you remember Hoess telling you about Himmler's visit to Auschwitz? That the work of extermination was a battle which the future generations would not have to endure? And Hoess said that he was encouraged by this remark of Himmler's.

A. That this remark encouraged Hoess? I do remember, and I also said so in my Statement here, because this is a sentence I never forgot.
http://nizkor.com/hweb/people/e/eichman ... 95-04.html

From Session 99 of Eichman's Trial. Eichman is questioned about visiting Auschwitz:
Q. Very well. Let us therefore assume that Hoess got the date wrong. But was he also wrong about the fact that he showed you the extermination plant? He writes that he showed you the entire process. Did he ever show it to you? Ever?

A. "Show" is not the right word; he told me about it, and I saw part of it, that is, how the bodies were burned. That I did see.
http://nizkor.com/hweb/people/e/eichman ... 99-01.html


It is a standard tactic of non-denial deniers to pick out one piece of a witness's testimony, find a flaw, and then declare loudly that everything the witness said is obviously false. And from that, claim that the entire premise is false.

It is noteworthy that neither Höss nor Eichman, two senior SS officials on trial for their lives, denied the fact that Auschwitz, and other camps, were places of extermination. They may have quibbled about numbers or about who was responsible, but neither man ever once said that Auschwitz was not a place where Jews were murdered by gassing and by other means.

Mr David Thompson's initial question in this thread is a valid one, and one which the non-denial deniers have failed to answer. Instead they have resorted to nit-picking and obfuscation. This is what they do.

Konrad
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Jun 2004 00:41
Location: USA

Post by Konrad » 29 Jun 2004 03:09

"Non-denial deniers" Mr. WalterS? Very clever! It seems to me that the a non-denial denier is the result of the rules of this forum.
Maybe one day someone opens a forum where anti-revisionism is not allowed. I am just trying to figure out how to call the occasional anti-revisionist who may have succeded to sneek in to such a forum. Any idea? :D

In my opinion the concept of the Holocaust homicidal gas chambers should have been abandoned long ago. It is artificially kept alive only with the help of laws against Holocaust denial (Up to 5 years imprisonment in Germany, in Austria I think up to 20 years). This will last only a short time, until someone will certainly shout "But the emperor has no clothes on!"
And everyone will laugh.

This is how I see the Holocaust:
Germany had for example by 1941 something like 170,000 Jews living within Germany. After the war only 17,000 were still in Germany, the rest did not return from the deportations. Some probably succeeded in emigrating to oversees, the rest perished. From malnutrition, deseases, exhaustion. I don't think that I myself would have survived a couple of winters in Poland living in overcrowded horse stable barracks under those conditions.

Similar happened to all other Western Europen countries, and the eastern countries like Poland, the Baltics and West Russia, as far as they were under German control. Some may have fled with the retreating Red Army, some were killed in pronoms by the local population and with the help of the Einsatzgruppen.

To quote Gitta Sereny:
"Why in the world did all these people make out of Auschwitz a holy cow …
Auschwitz was a terrible place – but it was not an extermination camp."
The Times, London, Mittwoch, 29. AUGUST 2001
Konrad

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 20:54
Location: Arlington, TX

Post by WalterS » 29 Jun 2004 04:43

Konrad wrote:
In my opinion the concept of the Holocaust homicidal gas chambers should have been abandoned long ago.
Please state the facts and sources that support your opinion that there was no Holocaust.

Maybe one day someone opens a forum where anti-revisionism is not allowed
A typical non-denial denier tactic is to attempt to confuse revisionism, which is a legitimate line of historical inquiry, with denial.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23712
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 29 Jun 2004 06:29

Konrad -- You said:
"Non-denial deniers" Mr. WalterS? Very clever! It seems to me that the a non-denial denier is the result of the rules of this forum. Maybe one day someone opens a forum where anti-revisionism is not allowed. I am just trying to figure out how to call the occasional anti-revisionist who may have succeded to sneek in to such a forum. Any idea?
Why would a person want to participate in a forum where he didn't agree with the rules? What kind of person would play the part of a deceiver, in order to be able to post in a forum?

simsalabim
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 10 Jul 2003 10:50
Location: Netherlands

rodoh

Post by simsalabim » 29 Jun 2004 08:38

Deterance wrote: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.
RODOH is visited and participated by present members (yours truly included) of this forum as well. Though holocaust denial is permitted on the message board, I don't consider RODOH to be a revisionist site.

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 29 Jun 2004 12:38

David Thompson wrote:LFS -- You fail to answer the two questions which are the subject of this thread:
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?
Why?
Dear Mr. David Thompson,

For lack of time.

1) As for eyewitnesses, i want states very clearly that personally i disagree with any theory about a phantomatic gigantic conspiration orchestrated by International Jewry in order to take advantage from the supposed crimes commited by German in KL's . This is my opinion. An eventual exploitation of the Holocaust, if there's one, could be only started very late, probably after mid 60's and only in order to take advantage in complicated political situation of Middle-East. More than this, a decisive factor was rappresented by the will of allied (and especially by Sovietics, which were not more differents - and maybe worst - from the nazi's) to prove that the NS was the most horrible political system of every time.

So much factors, more human, can have influenced the position of eyewitnesses which were, as You writes, victims of one tragic destiny.

Firstly the will of revenge is surely the most important factor.
Besides true horrors of KL's, the eywitnesses have, eventually without any particular dishonesty, imaginated also facts untrue.

Another factor is, as exactly described by Paul Rassinier in his works based on his experience in KL's, a natural predisposition of human beings to affabulatory attitude (called by him the Ulysses complex, from the famous greek hero fantastic adventures).

Also the unique and horrible experience of the members of the so called Sonderkommando have his emotional and psychological importance.
The tragedy of these men which must work in Crematoria in order to burn death people (mostly children, women old people) have been devastating.

Others have also says facts untrues only for the natural desire to emerge from one experience which have reduced much human beings as simple numbers, in a collective system on which all people are the same.

But as fact of numbers, when one read with more attention the witnesses and books, can observes that one a very little number of deported speak with precision of gas chambers. The most part of Holocaustic literature was based on vague statements about the existence of gas chambers (smoke, flames from crematoria all day and night, a terrible smell). So this introduces another theme: the continous incessant repeat of voices and rumors on the existence of gassing facilities which were only reported as vox populi.

And You are aware of the political consequences of one eventual admission that the gas chambers never existed?

2) As for defendants, bystanders and others accused, was a good tactic for defendants, attorneys and lawyers the choice of don't deny the existence of gas chambers in KL's. With the exception of few cases, the accused received extraordinarily low punishment respect to crimes allegedly commited.
According to Dr. Robert Servatius, defendant at Nuremberg and at Eichmann Trial, the question of the existence of gas chambers was secondarily respect to the question of the partecipation of their clients to the gassings. This attitude have a good example in American criminal procedure, where most people accepted low judgements with the implicit acknowledged of the responsability of the crime.

Best Regards

LFS

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 29 Jun 2004 12:52

WalterS wrote:LFS wrote:
Hoess various confessions and statements, as elsewhere and already shown, were only a mass of falses and contradictory words.
This is demonstrably false. Höss's statements were consistent with other facts and testimony. He did get a few details wrong, but his credibility as a witness to what went on at Auschwitz is unimpeachable.

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

From Session 95 of Eichman's Trial, Eichman is questioned about his relationship with Höss:
Q. And when Hoess talks about you in Appendix Three, he put you before Mueller and thus gave you the place of honour.

Judge Halevi: Is this book also available in German?

Attorney General: It is, Your Honour, but not with the appendices. We submitted the appendices separately.

"Eichmann was completely obsessed with his mission and also convinced that this extermination action was necessary in order to preserve the German people in the future from the destructive intentions of the Jews. This was the way in which he regarded his task, and he employed all his energy in fulfilling the plans for extermination which the Reichsfuehrer-SS had made."
Is this also not true, something which is said by someone who was close to you, who must have known you?
Accused: This could be countered by all my...

Q. Is it true, or is it not true?

A. No, no, it is not true, not in this form.

Q. Did you say the following in 1957 in Argentina? - "Hoess was my dear colleague and friend."

A. I would have had no right to use this term, since during my entire life I did not see Hoess more than at most, I would say, seven times, about seven or eight times, so one could hardly use such a precise, well-rounded term.

Q. In Argentina did you say: "Hoess was punctiliousness and accuracy personified"?

A. I do not know, but that would be true.

Q. And this man, who was punctiliousness and accuracy personified, also said the following about you:

"Eichmann was also a determined opponent of the idea of selecting from the transports Jews who were fit for work. He regarded it as a constant danger to his scheme for a `final solution,' because of the possibility of mass escapes or some other event occurring which would enable the Jews to survive. In his view, action should be taken against every Jew who could be got hold of, and such actions ought to be pursued to their conclusion as quickly as possible, since it was impossible to anticipate the final result of the War. Already in 1943 he had doubts about a complete German victory and believed that the end would be inconclusive..."
Is that true?
A. That is just as untrue as Wisliceny's statement along similar lines.

Q. So that is yet another lie.

A. Yes, that is an absolute untruth.

Q. Do you remember Hoess telling you about Himmler's visit to Auschwitz? That the work of extermination was a battle which the future generations would not have to endure? And Hoess said that he was encouraged by this remark of Himmler's.

A. That this remark encouraged Hoess? I do remember, and I also said so in my Statement here, because this is a sentence I never forgot.
http://nizkor.com/hweb/people/e/eichman ... 95-04.html

From Session 99 of Eichman's Trial. Eichman is questioned about visiting Auschwitz:
Q. Very well. Let us therefore assume that Hoess got the date wrong. But was he also wrong about the fact that he showed you the extermination plant? He writes that he showed you the entire process. Did he ever show it to you? Ever?

A. "Show" is not the right word; he told me about it, and I saw part of it, that is, how the bodies were burned. That I did see.
http://nizkor.com/hweb/people/e/eichman ... 99-01.html


It is a standard tactic of non-denial deniers to pick out one piece of a witness's testimony, find a flaw, and then declare loudly that everything the witness said is obviously false. And from that, claim that the entire premise is false.

It is noteworthy that neither Höss nor Eichman, two senior SS officials on trial for their lives, denied the fact that Auschwitz, and other camps, were places of extermination. They may have quibbled about numbers or about who was responsible, but neither man ever once said that Auschwitz was not a place where Jews were murdered by gassing and by other means.

Mr David Thompson's initial question in this thread is a valid one, and one which the non-denial deniers have failed to answer. Instead they have resorted to nit-picking and obfuscation. This is what they do.
Dear Mr. WalterS,

Where and when Eichmann have said what You writes? Because in these transcript, isn't entirely clear.
And how is possible believe that Eichmann at Jerusalem was entirely free to discuss the question of the gas chambers?

Best Regards

LFS

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 29 Jun 2004 18:22

LFS wrote:
And how is possible believe that Eichmann at Jerusalem was entirely free to discuss the question of the gas chambers?
Do you have some proof to the contrary that he couldn't?

Andy H

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 29 Jun 2004 18:34

Dear Mr. Andy H,

None...if not the logic. You can imagines Eichmann, who with the help of Dr. Servatius alone, against the public opinion, the court, an entire nation won his liberty? Who can take in serious account this sort of process?

And You can proves that he is entirely free to proves his eventual innocence?

Best Regards

LFS

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 29 Jun 2004 18:41

LFS wrote:
And You can proves that he is entirely free to proves his eventual innocence?
I have no need to prove anything because I did not ask the question.
Yet you seem to be disproving of Eichmann's testimony with no proof other than "it stand's to reason" attitude.

So in my eyes and unless you can prove otherwise, his testomony must be taken at face value.

Andy H

User avatar
Lucius Felix Silla
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 01 Aug 2003 17:46
Location: North Italy

Post by Lucius Felix Silla » 29 Jun 2004 18:53

Dear Mr. Andy H,

I have asked You, why You don't answer?

Besides the fact that one can call in question the existence of one israelian jurisdiction over Eichmann there's a more general question, which was called for roman law "legitima suspicio": when one process must be taken in a place (city or country) which is suspected to be entirely against the presumed guilty for special reasons (as in this evenience), he must be transferred in another place, city or country, neutral. Every true democratic spirit would an impartian trial.

But i have some doubts that You can understand the significance of these elementary principles of justice.

If i'm wrong please correct me.

Best Regards

LFS

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 20:54
Location: Arlington, TX

Post by WalterS » 29 Jun 2004 19:00

I reiterate that Eichman never denied the existence of homicidal gas chambers or the intent of the Nazi Government to exterminate the Jews as part of "The Final Solution to the Jewish Question." He merely tried to downplay his role in those efforts. He was on trial for his life and had nothing to lose. If the Holocaust was made up, if there were no gas chambers and no plans for mass extermination, why did he never say so? He wrote a very lengthy statement for the Israeli Court in which he went into great detail about the entire process. Are you suggesting he made it all up?
None...if not the logic. You can imagines Eichmann, who with the help of Dr. Servatius alone, against the public opinion, the court, an entire nation won his liberty? Who can take in serious account this sort of process?
See, there they go again. LFS does what all good non-denial deniers do. When the facts get in the way of their theories, they disregard them. They say Eichman's testimony should be discarded, as should Höss's because they are unreliable, and the witnesses at Nuremberg were either Jews or Communists or both and therefore shouldn't be listened to, either. And on and on.

What LFS doesn't want readers to see is that the testimonies of these people are consistent with each other and consistent with physical and documentary evidence.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”