Nazis used human remains to make soap

[Ixtab]

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=286046&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

Tests show that Nazis used human remains to make soap

Warsaw, Poland

06 October 2006 04:41

The Nazis used human fat to make soap during World War II in a Nazi German medical academy located in what is now the Polish Baltic sea port city of Gdansk, Polish war crimes prosecutors confirmed on Friday, pointing to new laboratory tests.

Officials with Poland's Institute for National Remembrance (IPN) based their findings on a laboratory analysis of a piece of soap found in 1945 in the medical academy in Gdansk run by Nazi German Professor Rudolf Spanner.

A new laboratory analysis of the soap revealed human fat was one of its components, spokesperson for the Gdansk branch of the IPN, Paulina Szumera, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur in a telephone interview on Friday.

Commissioned by the IPN, Professor Andrzej Stolyhwo of the Warsaw Agricultural University found human tissue in the soap.

The piece of soap was used as evidence in the post-WWII Nuremburg Trials where prominent German Nazis were prosecuted for crimes against humanity. At the time, prosecutors lacked the technology to determine whether the soap contained human tissue.

Human remains used to make the soap were believed to have been brought from Kaliningrad, Bydgoszcz and the Stutthof Nazi German concentration camp located about 30 from Gdansk.

The IPN investigation found that the soap in question produced by Professor Spanner was used to clean operating and autopsy rooms.----------

[Starr]

:rofl: :rofl:

This :nuts: idea has pretty much been rejected:

Tel Aviv (JTA) -- Professor Yehuda Bauer, head of the Hebrew University's Holocaust history department and regarded as one of the foremost researchers of the Holocaust, has denied the frequently quoted charge that the Nazis used the bodies of Jewish death camp victims to make soap.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/soaptale.html

Is there anyone who actually still believes this fable?

[Ixtab]

Please take note of the dates:The Northern California Jewish Bulletin
April 27, 1990Tests show that Nazis used human remains to make soap
06 October 2006

This is based on recent laboratory tests which was not available in 1990.

[Kriger]

I'm sure human tissue would be found in my soap also. Probably a few dog hairs to boot.
Institute for National Remembrance says a lot.
If they paid me to find human tissue in soap, I would find it, too.
Shipping corpses to a soap factory during a Wolrd War is a bit far-fetched.

Oh, I know.
Supplies to the troops were put on hold so dead bodies could be transported to a soap factory to be made into soap for cleaning operating and autopsy rooms. Despite the fact that in those days and times, who was interested in doing autopsys on dead bodies?

Oh, I know. To determine if one had died from bomb fragments, bullets, or bayonet. This would involve bringing dead bodies back from the front, thereby increasing soap manufacturing.

Hell, if I would have been around back then, I most certainly would have invested in Germany's soap making industry. Booming, it was. And then after the war I would have reinvested in human skin lampshades. They would be worth a large fortune in today's world.

:slap:

[elbwgreez]

"Tyler sold his soap to department stores at $20 a bar. Lord knows what they charged. It was beautiful. We were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them. "

- Fight Club

[Anarch]

"Tyler sold his soap to department stores at $20 a bar. Lord knows what they charged. It was beautiful. We were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them. "

- Fight Club
Precisely. Body fat isn't quite muscle or organs.

[Ahknaton]

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why use human fat? Why not use animal fat? Were animals more scarce than dead humans during the war? Why use concentration camp victims (not known for the amount of fat on their bodies)? Why transport corpses such long distances (during wartime) just to extract their fat content? Surely there were more efficient alternatives. The whole thing sounds like German military policy was based around optimising their evilness, rather than their wartime military efficiency. Personally, I'm still skeptical.
The IPN investigation found that the soap in question produced by Professor Spanner was used to clean operating and autopsy rooms.
Is it possible that the fat detected on the soap was from the autopsy room? Was it a "virgin" piece of soap straight out of the box, or had it been used?

[///M power]

AFP Published: 10.10.06, 09:09

Poland's Nazi German occupiers used "substances" from the bodies of concentration camp prisoners to make soap, a study carried out by Poland's National Remembrance Institute (IPN) to counter the arguments of negationists showed Friday.
"We have determined that, without the shadow of a doubt, soap was produced using substances obtained from human bodies at the anatomical insitute of the Medical Academy of Danzig, led by Professor Rudolf Spanner," Paulina Szumera of the IPN told AFP.
Danzig is the German name for the Polish city of Gdansk.
"We launched our investigation to still the voices denying that this ever happened," she said.



Evidence for Nuremberg trials

For the IPN probe, Polish scientists studied a bar of soap that was presented as evidence during the Nuremberg Nazi war crime trials after World War II, that was in the archives of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Szumera said.
Polish television station TVN24 cited IPN investigators as saying the bodies of prisoners at the Nazi concentration camp of Stutthof, in northern Poland, and at Gdansk municipal jail were used to make the soap.
The bodies of patients at a psychiatric hospital in Gdansk were also used, the investigators told TVN24.
Several dozen kilogrammes of soap were produced by the Nazis in Gdansk and used to clean Spanner's laboratory work surfaces, the IPN said.
Almond extract was added to the soap to give it a palatable scent.
Soaps are usually made from fats and oils that react with lye (sodium hydroxide

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3313120,00.html

[///M power]

this is new thing from today.

[Basil Fawlty]

I can't believe they are trying to revive this nonsense.

[Slavic Enforcer]

Nazis are human garbage.

[///M power]

I can't believe they are trying to revive this nonsense.

even when you people see things that had been proved today you still wil deny everyhting...
yet you belive in the a story that took place 2000 years ago called christ.

[Basil Fawlty]

even when you people see things that had been proved today you still wil deny everyhting...I have seen no proof of anything here.
yet you belive in the a story that took place 2000 years ago called christ.No I don't.

[Jimbo Gomez]

even when you people see things that had been proved today you still wil deny everyhting...
yet you belive in the a story that took place 2000 years ago called christ.


Does this mean you're acknowledging that the holocaust has become a religious icon for the jews and is therefor outside of the limits of normal debate?

[Winston]

This is the same crap that came out within the last week or so, there's nothing new here. Does anyone seriously believe that Nazis would do this? Sheer stupidity. The soap tested was used in a morgue where it would have picked up contamination.

[Starr]

The soap tested was used in a morgue where it would have picked up contamination.


I missed that part somehow when I first read this article.

The IPN investigation found that the soap in question produced by Professor Spanner was used to clean operating and autopsy rooms.

Wouldn't that cancel out the reliability of what they are trying to prove here?

[Scryllak]

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why use human fat? Why not use animal fat? Were animals more scarce than dead humans during the war? Why use concentration camp victims (not known for the amount of fat on their bodies)? Why transport corpses such long distances (during wartime) just to extract their fat content? Surely there were more efficient alternatives. The whole thing sounds like German military policy was based around optimising their evilness, rather than their wartime military efficiency. Personally, I'm still skeptical.

My exact position. I don't hold any bias one way or the other, but this is so mad-scientist that it's hard to swallow.

[Starr]

It sounds very much like wartime propaganda. Where some really wild things are suggested to make the enemy look as evil as possible. It happens all of the time. This tactic was used before WW2 and is still used today. Think about all of those WMDs that Saddam had. And people still believe it.

[B-Pep]

Why would the Nazis want to make soap out of Jews? That would defeat the whole purpose of soap if you have to clean yourself with some kikes venomous snake skin!

[Ixtab]

I'm sure human tissue would be found in my soap also. Probably a few dog hairs to boot.The lab tests reveal that human fat was one of the soap's components. This isn't risidual tissue resulting from contact with human skin, but fat as a principal component of the soap.

[Draco]

Poloks are too dumb to perform the most rudimentary chemical analyses, and greedy enough to publish whatever findings they're told to. The veracity of this is nonsense. This is likely the groundwork for a jew led Polish extortion of German coffers.

[Der Sozialist]

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Why use human fat? Why not use animal fat? Were animals more scarce than dead humans during the war? Why use concentration camp victims (not known for the amount of fat on their bodies)? Why transport corpses such long distances (during wartime) just to extract their fat content? Surely there were more efficient alternatives. The whole thing sounds like German military policy was based around optimising their evilness, rather than their wartime military efficiency. Personally, I'm still skeptical.

Is it possible that the fat detected on the soap was from the autopsy room? Was it a "virgin" piece of soap straight out of the box, or had it been used?

The NAZIS would have access to thousands and thousands of dead Jews with the requirement of proper disposal. It does not seem to be much of stretch that in some places fat could have been extracted for this purpose.

[Ixtab]

Poloks are too dumb to perform the most rudimentary chemical analyses, and greedy enough to publish whatever findings they're told to.Not an argument.

The veracity of this is nonsense.Not an argument.

This is likely the groundwork for a jew led Polish extortion of German coffers.Not an argument.

[Basil Fawlty]

It sounds very much like wartime propaganda. Where some really wild things are suggested to make the enemy look as evil as possible. It happens all of the time. This tactic was used before WW2 and is still used today. Think about all of those WMDs that Saddam had. And people still believe it.Its on a par with the baby incubator lies manufactured after the Kuwait invasion to depict the Iraqis as baby killing monsters and so drum up support for the forthcoming war.
In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah's full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. "I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital," Nayirah said. "While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die."

Three months passed between Nayirah's testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. "Of all the accusations made against the dictator," MacArthur observed, "none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City."
At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.
http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

[Dr. Gutberlet]

Where would all the bodies come from? Delousing usually doesn't kill.

[Basil Fawlty]

Where would all the bodies come from? Delousing usually doesn't kill.Why, from the Pedal Driven Brain Bashing Machine (http://www.cwporter.com/pg15.htm) of course!

[dirtymike]

even when you people see things that had been proved today you still wil deny everyhting...
yet you belive in the a story that took place 2000 years ago called christ.Not much fat on those concentration camp jews how many did they have to boil down to get a bar of soap ha ha :rofl: Would have been better off to just make lamp shades in my opinion ha ha

[Isra'il Yahya]

Jew ashes could be used to make lye.

[///M power]

Does this mean you're acknowledging that the holocaust has become a religious icon for the jews and is therefor outside of the limits of normal debate?

well tell me,if all your grandparents and your peoples families had been massacred in such way would you shut up about it?
I dont see anything to debate about since the Nazis them selves confessed in the mass murdering,human experiments,concentration camps.they also have films and photos who documented everything,including the experiments with living humans.
it is not up to people today to decide if it did happen or not ,since the original master killers,the top of the Nazi command,were all arrested and found except for the "death doctor" and Hitler.
If a killer is arrested,and he admits of killing,proudly, he is guilty,end of story.
even the worst Holocaust denier doesn't really believe that millions of Jews and entire Jewish communities just disappeared or kidnapped by aliens right?

[///M power]

Not much fat on those concentration camp jews how many did they have to boil down to get a bar of soap ha ha :rofl: Would have been better off to just make lamp shades in my opinion ha ha

I think they enjoyed more the piles of gold tooth they tore down from living people.
by the way the Germans are very efficient people they left nothing except from the bones,they stored teeth,hair,fat,shoes,combs,soaps, the piles are still there,including the piles of ashes.

[Jimbo Gomez]

well tell me,if all your grandparents and your peoples families had been massacred in such way would you shut up about it?
I dont see anything to debate about since the Nazis them selves confessed in the mass murdering,human experiments,concentration camps.they also have films and photos who documented everything,including the experiments with living humans.
it is not up to people today to decide if it did happen or not ,since the original master killers,the top of the Nazi command,were all arrested and found except for the "death doctor" and Hitler.
If a killer is arrested,and he admits of killing,proudly, he is guilty,end of story.
even the worst Holocaust denier doesn't really believe that millions of Jews and entire Jewish communities just disappeared or kidnapped by aliens right?


That reply was completely besides the question. Read my original post again.

[Commander]

The Soap Story, (http://www.zundelsite.org/english/antiprop/jewish_soap/index.html), come on, this one is still kicking around ? :rofl:

[Rusty Mason]

Lampshades from Jews; soap from Jews; gas chambers; Anne Frank's diary; the holy 6 million; tall tales of improbable deeds against "hostile" host civilizations; mass genocide and excuses for murder, robbery, and lying, all pre-approved and aided by an all-loving god. Who cannot see a pattern here? Organized Jewry is the spreader of tall tales designed to weaken and subjugate their host population and it always has been. This soap story is really stupid, even on the face of it. As Mike pointed out, we are ever shown pics of skinny Jews yet at the same time told that fat from Jews was used to mass produce soap. Right. You Jews who want us to believe your ridiculous stories are giving the other 5% a bad name.

To those here and elsewhere who work tirelessly to beat back these civilization-destroying attacks, I raise a toast to you.

[Rusty Mason]

I think they enjoyed more the piles of gold tooth they tore down from living people.
by the way the Germans are very efficient people they left nothing except from the bones,they stored teeth,hair,fat,shoes,combs,soaps, the piles are still there,including the piles of ashes.

Yah, so efficient that they left no proof, plans, writings, or even a single mention anywhere of mass production of soap, lampshades, gas chambers, or of 6 million Jews systematically exterminated. So efficient they couldn't find Anne Frank and her mass-consuming family, even as smoke billowed from their chimney and they came and went freely.

To paraphrase Bill Cosby, "Jews gotta stop lying!"

[Felix the Cat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocere

[///M power]

Yah, so efficient that they left no proof, plans, writings, or even a single mention anywhere of mass production of soap, lampshades, gas chambers, or of 6 million Jews systematically exterminated. So efficient they couldn't find Anne Frank and her mass-consuming family, even as smoke billowed from their chimney and they came and went freely.

To paraphrase Bill Cosby, "Jews gotta stop lying!"

no proof? they did leave all the proofs!
there are piles of everything from gold tooth to their cloths and and their hair,to human ashes.
and yes they were efficient,killing millions is not that easy.
I guess you would prefer to believe that entire Jewish communities just disappeared one day,and that all the the pictures taken BY NAZIS at the camps are fake,and the fact that they admit experimenting with living people and documenting it is fake,and their own transport lists to the camps were fake,and the survivors are all layers,and the Nazis them selves are liars also!!! because they say the did it,and Russians and all European countries including Germans are also liers.
yes,that makes a lot of sense.
all to trick you.

the article shows you research about the soaps which you say are not real,they are it was just proven to you.

[Dr. Gutberlet]

I'm quite sure that jews would market this soap if it would garner a profit for them.

[Rusty Mason]

no proof? they did leave all the proofs!
there are piles of everything from gold tooth to their cloths and and their hair,to human ashes.
and yes they were efficient,killing millions is not that easy.
I guess you would prefer to believe that entire Jewish communities just disappeared one day,and that all the the pictures taken BY NAZIS at the camps are fake,and the fact that they admit experimenting with living people and documenting it is fake,and their own transport lists to the camps were fake,and the survivors are all layers,and the Nazis them selves are liars also!!! because they say the did it,and Russians and all European countries including Germans are also liers.
yes,that makes a lot of sense.
all to trick you.

the article shows you research about the soaps which you say are not real,they are it was just proven to you.
Your numerous claims are so unbelievable that you're going to have to prove them to me.

[cerberus]

If some twisted so and so tried this , does it undermine the "H" ?
As far as the "H" goes this is not am important issue with anyone apart from the revisionist school of thought.
Perhaps if the revisionist put some thought into explaining where almost 6 million people went they might be taken a little more seriously ?
To me thi is just another exercise in :deadhorse:

[Basil Fawlty]

As far as the "H" goes this is not am important issue with anyone apart from the revisionist school of thought.Typical. Truth and accuracy never seems to be important when it shows up allied atrocity propaganda as the nonsense that it is. The story is cut from whole cloth, a story saturated in fraud and tired out war atrocity propaganda that should have been consigned to the dustbin long ago. There is no difference between this kind of stuff and the Kuwait incubator story. Same lies, same liars.

[Arminius]

Who cares? Honestly, what does it matter if people made soap or soup out of dead people? They're dead! I doubt very much they would give a fuck about being turned into a useful hygienic item or a delicious broth. Anyone know a good material to make a lamp shade out of? My current ones are so worn.

:deadhorse:

[Der Sozialist]

Jew ashes could be used to make lye.

This does not make any sense. Lye is simply NaOH. What lye is used for is turn grease into soap. Timothy Leary is our resident biochemist so he can correct me if I am wrong—therefore, the soap couldn’t simply come into contact with human tissue to become contaminated since the lye changes the chemical composition of human tissue to (I am guessing—again, Timothy should weigh in here) something ending in CO2-Na where fat just is of the form R-OOC-R (I believe if done properly all the lye is consumed).

Truth and accuracy never seems to be important when it shows up allied atrocity propaganda as the nonsense that it is.

Again, I realize you do not belief the official story of what happened to 6 million Jews during WW2 but so far all you have done is claim that it was proved false (not addressing the fact that a new study has been conducted) and claiming that there is no evidence (again, not addressing the new study). Why don’t you address this study?

[Ixtab]

Soap is not fat, No one said it was just fat.

[Ixtab]

Almost every argument made in this thread goes something like this:

1. X (holocaust stories generally) is mocked (not refuted)
2. Therefore claim C (Jewish soap) is false.

[Basil Fawlty]

Again, I realize you do not belief the official story of what happened to 6 million Jews during WW2 but so far all you have done is claim that it was proved false (not addressing the fact that a new study has been conducted) and claiming that there is no evidence (again, not addressing the new study). Why don’t you address this study?What new study? Do you think this is the first time we have had studies "proving" that lampshades were made from human skin or the soap story, which is killed off then revived, killed off again and revived once more? Do we need a study to prove that 840,000 Russian POW's were killed with a brain bashing machine? Or do we need to disprove it? All we have here is a news report about some ominous sounding set-up called the Institute for National Remembrance. What am I supposed to address? I don't feel any need to refute 'proven' claims that witches had intercourse with the devil, which is more or less the level I place this kind of stuff at.

[Der Sozialist]

What new study? Do you think this is the first time we have had studies "proving" that lampshades were made from human skin or the soap story, which is killed off then revived, killed off again and revived once more? Do we need a study to prove that 840,000 Russian POW's were killed with a brain bashing machine?

When a new study comes forth and presents new evidence (i.e.—the chemical tests and analysis) it is incumbent on every impartial person to take that study into consideration. So far, it appears to me that you are simply dismissing the study off hand because previous results in the past have been inconclusive.

What am I supposed to address? I don't feel any need to refute 'proven' claims that witches had intercourse with the devil, which is more or less the level I place this kind of stuff at.

Yes, you don’t have to ‘refute’ it but when you simply mock the study and claim that it is false without even addressing the study it leads me to believe that:

A): You are set in your ways and will not reanalyze your opinions based on new studies.
B): You want the official story to be false.

[Basil Fawlty]

When a new study comes forth and presents new evidence (i.e.—the chemical tests and analysis) it is incumbent on every impartial person to take that study into consideration. So far, it appears to me that you are simply dismissing the study off hand because previous results in the past have been inconclusive.Human soap stories come form the same stable of nonsense as human skin lampshades, brain bashing machines, geysers of blood, electrocution chambers, steam chambers, (gas chambers using diesel fumes and insecticide still have their ardent believers, unlike the other stuff here) Lufthammers, atom bombs outside Auschwitz, spanking machines, knuckle-bone light switches, an eagle and a bear that eat Jews in a cage, and as I said earlier, incubators in Kuwait, a recent addition to the great catalogue of war atrocity stories or How to Demonise the Enemy and get Support for Your War. We might add from an earlier war crucified Canadian POW's, chopped up babies, raped nuns, and, surprise, surprise, soap made from human corpses. The soap stories had their first outing in WWI before such stories were dusted off for their second outing. Now why should anyone take this kind of stuff seriously?
Yes, you don’t have to ‘refute’ it but when you simply mock the study and claim that it is false without even addressing the study it leads me to believe that:Have you ever heard of what is known as Funding Bias? You can prove anything if you throw enough money at it, and the Holocaust Industry has no shortage of funds. There are even studies that show cigarette smoking does no harm at all.
A): You are set in your ways and will not reanalyze your opinions based on new studies.
B): You want the official story to be false.See above. And anyway, if I were inclined to look at this study, I would have to absorb a great deal of organic chemistry first. Would it be justified only to find out that this is yet another study that claims to prove that pigs can fly and that the known laws of physics were all miraculously suspended whenever the evil Nazis came into contact with the Jews?

[gooddeath]

Nazi Germany did have fat shortages, which resulted in a lack of soap, lard, and other products. Nazis making soap out of human remains seems quite far-fetched, however. I wouldn't consider it to be impossible, but I still remain skeptical. Many of the holocaust stories seem fabricated in order to maximize disgust of the Nazi regime, rather than accurate accounts of what happened. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to tell what truly went on. I would say that the holocaust did happen, but not to the extent that is shown today. This, however, is a different topic.

[gooddeath]

Although, as Heraclitus said "Corpses are more fit to be thrown out than dung." Why not make the most out of them? ;)

[Der Sozialist]

Now why should anyone take this kind of stuff seriously?

Like I said, *if* evidence on the contrary is presented then one must modify their views.

You can prove anything if you throw enough money at it, and the Holocaust Industry has no shortage of funds. There are even studies that show cigarette smoking does no harm at all.

The study will be reviewed and repeated by others in the future. No one is saying that it is proved yet however the study suggests that the original story is plausible.

Would it be justified only to find out that this is yet another study that claims to prove that pigs can fly and that the known laws of physics were all miraculously suspended whenever the evil Nazis came into contact with the Jews?

I am not sure what you are implying here—are you implying that the experiment violated certain theorems/laws/what have you of the natural world?

[Helios Panoptes]

I don't have an opinion on whether Nazis made soap from Jewish corpses or not. I would need to do much more research than I have(I have done no research whatsoever besides having read the initial post in this thread). With that said, it wouldn't change my opinion on the Nazi regime in either case. If there was a shortage of soap and the components usually used to produce soap, then I see nothing wrong with using corpses to make more.

[Basil Fawlty]

Like I said, *if* evidence on the contrary is presented then one must modify their views.That's a big 'if' and I have given powerful reasons why it is reasonable to be sceptical to the point of disbelief.
The study will be reviewed and repeated by others in the future. Or maybe it will disappear without trace. No one is saying that it is proved yet however the study suggests that the original story is plausible. No it doesn't suggest that. To me, the report suggests that the Industry are up to their old tricks again. Trying to breathe life back into the soap story. They don't lie being mocked about it becaeu it undermines confidence in other mor serious items of nonsense they need to keep the holocaust story afloat. Expect to see more studies about lampshades.
I am not sure what you are implying here—are you implying that the experiment violated certain theorems/laws/what have you of the natural world?First of all we haven't got the study. All we have is a news story. The first thing I would do is raise background questions, what and who is this memory institute? Who comissioned and funded this study? What is the background to soap stories going back to WWI when it was first used? Then when we have done all that, we would need to commission an organic chemist to study the report itself and we would need to send samples for anonymous testing at an independent laboratory. Then we would have to review the results of that test and compare them to the memory institute's claims. If they matched, we would then have to review the possible explanations. That would be the proper thing to do. Then you could talk about plausibility, but not before, unless of course you want to believe these war atrocity stories. If you do, that's fine, but I will continue to refer to them as stories until such time as proper independent studies are done on these and other extraordinary claims to show otherwise.

[Der Sozialist]

First of all we haven't got the study. All we have is a news story. The first thing I would do is raise background questions, what and who is this memory institute? Who comissioned and funded this study? What is the background to soap stories going back to WWI when it was first used? Then when we have done all that, we would need to commission an organic chemist to study the report itself and we would need to send samples for anonymous testing at an independent laboratory. Then we would have to review the results of that test and compare them to the memory institute's claims. If they matched, we would then have to review the possible explanations. That would be the proper thing to do. Then you could talk about plausibility, but not before, unless of course you want to believe these war atrocity stories. If you do, that's fine, but I will continue to refer to them as stories until such time as proper independent studies are done on these and other extraordinary claims to show otherwise.

Yes, this study is the first step in what should be a whole series of steps. The people who originally claimed the story a fable will probably invest money trying to discredit this study. However, just as the study has yet to be validated it has yet to be falsified.

I don't have an opinion on whether Nazis made soap from Jewish corpses or not. I would need to do much more research than I have(I have done no research whatsoever besides having read the initial post in this thread). With that said, it wouldn't change my opinion on the Nazi regime in either case. If there was a shortage of soap and the components usually used to produce soap, then I see nothing wrong with using corpses to make more.

Again, this conversation is more about “claiming a study is false without addressing the study” than it is about soap, Jews, or the holocaust.

[Helios Panoptes]

Again, this conversation is more about “claiming a study is false without addressing the study” than it is about soap, Jews, or the holocaust.

Yes, I know. I was not involving myself in your discussion with Basil. It's difficult to determine that on the internet, though. What I mean is, when a thread turns into a discussion between a few interlocutors and someone else comments, it seems like that person is commenting on that discussion, but it might not be so.

[cerberus]

Der SozialistLike I said, *if* evidence on the contrary is presented then one must modify their views.
Yes , the big "if" - and the evidence which should cause the revisionists to question their own " beliefs" does exist , yet they won't even question them.
I see a quote from basil saying that he has given " powerful reasons why it is reasonable to be sceptical to the point of disbelief."

In the world Basil "fact" is even stranger than "fiction" , that is how the revisionist veiws things - when fact is turned on it's head - the pieces can be made to fit - as long as you can hammer the square pegs into the round holes and no one hears the mallet.:deadhorse:

[eggheadbanga]

A few elementary points which seem to have eluded some people on this thread:

1) the news story did not mention Jews in any shape or form. Indeed, the bodies that were sent to the Danzig Anatomy Institute were not Jewish, but in fact Polish and German concentration camp prisoners from Stutthof.

2) the supposed soap-making from human fat at the Danzig Anatomy Institute was experimental only. No one has ever claimed that the DAI was a 'soap factory'. No one was ever convicted of 'soap making', either.

3) for background on the D.A.I., try :google: for 'Joachim Neander Danzig soap' and you'll find some online articles which discuss the context fairly thoroughly.

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes, this study is the first step in what should be a whole series of steps. The people who originally claimed the story a fable will probably invest money trying to discredit this study.They don't have any money and most of them are in prison because they refuse to believe such things and say so in public. However, just as the study has yet to be validated it has yet to be falsified. I don't think I said it was false. It would have to be shown to be false. I just gave what I take to be very compelling reasons for not taking it seriously. Would we have to take Tin Foil Hats seriously and go through elaborate refutations of thiose who claim it as scientifcally established that the Feds can read people's thoughts? Surely the more sensible thing is to dismiss it unless something very compelling turned up to make us think otherwise. I call it nonsense and nothing so far has convinced me to think otherwise. That's not the same thing as saying that this study is false.

[Kolchab]

Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.

~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261.

The arrogance with which holocaust hoaxers look at their weird holocaust theories and views as facts always amazes.

And so it is with the soap made from human remains.

The Polacks already refused Iranians access for an independent review into the holocaust. They will never have any independent check out the soap hoax.

Kolchab

[eggheadbanga]

The arrogance with which holocaust hoaxers look at their weird holocaust theories and views as facts always amazes.


No, what amazes is the ability of Kolchab to repeat himself in his various guises across the internet.

And so it is with the soap made from human remains.

The Polacks already refused Iranians access for an independent review into the holocaust. They will never have any independent check out the soap hoax.

Hmmm, so a scientist in a totally different institute not involved in any way with history asked to perform a biochemical analysis by a historical institute is not 'independent'? How does that work? If it had been the historian running the tests, then you might have a beef. Should forensics always be exported to another country?

[eggheadbanga]

They don't have any money

Much like Glenn Miller, eh?

and most of them are in prison because they refuse to believe such things and say so in public.

No, most are not, unless you wish to reduce 'revisionism' to a circle of five people.

I don't think I said it was false. It would have to be shown to be false.

Which would be very difficult so long as you and others try and force the DAI story into the box marked 'Holocaust'.

I just gave what I take to be very compelling reasons for not taking it seriously.

Except you didn't. Try again, this time bearing in mind that it's a purely Polish matter, not a Jewish issue.

Would we have to take Tin Foil Hats seriously and go through elaborate refutations of thiose who claim it as scientifcally established that the Feds can read people's thoughts?

Apples and oranges, Basil. To the best of anyone's knowledge, the technology does not exist to read people's minds. Whereas the art of turning animal fats into soap has existed for centuries.

Surely the more sensible thing is to dismiss it unless something very compelling turned up to make us think otherwise.


No, Basil, surely the most sensible thing is to get a sense of proportion and realise that the D.A.I. incident was the tiny little fire amidst the great bank of fog and smoke of rumour about the use of corpses to make soap.

I call it nonsense

Why? Because Bradley Smith told you so?

and nothing so far has convinced me to think otherwise.

What difference would it make to your Faith? The corpses weren't even Jewish, and the experiments, if they were real, weren't even authorised by the Fuehrer.

That's not the same thing as saying that this study is false

Hairsplitting sophistry, as usual. You call it nonsense, but the study isn't false. Eh?

[Oblisk]

Even if it is true, I don't see anything wrong with it? It's just carcass.

[Basil Fawlty]

Much like Glenn Miller, eh?That's where the similarity ends. What little point are you trying to make by mentioning that idiot here?
No, most are not, unless you wish to reduce 'revisionism' to a circle of five people. You can't have it both ways, on the one hand you like to prate on about how revisionism has not done much original in the last while, on the other hand, when siginificant reasons are given (persecution legal and extra-legal) are mentioned, we get a silly remark like that one.
Which would be very difficult so long as you and others try and force the DAI story into the box marked 'Holocaust'. You haven't been reading the thread. I place it in a box called War Atrocity Propaganda, I place Holocaust in the same box. Species/genus distinction.
Except you didn't. Try again, this time bearing in mind that it's a purely Polish matter, not a Jewish issue.I giave very good reasons, again, you are not reading the thread and resrting to strawman arguments. *Yawn*
Apples and oranges, Basil. To the best of anyone's knowledge, the technology does not exist to read people's minds. Whereas the art of turning animal fats into soap has existed for centuries. The art of war atrocity propaganda and demonisation is what is interesting and important here not some technical possibility. Its possible to crucify Canadian POW's and throw babies out of incubators but both stories are lies designed to demonsie an enemy and raise emotional support for war.
No, Basil, surely the most sensible thing is to get a sense of proportion and realise that the D.A.I. incident was the tiny little fire amidst the great bank of fog and smoke of rumour about the use of corpses to make soap.Perhaps, but then you would have to treat it - the great bank of fog and smoke - as war atrocity propaganda. You likely won't because then you will have to apply the same rubric to all the other monstrous tales. Are you willing to do that?
Why? Because Bradley Smith told you so?So now you have to resort to cheap insult. Why?
What difference would it make to your Faith? What faith is that? The corpses weren't even Jewish, and the experiments, if they were real, weren't even authorised by the Fuehrer.So what? Do the alleged victims have to be Jewish before something can be war atrocity propaganda? Do the alleged acts have to be personally ordered by Hitler likewise?
Hairsplitting sophistry, as usual. You call it nonsense, but the study isn't false. Eh?Oh go try it on someone else, will you? It is customary when charging someone with a logical fallacy to demonstrate this by analysing the argument and showing the flaw. Merely calling something sophistry or illogical is just rhetoric, nothing more.

[Basil Fawlty]

Even if it is true, I don't see anything wrong with it? It's just carcass.Because the dead should be accorded some diginity. Next you will approve of cannablism - all that meat going to waste.

[Felix the Cat]

Because the dead should be accorded some diginity. Next you will approve of cannablism - all that meat going to waste.
The flesh of adult humans not really going to waste, since it is rather tough and unpleasant to the taste (so I'm told)

Young children on the other hand are (allegedly) excellent, and would no doubt make a wonderful addition to the national diet

[Basil Fawlty]

The flesh of adult humans not really going to waste, since it is rather tough and unpleasant to the taste (so I'm told)Cannibals often say the opposite. Supposedly we taste like pork. :eek:
Young children on the other hand are (allegedly) excellent, and would no doubt make a wonderful addition to the national dietVery likely, in fact Jonathan Swift wrote some recipes for serving baby, in A Modest Proposal.

[calvin]

“Commissioned by the IPN, Professor Andrzej Stolyhwo of the Warsaw Agricultural University found human tissue in the soap.”

A report commissioned by an organisation called the “Institute for National Remembrance” found traces of “human tissue” in the sample analysed.

Traces of human tissue are not human fat. Traces of human tissue would be found on any piece of soap handled by humans either at point of production or in subsequent usage. These traces of human tissue would most probably be secretions from the sebaceous glands. There is no convincing evidence that these “traces” have any nefarious provenance, nor is there any convincing evidence linking these “traces” to Jewish internees. I am doubtful that these traces even exist, because I believe that the commissioning agent has a vested interest in establishing the existence of these “traces”.

The soap saga reveals yet another aspect of the devious methodology of the holocaust fundamentalists. The fundamentalists promote parallel truths. The “traces” of evidence discovered in these test form the evidential basis for a mythical belief in mass-production of soap from cadavers. The people who disseminate the original information do nothing at all to quash this myth and allow it to become established as a popular truth. When challenged on this the “experts” will assert that they never made any explicit claim pertaining to mass-production. When people assert, on the basis of this admission, that the allegation that the Germans made soap out of Jewish cadavers is false, the fundamentalists return to their original position and stridently complain that the Germans did make soap out of cadavers.

There is no evidence that the Germans mass-produced soap from cadavers during WWII. There is no evidence (documentation?) coming from neutral sources that the Germans produced soap from humans at all.

There is a WWI precedent for the soap story that everyone accepts was a lie.

The study in question was unscientific because there was no control used. A similar sample of soap from WWII Germany, of known non-human composition, may have yielded traces of human tissue.

The human soap allegation has no scientific basis whatsoever.

[Arminius]

Because the dead should be accorded some diginity. Next you will approve of cannablism - all that meat going to waste.

There's nothing wrong with cannibalism, as long as the person wasn't killed; in which case the killer would be guilty of murder. However, why should dead bodies be accorded dignity? People get dignity and respect, but dead people are dead, lifeless chunks of organic matter. The more logical option would be to put the bodies to use rather than throw them in a hole.

[Basil Fawlty]

There's nothing wrong with cannibalism, as long as the person wasn't killed; in which case the killer would be guilty of murder. However, why should dead bodies be accorded dignity? People get dignity and respect, but dead people are dead, lifeless chunks of organic matter.Has anyone close to you died, a parent or sibling? Is anything sacred to you?The more logical option would to put the bodies to use rather than throw them in a hole.Only according to the logic of instrumentality characteristic of a society which places technical domination as a supreme value. If you don't share that value then it comes across as just further evidence of the nihilistic nature of just such a society.

[Volksdeutsche]

It never has been a legal offence to make soap from human remains........

[Basil Fawlty]

It never has been a legal offence to make soap from human remains........I'm sure you'll find that it is covered by some law somewhere - desecration of the dead is or at least was a crime in many places, in the past if not still.
It certainly offends against many culture's and people's sense of how the dead should be treated. I personally find donation of cadavers to medical research repulsive if understandable.

[Arminius]

Has anyone close to you died, a parent or sibling?

Yes. I know where you are going there, and I will jump ahead. Even if something like that happened to someone close, it wouldn't affect my opinion. No matter, what happens to the cadaver, the body decays. Those relatives are probably worm food.

Is anything sacred to you?

Ideas.

Only according to the logic of instrumentality characteristic of a society which places technical domination as a supreme value. If you don't share that value then it comes across as just further evidence of the nihilistic nature of just such a society.

The dead bodies would've been thrown in a hole, left to decay or eaten by other organisms anyway. That's nature. If one can make a use of those dead bodies for the betterment of man in any small way, I think it is good. Decaying corpes in a hole serve no purpose for man. Taking their fat and making soap, or a delicious broth, does have purpose for man. I have personally always like cremation better than anything. It's more sanitary.

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes. I know where you are going there, and I will jump ahead. Even if something like that happened to someone close, it wouldn't affect my opinion.How do you know until it happens to you? Are you telling me that you would cheerfully deposit your mother's body down at the local soap factory? I wonder. No matter, what happens to the cadaver, the body decays. Those relatives are probably worm food.Defintely, unless they are cremated. That's the way of nature though. It is not part of nature to turn everything into raw material for human industry.
Ideas.Same here, but I also have room for other things, like family, patria, friendship, ethical obligation, my culture and traditions, God/gods, etc. For me these things are all no-go areas for those who can see only profit or a demented calculus of instrumentality.
The dead bodies would've been thrown in a hole, left to decay or eaten by other organisms anyway.No, they are not thrown in a hole. They are buried according to rituals and with respect, at least where I come from that's how we do it. If one can make a use of those dead bodies for the betterment of man in any small way, I think it is good. Decaying corpes in a hole serve no purpose for man. Taking their fat and making soap, or a delicious broth, does have purpose for man.Ok, so you place high value on instrumentality. But how can a means be an end? That's illogical. Instrumentality in your view is a supreme value - everything including the dead exist as raw maetrial for human technical projects. This doesn't make sense. A useful thing is only useful insofar as it is useful for something other than itself. What is this something, this end towards which everything is evaluated?

[Arminius]

How do you know until it happens to you? Are you telling me that you would cheerfully deposit your mother's body down at the local soap factory? I wonder.

I wouldn't be cheerful about her death. Though she would be dead. Her lifeless body isn't her. Throwing bodies in the earth is just another means of disposal.

Defintely, unless they are cremated. That's the way of nature though. It is not part of nature to turn everything into raw material for human industry.

Man is part of the natural world. What is the difference that a man eats a body or that a different organism does? What if the man needs a product other than food, like soap? What if the man needs the body for scientific research and not a product or food? Either way, the body is being used by man for a benefit.

Same here, but I also have room for other things, like family, patria, friendship, ethical obligation, my culture and traditions, God/gods, etc. For me these things are all no-go areas for those who can see only profit or a demented calculus of instrumentality.

Some of those things I would call ideas and ideals. The family thing I agree with, but I don't hold their dead bodies sacred. I seperate the body from the mind at the time of death. The mind of the person no longer exists, the brain no longer has life.

No, they are not thrown in a hole. They are buried according to rituals and with respect, at least where I come from that's how we do it.

Specifically I was refering to the treatment of bodies en masse and during war.

Ok, so you place high value on instrumentality. But how can a means be an end? That's illogical. Instrumentality in your view is a supreme value - everything including the dead exist as raw maetrial for human technical projects. This doesn't make sense. A useful thing is only useful insofar as it is useful for something other than itself. What is this something, this end towards which everything is evaluated?

Your actually putting words in my mouth now. I didn't say everything exists as a raw material. The dead can be used as such because, I feel it is like another lifeless organic compound. We do to plants what we want and use them as materials, why not a lifeless body? The plant at least has life, before it is killed for its value as a raw material. You are giving the lifeless body the value of a living person. It's not.

[Mackie]

NAZIS MADE JEWISH SOAP AND I USED IT! :mad:

Sorry, I know its spam but I just felt like saying that. I couldnt resist the urge :p
And hey, why would them jews mind, least its very kosher :D:D

[tempus fugit]

How come you never read articles like "Scientific discoveries by Nazis during WWII"?

It's hard to believe they didn't learn anything from all that torture and studying to......hehe....TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!

[eggheadbanga]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eggheadbanga
Much like Glenn Miller, eh?

That's where the similarity ends. What little point are you trying to make by mentioning that idiot here?

I seem to remember Irving constantly proffering the begging bowl for his Cause on fpp.co.uk :D

Quote:
No, most are not, unless you wish to reduce 'revisionism' to a circle of five people.

You can't have it both ways, on the one hand you like to prate on about how revisionism has not done much original in the last while, on the other hand, when siginificant reasons are given (persecution legal and extra-legal) are mentioned, we get a silly remark like that one.

No, Basil, you said 'most of them [revisionists] are in prison'. This is a [B]fairly simple factual point[/B] independent of value judgements. I count two revisionists (Rudolf and Zundel) and a 'half-pregnant woman' (Irving) in jail right now. By contrast, Faurisson, Mattogno, Bradley Smith, Friedrich Paul Berg, Aynat, Boisdefeu, Graf, Butz, Crowell and most of the other big names are at liberty. So, unless you wish to disqualify most of the above list as revisionists, the majority are not in jail. Nor have even the majority of the above-mentioned even [I]been[/I] in jail.

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Which would be very difficult so long as you and others try and force the DAI story into the box marked 'Holocaust'.

You haven't been reading the thread. I place it in a box called War Atrocity Propaganda, I place Holocaust in the same box. Species/genus distinction[/QUOTE].

Didn't stop you remarking about Jews in the thread, did it? As we shall soon see.

[QUOTE]Quote:
Except you didn't. Try again, this time bearing in mind that it's a purely Polish matter, not a Jewish issue.

I giave very good reasons, again, you are not reading the thread and resrting to strawman arguments. *Yawn*[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

so you didn't write this then?

[QUOTE]Would it be justified only to find out that this is yet another study that claims to prove that pigs can fly and that the known laws of physics were all miraculously suspended whenever the evil Nazis came into contact with the Jews? [/QUOTE]

What's the J-word doing in a thread about a Polish Institute?

[QUOTE]Quote:
Apples and oranges, Basil. To the best of anyone's knowledge, the technology does not exist to read people's minds. Whereas the art of turning animal fats into soap has existed for centuries.

The art of war atrocity propaganda and demonisation is what is interesting and important here not some technical possibility. [/QUOTE]

Basil shifts tack. In case readers need reminding, Basil invoked tin foil hats as a comparison, whereas there is absolutely nothing technically implausible about turning fat into soap. Thus, he was juggling apples and oranges, as usual.

[QUOTE]Its possible to crucify Canadian POW's and throw babies out of incubators but both stories are lies designed to demonsie an enemy and raise emotional support for war[/QUOTE].

Wherein your argument immediately fails, since no one breathed a word about the Danzig Anatomy Institute until Danzig had fallen to the Russians; which was at the end of the war, wasn't it Basil?

[QUOTE]Quote:
No, Basil, surely the most sensible thing is to get a sense of proportion and realise that the D.A.I. incident was the tiny little fire amidst the great bank of fog and smoke of rumour about the use of corpses to make soap.

Perhaps, but then you would have to treat it - the great bank of fog and smoke - as war atrocity propaganda. You likely won't because then you will have to apply the same rubric to all the other monstrous tales. Are you willing to do that?[/QUOTE]

The question is are you? Because even the most elementary knowledge of the reports that have come down to us shows that there is simply no comparison between 'soap' and "other monstrous tales", for the sake of example, homicidal gas chambers.

Namely, there is precisely [B]one[/B] example of 'soap', namely the Danzig Anatomy Institute, which involved at most a handful of bodies being misused for experimental purposes, by a non-SS scientist, without instructions from above. The incident was investigated by the Russians/Poles with the cooperation of the British, since several British POWs were assigned as workers to the Institute. Then it was brought up at Nuremberg. After this, the soon-to-be West Germans investigated the alleged soap-maker, Professor Spanner, and did not press charges. In other words, the entire subject ran aground as far as justice was concerned.

Entirely separately, wartime rumours evolving out of the availability of the R.I.F. brand and picking up on the prevailing custom of manufacturing tallow soap created a 'Jewish soap' meme which passed through ghettos and among some camp survivors. This can still be heard from a few select geriatric Floridans and various Jaffa fruitcakes to this day.

However, it is a striking feature of the typical concentration camp survivor testimony or memoir that there is no mention of soap-making whatsoever. Not a single gas chamber witness ever mentions a soap factory attached to Krematorium II, or housed somewhere on the grounds of Treblinka. Nor, indeed, do the infinitely larger number of run-of-the-mill camp survivors' narratives. I've never seen a witness statement mentioning soap in relation to a camp.

Thus, we are left with a situation where precisely three groups care about 'soap', namely 1) Poles, 2) a few select Jaffa fruitcakes who are having flashbacks to a nonexistent past, and last but not least 3) revisionists. Of the three groups, the one that cares the most about 'soap' are the revisionists.

Revisionists, of course, would love to create the equivalence 'soap story false, gas chamber story false'. Unfortunately, this comparison doesn't work, since the soap story in its more florid form is pure urban myth and spread identically to an urban myth. Gas chamber stories, as even the most hidebound revisionist would have to concede, were not only many times more numerous but were also the subject of judicial investigations for the better part of 60 years.

[QUOTE]Quote:
Why? Because Bradley Smith told you so?

So now you have to resort to cheap insult. Why?[/QUOTE]

Because you were being a dogmatic asshole as usual, Basil.

[QUOTE]Quote:
What difference would it make to your Faith?

What faith is that? [/QUOTE]

that Nazi Gassings Never Happened, and the Fuehrer was a poor misunderstood cherub who simply wanted to go into the living-room but ended up on the Volga instead.

[QUOTE]Quote:
The corpses weren't even Jewish, and the experiments, if they were real, weren't even authorised by the Fuehrer.

So what? Do the alleged victims have to be Jewish before something can be war atrocity propaganda? Do the alleged acts have to be personally ordered by Hitler likewise?[/QUOTE]

So a lot, if you insist on bringing up the J-word as you did earlier. Oh, dear, here's another Basil insinuation, along with the H-word too.

[QUOTE]To me, the report suggests that the Industry are up to their old tricks again. Trying to breathe life back into the soap story. They don't lie being mocked about it becaeu it undermines confidence in other mor serious items of nonsense they need to keep the holocaust story afloat. Expect to see more studies about lampshades.[/QUOTE]

Since I presume we agree that there is no Industry working overtime on behalf of the cause of Polish martyrdom, I guess you meant the Holocaust industry Basil?

[QUOTE]Quote:
Hairsplitting sophistry, as usual. You call it nonsense, but the study isn't false. Eh?

Oh go try it on someone else, will you? It is customary when charging someone with a logical fallacy to demonstrate this by analysing the argument and showing the flaw. Merely calling something sophistry or illogical is just rhetoric, nothing more[/QUOTE].

The logical fallacy was pointed out in the next sentence: you called it nonsense, but apparently you didn't want to call the study false when pressed into a corner by Der Sozialist.

What amuses me so immensely about watching you on this thread is that you've repeatedly insisted that the story absolutely must be false, becoming ever more hysterical when queried about this stance by Der Sozialist, whereas so far I haven't even confirmed whether I think the story is true or not. Who's the dogmatist now, Basil?

[Sulla the Dictator]

How come you never read articles like "Scientific discoveries by Nazis during WWII"?


Actually there was a controversy a few years back because a professor had used Nazi data on body temperature experiments, I believe. That or decompression, one of the two.

[Commander]

http://www.pg.com/images/product_card/v3/zest/pb_zest_prod01.jpg

I use Zest (http://www.pg.com/product_card/brand_overview.jhtml?document=/product_cards/prod_card_main_zest.xml&brand_name=Zest). This new Jew soap, I don't know, I bet it is not as good? :confused:

[Oblisk]

Zest is amazing.

[Basil Fawlty]

I seem to remember Irving constantly proffering the begging bowl for his Cause on fpp.co.uk :DThat's what people who don't extort billions have to do. We might add that Irving's books have always sold out, gone into reprintings to be sold out once again, and never appear remaindered despite the facts that; a.) they are difficult to obtain because of retail bocotts, b.) they are even free to download. We have no difficulty obtaining the works of evidence distorters and falsifiers like Gilbert or Arad, who still manage to find themselves being remaindered. I noticed a recent additon in the form of the recent Dresden perfuming job, available here at one shop for Euro 7.99 (HB).

NB. These remarks concerning pleas for financial support by revisionists (as well as a smear by mentioning the federal informant and moron TGM) clearly show the cynicism of a man who has personally received benefice from the Industry.
No, Basil, you said 'most of them [revisionists] are in prison'. This is a [B]fairly simple factual point[/B] independent of value judgements. I count two revisionists (Rudolf and Zundel) and a 'half-pregnant woman' (Irving) in jail right now. By contrast, Faurisson, Mattogno, Bradley Smith, Friedrich Paul Berg, Aynat, Boisdefeu, Graf, Butz, Crowell and most of the other big names are at liberty. So, unless you wish to disqualify most of the above list as revisionists, the majority are not in jail. Nor have even the majority of the above-mentioned even [I]been[/I] in jail.All the Americans enjoy First Amendment protection, something your paymasters would dearly love to abolish. The rest have been subjected to persecution legal and extra-legal, for exmaple, the beatings administered to Faurisson by Jewish terrorists, fir-bombings, endless smear campaigns, fines and seizures and Graf is 'on the run' as we say here; so what does this tell us? There are more than just those mentioned, in jail in Europe. I'll find the list.
Didn't stop you remarking about Jews in the thread, did it? As we shall soon see.
What's the J-word doing in a thread about a Polish Institute?I don't know what age you are, but I grew up listening to stories about Jews being turned into bars of soap. There were even bars of soap given funerals in Israel, yes? This memory institute is trying to give new life to this old crock of nonsense. So can we rule out Jews on the basis of DNA testing of said bars of soap?
Basil shifts tack. In case readers need reminding, Basil invoked tin foil hats as a comparison, whereas there is absolutely nothing technically implausible about turning fat into soap. Thus, he was juggling apples and oranges, as usual.No, he was dismissing it as nonsense. Throwing babies out of incubators is technically possible, but nonsense, like the soap stories. Designed to demonise.
Wherein your argument immediately fails, since no one breathed a word about the Danzig Anatomy Institute until Danzig had fallen to the Russians; which was at the end of the war, wasn't it Basil?And no one mentioned pedal-driven brain bashing machines until after the war, and a lot of the other daft stories in the Nuremberg collection of horror fantasies.
The question is are you? Because even the most elementary knowledge of the reports that have come down to us shows that there is simply no comparison between 'soap' and "other monstrous tales", for the sake of example, homicidal gas chambers.Can you explain why people of my generation were brought up with stories of Jews being turned into bars of soap on an industrial scale? The Industry only repudiated it after Revisionism had exposed it. If not, we would still be listening to that crap. Many ordinary people still believe it.
Namely, there is precisely [B]one[/B] example of 'soap', namely the Danzig Anatomy Institute, which involved at most a handful of bodies being misused for experimental purposes, by a non-SS scientist, without instructions from above. The incident was investigated by the Russians/Poles with the cooperation of the British, since several British POWs were assigned as workers to the Institute. Then it was brought up at Nuremberg. After this, the soon-to-be West Germans investigated the alleged soap-maker, Professor Spanner, and did not press charges. In other words, the entire subject ran aground as far as justice was concerned.
Then why were we fed these stories for so long? Why did your elder colleagues not clear this matter up? Why did they only do so after Revisionists exposed it?
Entirely separately, wartime rumours evolving out of the availability of the R.I.F. brand and picking up on the prevailing custom of manufacturing tallow soap created a 'Jewish soap' meme which passed through ghettos and among some camp survivors. This can still be heard from a few select geriatric Floridans and various Jaffa fruitcakes to this day. They obviously didn't get the update from Yad Vashem. :rofl:
However, it is a striking feature of the typical concentration camp survivor testimony or memoir that there is no mention of soap-making whatsoever. Not a single gas chamber witness ever mentions a soap factory attached to Krematorium II, or housed somewhere on the grounds of Treblinka. Nor, indeed, do the infinitely larger number of run-of-the-mill camp survivors' narratives. I've never seen a witness statement mentioning soap in relation to a camp.And yet some of us grew with this as an iconic image; Jews being turned onto soap. Now it seems we just have to pretend that wasn't true, we didn't hear those stories, it was all a hallucination or an "urban myth" as you like to have it. A myth propagated by the media in its time thus supporting my contention that this is war atrocity propaganda.
Thus, we are left with a situation where precisely three groups care about 'soap', namely 1) Poles, 2) a few select Jaffa fruitcakes who are having flashbacks to a nonexistent past, and last but not least 3) revisionists. Of the three groups, the one that cares the most about 'soap' are the revisionists.Not in previous times when we were regaled with these and other monstrous tales. You might not like it but that's what we were being told back then. It looks to me like they are trying to revive this story in some form. I still encounter people who repeat the soap stories, people who are not revisionists, religious nuts, or Poles. It is still a common belief amongst people.
Revisionists, of course, would love to create the equivalence 'soap story false, gas chamber story false'. They don't. They say that these stories are just that, stories, moreover, they show that to be the case. Egghead is trying to insinuate that Revisionists argue that "soap stories are false therefore gas chamber stories are false." This is a rather mendacious strawman argument.Unfortunately, this comparison doesn't work, since the soap story in its more florid form is pure urban myth and spread identically to an urban myth. So were gas chamber stories. They just received more support because they were more essential to the "factories of death" story. Gas chamber stories, as even the most hidebound revisionist would have to concede, were not only many times more numerous but were also the subject of judicial investigations for the better part of 60 years. Many more reports, few or none of which cohere with each other in non-trivial and often substantial respects, and which have never been investigated in the way you suggest. It is normal to produce a murder weapon in court. This has never been done. And before you come back with some smart remark about fitting gas chambers into courts, the so-called court should have gone to the see the murder weapon. They didn't because they didn't exist and no one on the allied side was interested in that because this was not a court or a trial in any meaningful sense of the word. It was a kangaroo court, or formalised lynch mob, set up by the victors, to pin responsibility for the war onto the Germans. Your failure to acknowledge what any and all impartial observers, and even plenty of partial ones, have said about those proceedings reveals a great deal about your dogmatic affiliations.
Because you were being a dogmatic asshole as usual, Basil.Even if that were true, which it is not, its not as bad as being a bought man, is it?
that Nazi Gassings Never Happened,That requires no faith at all, just a close proper look at the evidence used to make such claims. Its the opposite scenario that requires faith. These are, as it were, the miracles of the new quasi-religion of Holocaustianity. You are one of its scriptural exegetes.and the Fuehrer was a poor misunderstood cherub who simply wanted to go into the living-room but ended up on the Volga instead.Now you want to get into gross misrpresentation. When have I ever said such a thing? I have rarely if ever commented on Hitler and likewise his policies and actions regarding the East beyond some general comments.
So a lot, if you insist on bringing up the J-word as you did earlier. Oh, dear, here's another Basil insinuation, along with the H-word too.See above passim. I'll repeat the questions I posed:
Do the alleged victims have to be Jewish before something can be war atrocity propaganda?
Do the alleged acts have to be personally ordered by Hitler in odre to be used as war atrocity propaganda?
Since I presume we agree that there is no Industry working overtime on behalf of the cause of Polish martyrdom, I guess you meant the Holocaust industry Basil?Yes, the terms Funding Bias and Industry in this case refer to the Holocaust Industry. The Industry ocassionally includes goyish issues and matters indirectly related to the holy story as and when it seems necessary to do so. They will even fund goyish institutes and historians. *cough*
The logical fallacy was pointed out in the next sentence: you called it nonsense, but apparently you didn't want to call the study false when pressed into a corner by Der Sozialist. If there is any logical fallacy it is yours, for confounding 'nonsense' with 'false'. To point out and insist on the difference is certainly not hair-splitting. To dismiss something as nonsense is of an entirely different order to demonstrating something to be false. Its only people like you who think that dismissing something as nonsense is a form of falsification, because that is what your side indulge in when they are not making personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or strawman building.
What amuses me so immensely about watching you on this thread is that you've repeatedly insisted that the story absolutely must be false, becoming ever more hysterical when queried about this stance by Der Sozialist, whereas so far I haven't even confirmed whether I think the story is true or not. Who's the dogmatist now, Basil?I have never said the study "absolutely must be false" - show me where I say that, go on, or withdraw that remark. I said it was recycled nonsense. Much earlier in the thread I said " I have given powerful reasons why it is reasonable to be sceptical to the point of disbelief." Where is the imperative it "absoultely must be false"? What kind of scholar are you that you have to twist someone's argument to the point of mendacious distortion?

Now, I reviewed some of the reasons why I don't think taking this study seriously is reasonable (i.e. dismissing it as nonsense), and gave a few points as to what should be done before it could be taken seriously. In Post 67 (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=202512&postcount=67) Calvin gives a more detailed response as to why we must conclude at this point that " The human soap allegation has no scientific basis whatsoever." I therefore believe I am quite justified in dismissing this as "nonsense" and and some kind of attempt at reviving war atrocity propaganda.
Your failure to address this aspect of the matter, the burden imposed by scientific method, leads me to conclude that you are conducting a personal attack on me - pettyfogging and gross distortion, culminating in calling me a "dogmatic asshole", which is why I have responded in kind. Leave it out, Egg and I'll happily do likewise.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Can you explain why people of my generation were brought up with stories of Jews being turned into bars of soap on an industrial scale?


LOL You were 'brought up' on that? That was actually never a significant part of MY education about the Holocaust. There is a small subsection of the Holocaust in which bizarre German atrocities are usually relegated that focus on individual acts of extreme depravity.

But I've never read anything about "industrial soap making".

[Thomas777]

LOL You were 'brought up' on that? That was actually never a significant part of MY education about the Holocaust. There is a small subsection of the Holocaust in which bizarre German atrocities are usually relegated that focus on individual acts of extreme depravity.

But I've never read anything about "industrial soap making".

I was in the 11th grade back in 1992-93 and in my European History class, much attention was devoted to "The Holocaust". We watched a film entitled "Genocide" that claimed (among other things) that Jewish victims were used to make soap, their hair was used to stuff pillows, their skin was employed for various purposes, etc.

I would imagine that many other people in America were subjected to the same sorts of Marvel Comics-esque narratives of Nazi villany. Even as a teenager, I found this sort of agitprop to be inherently incredible and pornographic.

[Basil Fawlty]

LOL You were 'brought up' on that? That was actually never a significant part of MY education about the Holocaust. There is a small subsection of the Holocaust in which bizarre German atrocities are usually relegated that focus on individual acts of extreme depravity.

But I've never read anything about "industrial soap making".Yad Vashem formally repudiated the soap stories in 1990 (?). You are 27, yes? In 1990 you were c. 6-7. Scroll back, I did say people of a certain generation. :rolleyes:
Clearly by the time you were being indoctrinated, sorry, educated about the Holocaust, the Industry had become more circumspect on this after the Yad Vashem announcement.

[cerberus]

Sulla.LOL You were 'brought up' on that? That was actually never a significant part of MY education about the Holocaust. There is a small subsection of the Holocaust in which bizarre German atrocities are usually relegated that focus on individual acts of extreme depravity.

But I've never read anything about "industrial soap making".

News to me as well. can you give any clues as to who ran this "industry" , there is a differene between propaganda and fact , before asking for answers it is best first to know how to differentiate between the two.

EggheadNo, Basil, you said 'most of them [revisionists] are in prison'. This is a fairly simple factual point independent of value judgements. I count two revisionists (Rudolf and Zundel) and a 'half-pregnant woman' (Irving) in jail right now. By contrast, Faurisson, Mattogno, Bradley Smith, Friedrich Paul Berg, Aynat, Boisdefeu, Graf, Butz, Crowell and most of the other big names are at liberty. So, unless you wish to disqualify most of the above list as revisionists, the majority are not in jail. Nor have even the majority of the above-mentioned even been in jail.

Fair points egghead , I am quite sure that Germar Rudolf is one of those mentioned , Graf or Berg ?
It must be hard when it comes to signing a cheque - " who am I going to be today" , a bit likre " Revisionists in their Eyes":)
"Today readers , I am going to be.........":rofl:

Sulla Actually there was a controversy a few years back because a professor had used Nazi data on body temperature experiments, I believe. That or decompression, one of the two.
They definately did body temperature , compresion - I think they may have experiemented inthat quarter as well.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I was in the 11th grade back in 1992-93 and in my European History class, much attention was devoted to "The Holocaust". We watched a film entitled "Genocide" that claimed (among other things) that Jewish victims were used to make soap, their hair was used to stuff pillows, their skin was employed for various purposes, etc.


Well first of all, I don't even think Holocaust deniers claim that the Nazis DIDN'T use the hair of inmates for a variety of oddball things.

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/U/B/auschwitz27.jpg

Secondly, it sounds more like the film mentions in passing the specific atrocities I already discussed, rather than suggesting that these were mass events. Everything I've read points to these being rather extreme incidents. And this has always been true, even in 1992.

Thirdly, I'd like to point out that our eye witness to this film, Thomas, has an amazing ability to recall a line in a film he saw 15 years ago, while a teenager.

[Thomas777]

Well first of all, I don't even think Holocaust deniers claim that the Nazis DIDN'T use the hair of inmates for a variety of oddball things.
This is a bizarre claim. What possible utility would there be to stuffing things with human hair?

Additionally, the picture you proffered doesn't really tell the gallery anything. It looks like a pile of sleeping bags or sacks of flour. What exactly am I supposed to extrapolate from this?

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/U/B/auschwitz27.jpg

Secondly, it sounds more like the film mentions in passing the specific atrocities I already discussed, rather than suggesting that these were mass events. Everything I've read points to these being rather extreme incidents. And this has always been true, even in 1992.
The narrative presents these atrocities as standard operating procedure..i.e.: Nazis used human remains to make soap. Not, "individuals serving in the SS did terrible things". In contrast, the Red Army was notorious for mutilating enemy troops...specifically, gouging of eyes and castration. When this is discussed in history texts ("Hitler's Army" comes to mind), it is not presented as "the Soviet Union castrated people en masse"...rather, it is correctly presented as undisciplined troops in the field indulging in barbarism.

Thirdly, I'd like to point out that our eye witness to this film, Thomas, has an amazing ability to recall a line in a film he saw 15 years ago, while a teenager.
There is nothing amazing about it. Anybody with a reasonably good memory can recall events of 13 or 14 years ago if those events made a strong impression upon them. My teacher's name was Mr. Ricci, and the fat kid who sat in front of me was named Mike Beritz. This film was a four hour documentary watched over several days that contained shocking claims and gory footage. I was so affected by it, I began avidly researching the Third Reich after viewing it.

[Sulla the Dictator]

This is a bizarre claim. What possible utility would there be to stuffing things with human hair?


I don't know anything about what the hair was used for. Though it would make sense as a cheap recycling method for common necessities in concentration camps. The fact is that they saved the hair. A great deal of it, in fact.


Additionally, the picture you proffered doesn't really tell the gallery anything. It looks like a pile of sleeping bags or sacks of flour. What exactly am I supposed to extrapolate from this?


You can see, quite clearly, the hair from one of the sacks spilling onto the rest of them. Its the dark mass on the sacks.

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/U/B/auschwitz27.jpg


The narrative presents these atrocities as standard operating procedure..i.e.: Nazis used human remains to make soap. Not, "individuals serving in the SS did terrible things".


Why should anyone be generous to a regime that was shooting, gassing, and starving millions of people?


In contrast, the Red Army was notorious for mutilating enemy troops...specifically, gouging of eyes and castration. When this is discussed in history texts ("Hitler's Army" comes to mind), it is not presented as "the Soviet Union castrated people en masse"...rather, it is correctly presented as undisciplined troops in the field indulging in barbarism.


Communist forces are portrayed as a ravaging horde in their invasion of Germany without any significant distinction. Obviously there were plenty of Soviet troops who entered Germany and were nothing but kind. They don't get an honorable mention.

And only a Communist sympathizer would EXPECT THEM TO. Why be generous to an army that was doing terrible things, by and large?

[cerberus]

Thomas777Additionally, the picture you proffered doesn't really tell the gallery anything. It looks like a pile of sleeping bags or sacks of flour. What exactly am I supposed to extrapolate from this?
If the content of these packages was not going to be used why go to the bother in the first place?:confused:
Why not just destroy it ?:confused:
Why pack it all up so securely - it was wanted for something.
What do you think it was wanted for ?:confused:

[eggheadbanga]

That's what people who don't extort billions have to do. We might add that Irving's books have always sold out, gone into reprintings to be sold out once again, and never appear remaindered despite the facts that; a.) they are difficult to obtain because of retail bocotts, b.) they are even free to download. We have no difficulty obtaining the works of evidence distorters and falsifiers like Gilbert or Arad, who still manage to find themselves being remaindered. I noticed a recent additon in the form of the recent Dresden perfuming job, available here at one shop for Euro 7.99 (HB).

Wasn't it Irving's claim that his livelihood was threatened because of among other things, commercial decisions by the likes of St Martins' Press not to publish his Goebbels biography? And therefore led to his suit against Lipstadt? Even though his sudden fall from 100,000+ bestseller in the 70s to mainstream publishing pariah was solely due to his endorsement of the discredited Leuchter report?

NB. These remarks concerning pleas for financial support by revisionists (as well as a smear by mentioning the federal informant and moron TGM) clearly show the cynicism of a man who has personally received benefice from the Industry.

Irving was receiving nice fat book advances many times a research grant in size for decades. He committed commercial suicide after 1988 by placing all his eggs in the revisionist basket. In retrospect, he should have sued Faurisson for ruining his livelihood by tempting him over to the Cause. The hilarity of it all is Irving *knew* damn well within a very short space of time that he was endorsing a lemon, aka Mr Death's hilariously ignorant pseudo-engineering 'report'.

FYI, the 'benefice' I have received amounted to 6% of my time in part-time and full-time postgraduate education.

All the Americans enjoy First Amendment protection, something your paymasters would dearly love to abolish. The rest have been subjected to persecution legal and extra-legal, for exmaple, the beatings administered to Faurisson by Jewish terrorists, fir-bombings, endless smear campaigns, fines and seizures and Graf is 'on the run' as we say here; so what does this tell us? There are more than just those mentioned, in jail in Europe. I'll find the list.

You do that. I'll spare you some searching, and tell you that there have been just 29 prosecutions under the Gayssot law in its first decade of operation. No doubt Fauri counts for at least two of those.

I don't know what age you are, but I grew up listening to stories about Jews being turned into bars of soap.

You poor dear. At school I learnt, all on my own, by reading Hilberg, that the Jewish soap story had no credibility, though there might have been something going on with Stutthof and the Danzig Institute which however did not involve Jews. Soon enough I became aware that there was a persistent urban myth that Jews had been turned into soap, such that for example, sabras in Israel called survivors from Europe 'soap'. I assumed this was a good example of a sick sense of humour, and didn't take it very seriously.

There were even bars of soap given funerals in Israel, yes?

Indeed there were. But strangely enough the only people to mention this now are those that read Greg Raven's rather idiotic website.

This memory institute is trying to give new life to this old crock of nonsense.

Basil, Basil, Basil, how many times do I have to make this clear? Danzig Institute involved Polish, possibly even German bodies. The IPN is the same organisation that also investigates the mass murders of Poles by the Soviets. It's a Polish thang, and you evidently wouldn't understand.

So can we rule out Jews on the basis of DNA testing of said bars of soap?

We can rule out the involvement of Jews by the provenance of the bodies, namely Stutthof. Do you think that unless there was specific racial anthropological research, of the kind which led Kramer to gas a small number of Jewish prisoners in Natzweiler so their skeletons could be culled, that the National Socialist state would allow Jewish corpses to be supplied to scientific institutes?

No, he was dismissing it as nonsense. Throwing babies out of incubators is technically possible, but nonsense, like the soap stories. Designed to demonise.

Oh, Basil, it's that n-word again, along with yet more reasoning by analogies. Do you have _any_ awareness of the circumstances of the Danzig Institute story? Did you bother to use Google yet to search for Joachim Neander's painstaking reconstruction of the context? I don't want to spoil the surprise when you read it, but let me know when you do. Until then, there's little point trying to prise you off your high horse of unreasoning certitude.

Quote:
Wherein your argument immediately fails, since no one breathed a word about the Danzig Anatomy Institute until Danzig had fallen to the Russians; which was at the end of the war, wasn't it Basil?

And no one mentioned pedal-driven brain bashing machines until after the war, and a lot of the other daft stories in the Nuremberg collection of horror fantasies.

So none of these things were wartime propaganda, then, were they Basil? Quite a different kettle of fish to nuns impaled on bayonets and crucified Canadians, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
The question is are you? Because even the most elementary knowledge of the reports that have come down to us shows that there is simply no comparison between 'soap' and "other monstrous tales", for the sake of example, homicidal gas chambers.

Can you explain why people of my generation were brought up with stories of Jews being turned into bars of soap on an industrial scale? The Industry only repudiated it after Revisionism had exposed it.

Firstly, I seriously doubt you were really brought up on stories of mass produced Jewish soap. I challenge you to identify the school textbooks, scholarly monographs and the like in which this was mentioned. The most you will likely find is the de rigeur mention of the Danzig Institute in Polish history textbooks, and quite possibly some populist piece of sensationalism along the lines of Ilse: She-Wolf of the SS using what is, after all, a provocative trope to shock.

Second, revisionism didn't debunk the soap myth, historians did. As already mentioned, Hilberg pointed out in his standard work that the rumours were untrue. Standard accounts of Auschwitz by Sehn, Kulka/Kraus or Langbein dating back from the 1940s to 1960s do not mention soap production anywhere.

If not, we would still be listening to that crap. Many ordinary people still believe it.

Many ordinary people believe many urban myths, that doesn't mean that there was an identifiable agency spreading them except popular credulity.

Then why were we fed these stories for so long? Why did your elder colleagues not clear this matter up? Why did they only do so after Revisionists exposed it?

See above.

Quote:
Entirely separately, wartime rumours evolving out of the availability of the R.I.F. brand and picking up on the prevailing custom of manufacturing tallow soap created a 'Jewish soap' meme which passed through ghettos and among some camp survivors. This can still be heard from a few select geriatric Floridans and various Jaffa fruitcakes to this day.

They obviously didn't get the update from Yad Vashem.

Exactly, Basil! The soap story persists in the sub-stratum of popular historical consciousness because many people don't ever get exposed to the correct information, and instead believe either what they heard from a friend of a friend who was 'there', or from their parents, or from some novelisation/comic-book/piece of music/you name it.

Short of dragging everyone into a classroom for re-education there's nothing that academia, the school education system or museums can do about it. And since we all know how much you hate the idea of Holocaust education in any form, I guess we'll just have to live with these popular misconceptions spreading, right?

Quote:
However, it is a striking feature of the typical concentration camp survivor testimony or memoir that there is no mention of soap-making whatsoever. Not a single gas chamber witness ever mentions a soap factory attached to Krematorium II, or housed somewhere on the grounds of Treblinka. Nor, indeed, do the infinitely larger number of run-of-the-mill camp survivors' narratives. I've never seen a witness statement mentioning soap in relation to a camp.

And yet some of us grew with this as an iconic image; Jews being turned onto soap.

Don't forget to tell us what the source of exposure to this iconic image was. In my case, I suspect it might have been a line in 'Belsen Was A Gas' or something similar. Do punk lyrics count as cutting-edge scholarship, Basil?

Now it seems we just have to pretend that wasn't true, we didn't hear those stories, it was all a hallucination or an "urban myth" as you like to have it. A myth propagated by the media in its time thus supporting my contention that this is war atrocity propaganda.

Off you go to wherever the Irish equivalent of Colindale Newspaper Library is, Basil.

:bbbat:

Quote:
Thus, we are left with a situation where precisely three groups care about 'soap', namely 1) Poles, 2) a few select Jaffa fruitcakes who are having flashbacks to a nonexistent past, and last but not least 3) revisionists. Of the three groups, the one that cares the most about 'soap' are the revisionists.

Not in previous times when we were regaled with these and other monstrous tales. You might not like it but that's what we were being told back then. It looks to me like they are trying to revive this story in some form.

I'm going to repeat this one more time. POLES, Basil. I somehow doubt they asked permission from their ZOG controllers in Washington before the IPN decided to add this small item to their list of research projects.

I still encounter people who repeat the soap stories, people who are not revisionists, religious nuts, or Poles. It is still a common belief amongst people

I'm sure you do, Basil. Doesn't mean they picked it up from Arad, Gilbert or any of the other scholars you love to excoriate. Where *could* they have got the idea from? If they bothered to investigate what was actually alleged at Nuremberg, they'd soon see that the notion of 'Jewish soap' mass-produced on an industrial scale is completely unfounded. They might be left with a question-mark as to whether there was some experimentation; which is all that the news story refers to.

Quote:
Revisionists, of course, would love to create the equivalence 'soap story false, gas chamber story false'.

They don't. They say that these stories are just that, stories, moreover, they show that to be the case. Egghead is trying to insinuate that Revisionists argue that "soap stories are false therefore gas chamber stories are false." This is a rather mendacious strawman argument.

Nope, since Mark Weber wrote the following when reviewing the 'soap story' in the JHR:

"That so many intelligent and otherwise thoughtful people could ever have seriously believed that the Germans distributed bars of soap brazenly labelled with letters indicating that they were manufactured from Jewish corpses shows how readily even the most absurd HoIocaust fables can be -- and are -- accepted as fact."

It is argument from analogy.

Quote:
Unfortunately, this comparison doesn't work, since the soap story in its more florid form is pure urban myth and spread identically to an urban myth.

So were gas chamber stories. They just received more support because they were more essential to the "factories of death" story.

No, Basil, this won't fly. First you tell me that it's a mendacious strawman argument to suggest that revisionists allege that because soap was a myth, so too must the gas chambers be. Then you go and say it anyway!

Quote:
Gas chamber stories, as even the most hidebound revisionist would have to concede, were not only many times more numerous but were also the subject of judicial investigations for the better part of 60 years.

Many more reports, few or none of which cohere with each other in non-trivial and often substantial respects, and which have never been investigated in the way you suggest. It is normal to produce a murder weapon in court. This has never been done. And before you come back with some smart remark about fitting gas chambers into courts, the so-called court should have gone to the see the murder weapon.

Jan Sehn and his team did just that in the cases that really mattered for _proving_ what happened at Auschwitz, the Hoess and Krakow trials in 1947. They not only observed the shattered remnants of the murder weapons but took forensic samples from it proving the qualitative presence of cyanides. Under the circumstances, it was no different to a 1945-era murder trial finding gunpowder residue on a shattered revolver barrel and using this to corroborate eyewitness testimony that someone had been shot.

In all other cases prior to this, gas chambers made up a fraction of the allegations. The defendants at Belsen were going to swing because of what the British 2nd Army found on-site, and investigated to the best of anyone's satisfaction forensically: mass starvation. The defendants at Nuremberg were at policy-level. Given Sauckel's fate, to pretend that there would have been a different outcome had the Nazis 'only' mass-deported Europe's Jews to the Ukraine or Belorussia seems like complete pie in the sky.

They didn't because they didn't exist and no one on the allied side was interested in that because this was not a court or a trial in any meaningful sense of the word. It was a kangaroo court, or formalised lynch mob, set up by the victors, to pin responsibility for the war onto the Germans.

Funnily enough I've been reading through files relating to Nuremberg and the preceding, parallel and subsequent British war crimes investigations this past week in Kew. Do you have any idea how unimportant gas chambers were to the contemporary understanding of what the Nazi regime had inflicted on occupied Europe and the opposing Allied armies? I count probably 70 files out of 1700 in the WO309 series of war crimes investigations that touch on gassings in any way, shape or form. I would say the balance of time spent on gas chambers or soap during the year long Nuremberg trial would be similar or even more fractional.

Your failure to acknowledge what any and all impartial observers, and even plenty of partial ones, have said about those proceedings reveals a great deal about your dogmatic affiliations.

Really? I should think that an impartial study of Nuremberg would reveal that the things that obsess you most were only a small fraction of the proceedings, and of the crimes alleged to have been committed by the accused. You might find, for example, that Keitel and Jodl swung not because of atrocity propaganda about soap manufacture, but because they signed orders condemning prisoners of war to death in flagrant violation of the laws of war; just to give one example. You may also notice, if you ever bother to apply a proper sense of the law, that there is a fundamental difference between what is alleged and what is proven, which in a case such as Nuremberg is to be found by reading the Judgement.

Which in this instance, reviewed the evidence presented by the Soviets and provided also by British interrogations of the POW-labourers who worked at the Danzig Institute, and concluded that 'attempts were made' to use human fat to make soap. That's all. Attempts. That was the official conclusion of the Tribunal, and this mentioned in the preamble to the specific consideration of individual guilt.

Quote:
Because you were being a dogmatic asshole as usual, Basil.

Even if that were true, which it is not, its not as bad as being a bought man, is it?

Oh, but Basil, you are dogmatic, whereas I'm not a bought man. See above.

Quote:
that Nazi Gassings Never Happened,

That requires no faith at all, just a close proper look at the evidence used to make such claims. Its the opposite scenario that requires faith. These are, as it were, the miracles of the new quasi-religion of Holocaustianity. You are one of its scriptural exegetes.

:rofl:

Projection is always unbecoming, Basil. Especially when you're demonstrating with every post your complete unwillingness to examine the evidence that was put forward about the soap story, or to read up on the critical evaluations that have come since, in a fair and reasoned manner, other than to claim it's all nonsense. You haven't even cited one of your gurus yet, so this is pure, undistilled revisionist faith-conforming on your part.


Quote:
and the Fuehrer was a poor misunderstood cherub who simply wanted to go into the living-room but ended up on the Volga instead.

Now you want to get into gross misrpresentation. .

No, Basil, it's called satire.

When have I ever said such a thing? I have rarely if ever commented on Hitler and likewise his policies and actions regarding the East beyond some general comments

I'll quit stereotyping you when you quit stereotyping me, Basil.

Quote:
So a lot, if you insist on bringing up the J-word as you did earlier. Oh, dear, here's another Basil insinuation, along with the H-word too.

See above passim. I'll repeat the questions I posed:
Do the alleged victims have to be Jewish before something can be war atrocity propaganda?

If Basil Fawlty wishes to bring up the J-word, then yes they do. Otherwise, no.

Do the alleged acts have to be personally ordered by Hitler in odre to be used as war atrocity propaganda?

If Basil Fawlty wishes to create any kind of equivalence between DAI and the Holocaust, then yes they do. Otherwise, no.

Quote:
Since I presume we agree that there is no Industry working overtime on behalf of the cause of Polish martyrdom, I guess you meant the Holocaust industry Basil?

Yes, the terms Funding Bias and Industry in this case refer to the Holocaust Industry. The Industry ocassionally includes goyish issues and matters indirectly related to the holy story as and when it seems necessary to do so. They will even fund goyish institutes and historians. *cough*

Oh, there you go again with the paid hack of the Industry routine. I can see I will have to repeat the earlier statistic. 6% of my research time was funded by the USHMM. 5% of my teaching time concerns the Holocaust, just as it would if I were actually specialising in West German media in the 1950s or Soviet consumer culture in the 1970s, to name the research work of two of my colleagues.

Now, as to the contemporary situation in Poland, are you aware of the overall thrust of Polish research into the wartime situation? That for example the selfsame IPN is supposed to be coming up with a detailed study of Polish war losses from all causes? That they have been busy collaborating with the Russians over such cases as Katyn, investigating Jedwabne, supporting still-active war crimes investigations into known crimes against Poles and much more? That there is considerable resentment on the eastern side of the Oder at the trend in Germany to emphasise the suffering of the Vertriebene?

No, I think it can safely be stated that this story is a Poles-only affair. There might well be contemporary political motivations behind the timing, though it can hardly be said that Poland has de-emphasised its wartime experiences at the hands of the Germans at any time since 1945, so even this is hardly anything new.

Quote:
The logical fallacy was pointed out in the next sentence: you called it nonsense, but apparently you didn't want to call the study false when pressed into a corner by Der Sozialist.

If there is any logical fallacy it is yours, for confounding 'nonsense' with 'false'. To point out and insist on the difference is certainly not hair-splitting. To dismiss something as nonsense is of an entirely different order to demonstrating something to be false.

Oh, Basil, you couldn't have put it better. Unfortunately it doesn't help you very much, since it's a much, much more desirable thing to demonstrate that something is false than to dismiss it as nonsense a priori. So far you've demonstrated very little except your love of a priori conclusions.

Its only people like you who think that dismissing something as nonsense is a form of falsification, because that is what your side indulge in when they are not making personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or strawman building.

There you go again with the projection, Basil. There are more strawmen in revisionist arguments than can be found across all of Canada's wheatfields. There are more personal attacks on historians and others in revisionist writings than there are in the works of those dissecting revisionist arguments. There are naturally of course even more ad hominem arguments, including blatantly antisemitic statements, in the totality of revisionist arguments than you'll find in the same critical literature on revisionism.

Quote:
What amuses me so immensely about watching you on this thread is that you've repeatedly insisted that the story absolutely must be false, becoming ever more hysterical when queried about this stance by Der Sozialist, whereas so far I haven't even confirmed whether I think the story is true or not. Who's the dogmatist now, Basil?

I have never said the study "absolutely must be false" - show me where I say that, go on, or withdraw that remark.

Mea culpa. I'll rephrase what I wrote and replace it with your favourite word, 'nonsense'.

I said it was recycled nonsense.

Yes you did.

What amuses me so immensely about watching you on this thread is that you've repeatedly insisted that the story must be nonsense, becoming ever more hysterical when queried about this stance by Der Sozialist, whereas so far I haven't even confirmed whether I think the story is true or not. Who's the dogmatist now, Basil?

Much earlier in the thread I said " I have given powerful reasons why it is reasonable to be sceptical to the point of disbelief." Where is the imperative it "absoultely must be false"? What kind of scholar are you that you have to twist someone's argument to the point of mendacious distortion?

It's an internet forum, Basil. This is my day off scholarship. My bad for choosing the wrong word.

Now, I reviewed some of the reasons why I don't think taking this study seriously is reasonable (i.e. dismissing it as nonsense), and gave a few points as to what should be done before it could be taken seriously. In Post 67 Calvin gives a more detailed response as to why we must conclude at this point that " The human soap allegation has no scientific basis whatsoever." I therefore believe I am quite justified in dismissing this as "nonsense" and and some kind of attempt at reviving war atrocity propaganda.

No, Basil, you haven't explained why this should be dismissed as nonsense except to repeat some well-worn revisionist cliches and reasoning by analogy. That's not scepticism, that's the thinking of someone whose mind is made up.

Your failure to address this aspect of the matter, the burden imposed by scientific method, leads me to conclude that you are conducting a personal attack on me - pettyfogging and gross distortion, culminating in calling me a "dogmatic asshole", which is why I have responded in kind. Leave it out, Egg and I'll happily do likewise.

Basil, you've consistently ignored everything I've said about what this story is actually about.

When it was pointed out that the 'victims' (who were already dead) involved were Poles, you twisted in the wind as usual.

When it was reiterated that the DAI story has zippo to do with Jews, you dredge up alleged childhood memories of supposed brainwashing by... Johnny Rotten? the makers of Ilse: She-Wolf of the SS? You tell me.

When it was pointed out that the DAI story was at best experimental, you simply ignored this and repeated your mass-production meme.

We could have quite an interesting discussion if you actually bothered to do some reading on this topic. A lot is available online. I already recommended to everyone that they use :google: to search for 'Joachim Neander Danzig' or some variant thereof, and find some up-to-date academic research which actually gets closer to the bottom of this story.

Now, until you show any sign that you're aware of the actual evidence about DAI, you're fair game. If you'll pardon the pun, get off your soapbox and contribute something more than reiterations of your revisionist faith.

[diabloblanco]

I don't know anything about what the hair was used for. Though it would make sense as a cheap recycling method for common necessities in concentration camps. The fact is that they saved the hair. A great deal of it, in fact.



You can see, quite clearly, the hair from one of the sacks spilling onto the rest of them. Its the dark mass on the sacks.

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/U/B/auschwitz27.jpg



Why should anyone be generous to a regime that was shooting, gassing, and starving millions of people?



Communist forces are portrayed as a ravaging horde in their invasion of Germany without any significant distinction. Obviously there were plenty of Soviet troops who entered Germany and were nothing but kind. They don't get an honorable mention.

And only a Communist sympathizer would EXPECT THEM TO. Why be generous to an army that was doing terrible things, by and large?

There was a story that human hair was supposedly used to make slippers for U-Boat crews. Again it seems rather improbable that a German industry which turned out warplanes by the scores of thousands each year, tanks and all other manner of weapons in like quantities with incredible efficency under the circumstances would allow itself to get sidetracked in all manner of gory Jeffrey-Dahmeresque gothic horror crafts which could not have been anything other than a huge waste of resources.
Why set up a whole industry to make a few thousand pairs of slippers ,instead of using goosedown or other freely available materials from industries already established?
Again, this is not to say that certain individuals among the Nazis did not engage in ghoulish activities, but it seems wierd to think that Hitler would have "stopped the presses" just to craft a few thousand pairs of slippers stuffed with human hair.

[Sulla the Dictator]

There wasa story that human hair was supposedly used to make slippers for U-Boat crews. Again it seems rather improbable that a German industry which turned out warplanes by the scres of thousands each year, tanks and all other manner of weapons in like quantities with incredible efficency under the circumstances would allow itself to get sidetracked in all manner of gory Jeffrey-Dahmeresque gothic horror crafts which could not have been anything other than a huge waste of resources


From what I've read the hair was intended for cottage industries in the camps themselves, such as stuffing matresses in camps or making socks for inmates. It actually doesn't matter what it was for. The storage of the hair itself shows, quite clearly, that there was either an intended use for it or a desire to save it for a future use.

And while it is certainly debatable what it was to be used for, what is not debatable is the fact that the Allies discovered tons of hair.

[Trojan]

Basil

One piece of advice - If You're in a Hole, Stop Digging.:deadhorse:

[eggheadbanga]

There wasa story that human hair was supposedly used to make slippers for U-Boat crews.

I think it was linings for life-jackets or the like, something that one would normally use animal hair to fill. Horsehair was quite frequently used to fill mattresses in that era.

Again it seems rather improbable that a German industry which turned out warplanes by the scres of thousands each year, tanks and all other manner of weapons in like quantities with incredible efficency

:rofl:

Just because Tigers and Panthers look sexy doesn't mean the Germans actually produced that many of them. German industry was on a handicrafts basis compared to US industry of the era. The economy was 40% agricultural versus Britain being under 10%. Most of the country lived in small towns. There was a huge artisan sector, very few cars, lots of horses pulling carts and many other rather archaic elements from today's perspective. I know the Hugo Boss SS uniforms look very swish but appearences can be deceiving. In reality, Germany was not an efficient country at all.

under the circumstances would allow itself to get sidetracked in all manner of gory Jeffrey-Dahmeresque gothic horror crafts which could not have been anything other than a huge waste of resources

On the contrary, since animal hair was used in a variety of applications as a raw material, and the stocks of animals, e.g. horses, was in decline because they had been called up to haul artillery pieces and tended to be either blown up by Russian shelling, die of mange or end up eaten by starving German soldiers when surrounded in, say, Stalingrad, to switch to using human hair from concentration camp inmates - the order was general across non-German prisoners, and not just restricted to Jews - increased resources.

The cost was essentially nil, since there wasn't exactly a shortage of people to cut hair at zero cost, while there were plenty of railway waggons coming in full but potentially leaving empty from the various camps.

Why set up a whole industry to make a few thousand pairs of slippers , instead of using goosedown or other freely available materials fro0m industries already established?

Because these already established industries would be running short of goosedown in wartime, when geese were quite likely to be slaughtered for sale on the black market, ditto other animal hair or feathers that could be used. And because filling various things with human hair does not require setting up new industries at all. It simply changes the filling for some products. Big deal.

Again, this is not to say that certain individuals among the Nazis did not engage in ghoulish activities, but it seems wierd to think that Hitler would have "stopped the presses" just to crafte a few thousand pairs of slippers stuffed with human hair

Hitler would have had nothing to do with the decision, it was Himmler's order. Himmler was very much into expanding SS economic activities, so selling waggonloads of hair to businesses that needed stuffing was quite typical of him.

[Empress Cheesatine]

I can't believe they are trying to revive this nonsense.

A lot of Poles are pissed off about Germans buying back their properties lost after the war, and also pissed off the German expellees have begun to tell their stories. The Polish government forbade foreigners from land purchases for some 10 years (yet no cries of xenophobia!) and Poles protest Ericka Steinbach as a "Nazi."

My memory on the Nuremberg proceedings is a bit fuzzy, but I recall that 2 Polish communist officials signed off to the origin of the soap, and that some affidavit from their war crimes commission was produced. The soap itself was never tested and I dont think any cross-examinations were done. It was standard procedure to accept papers from Allied war crimes commissions on face value and enter it into evidence without comment - and yes the case got a guilty verdict.

The real test here would be to have this alleged human soap tested by outside laboratories free of outside pressure or influence. To say Polish authorities (not counting Jewish ones) have much to gain from beating the atrocity drum against Germany is to put it mildly. Jews do have enough pull in Poland that the Polish government threatened Ukraine with refusal to accept degrees from MAUP where David Duke teaches. The late 20th century was the beginning of the atrocity claims-for-dollars era, and it's still going strong.

A self-proclaimed authority with a political drum to beat against a neighbor it has had a long history of conflict with isn't exactly a great source. Polish communist authorities published a number of things that were later shown total rubbish - even the likes of Lipstadt and Pressac have admitted it.

Polish authorities have a long history of falsification of alleged Nazi crimes. Im not about to accept anything from these people at face value, especially when tests on other bars of alleged human soap turned up absolutely nothing.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Again, this conversation is more about “claiming a study is false without addressing the study” than it is about soap, Jews, or the holocaust.

You've taken it as authentic on face value, therefore you are likewise guilty of making a verdict on this study without addressing its value. Maybe it has something to do with that Stalin picture.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Basil

One piece of advice - If You're in a Hole, Stop Digging.:deadhorse:

Would you blindly believe a study issued by the German government stating Germany's innocence on this? Of course not, so let's try to be consistent.

[Der Sozialist]

You've taken it as authentic on face value, therefore you are likewise guilty of making a verdict on this study without addressing its value. Maybe it has something to do with that Stalin picture.

Maybe you need to learn how to read. :)

[Professor John Frink]

A lot of Poles are pissed off about Germans buying back their properties lost after the war, and also pissed off the German expellees have begun to tell their stories. The Polish government forbade foreigners from land purchases for some 10 years (yet no cries of xenophobia!) and Poles protest Ericka Steinbach as a "Nazi."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/11/wgerm11.xml

[Trojan]

Would you blindly believe a study issued by the German government stating Germany's innocence on this? Of course not, so let's try to be consistent.

I wouldn't blindly dimiss it either.

[Kolchab]

Even though his [Irving’s] sudden fall from 100,000+ bestseller in the 70s to mainstream publishing pariah was solely due to his endorsement of the discredited Leuchter report?
Discredited Leuchter report?

The Alpha Analytic Laboratories in Massachusetts, which did the chemical analyses of the samples which Leuchter took from the walls of Leichenkeller 1, Krema II, is a reputable company. The results were later confirmed by the Institut Fresenius, Germany.

What qualifications do you have to discredit their work?

The Leuchter report must have been a shock to the hoaxers.

Let’s face it, the idea of homicidal gas chambers by the Nazis is finished, kaputt.

Kolchab

[Trojan]

Discredited Leuchter report?

The Alpha Analytic Laboratories in Massachusetts, which did the chemical analyses of the samples which Leuchter took from the walls of Leichenkeller 1, Krema II, is a reputable company. The results were later confirmed by the Institut Fresenius, Germany.

What qualifications do you have to discredit their work?

The Leuchter report must have been a shock to the hoaxers.

Let’s face it, the idea of homicidal gas chambers by the Nazis is finished, kaputt.

Kolchab

You must be new to all this ...:bbbat:

What part of Leuchter do you find credible? His false engineering credentials? His presenting himself as an expert yet not knowing that Zyklon is more toxic to humans than to insects?

[Kolchab]

You do that. I'll spare you some searching, and tell you that there have been just 29 prosecutions under the Gayssot law in its first decade of operation. No doubt Fauri counts for at least two of those.

There are about 10,000 people in Germany each year who get into conflict with the authorities in connection with § 130 of the StGB, the Holocaust protection paragraph, also known as the “Knebel Paragraph” (gag paragraph).

The offences have far right backgrounds, i.e. “propaganda Aktivitäten” (propagandistic activities) and “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people).

Source:
Verfassungsschutz-Report ("Bundeskriminalamt"),
http://www.ety.com/berlin/deutsch3.htm and

http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/de/publikationen/verfassungsschutzbericht/vsbericht_2004/vsbericht_2004.pdf
Page 43

[Eisenhans]

Waste not, want not.

[eggheadbanga]

Discredited Leuchter report?

The Alpha Analytic Laboratories in Massachusetts, which did the chemical analyses of the samples which Leuchter took from the walls of Leichenkeller 1, Krema II, is a reputable company. The results were later confirmed by the Institut Fresenius, Germany.

Both the Leuchter and Rudolf samples found traces of cyanide in the ruins, despite exposure to the elements for 40-45 years - it has been calculated that 35 metres of rain fell on the ruins since the buildings were blown up. Thus they are actually own goals, and prove the contrary of what is claimed by revisionists. A third study also found traces of cyanide in the ruins.

Leuchter himself admitted in open court that 90% of his conclusions were based on factors other than the chemical samples. Thus, either the samples are not that important, or Leuchter is a perjurer and a liar. The scientists working at the laboratory were highly critical of his sampling technique, which makes it all the more remarkable that any traces were found at all.

Leuchter's assumptions regarding engineering, architecture, history and cremation technology were all flawed. In open court, he proved his ignorance of the history of the buildings, for example arguing that there was no ventilation system, and assuming that it would take 1 week to clear the rooms of gas before anyone could enter. There are many more howlers.

Much the same can be said for Germar Rudolf's attempt to address the same questions. Rudolf has said that 'chemistry is not the science' which can prove the question one way or another. His chemical analyses have been subject to criticisms from professional chemists in several countries. Eventually, Rudolf retreated to reiterating the Faurisson line of 'no holes, no holocaust', a stance which has been destroyed not only by the totality of the evidence for holes in Kremas II and III, but also by the location of 3 out of 4 holes in the ruins of Krema II.

Moreover, the adage 'no holes, no holocaust' is fundamentally redundant, since there are clearly marked holes - 30cm x 40cm - on the walls shown on the plans for Kremas IV and V, with further correspondence relating to the gas tight doors to cover them. Several examples were found after the war on site and can now be seen in the Auschwitz museum. Thus, Faurisson's argument has always been completely fallacious.

What qualifications do you have to discredit their work?

Unlike Leuchter, I have advanced beyond the bachelor degree in history which is the sole academic qualification he possesses. Unlike Rudolf, I actually have my doctorate, in history. Contrary to the presumptions of these two authors and the many other Believers in the revisionist Faith, an accurate awareness of the historical situation is vital before one can begin to criticise the scenario.

For example: since neither of these authors thought to subject the situation to proper historical analysis, using all available evidence, neither was able to come up with a realistic figure for how many gassings there may have been in the specific sites they investigated. Yet all this information has been available since the 1960s, and by 1989 was very easily available. Neither of them consulted this information. Thus, Rudolf exaggerated the number of gassings in Kremas II/III each by a factor of at least four if not more, in order to create a false contrast with his supposed 'control' samples from delousing chambers.

There are many other blatant distortions of the historical record in the 'Rudolf Report', including instances where he proved incapable of reading even revisionist works correctly, so that he passed on outright falsehoods by chinese whispers.

The Leuchter report must have been a shock to the hoaxers.

:rofl:

The Leuchter report blew up in the face of revisionism.

Let’s face it, the idea of homicidal gas chambers by the Nazis is finished, kaputt.

On the contrary, every time revisionism has tried to discredit the story, the attempt has failed. Nothing essentially new has been tried on vis-a-vis Auschwitz since approximately 1994, which leaves revisionism repeating itself over and over again.

[calvin]

“Both the Leuchter and Rudolf samples found traces of cyanide in the ruins, despite exposure to the elements for 40-45 years - it has been calculated that 35 metres of rain fell on the ruins since the buildings were blown up. Thus they are actually own goals, and prove the contrary of what is claimed by revisionists. A third study also found traces of cyanide in the ruins”

So the amount of insecticide used in these buildings was far in excess of the quantity of insecticide suggested by Leuchter’s samples? The fundamentalists constantly reiterate the fact that “you need far more cyanide to kill insects than you do to kill humans”, wouldn’t the excessive amounts of cyanide present in the rooms investigated therefore suggest that the cyanide was introduced to kill insects as part of routine fumigation?

[Trojan]

“Both the Leuchter and Rudolf samples found traces of cyanide in the ruins, despite exposure to the elements for 40-45 years - it has been calculated that 35 metres of rain fell on the ruins since the buildings were blown up. Thus they are actually own goals, and prove the contrary of what is claimed by revisionists. A third study also found traces of cyanide in the ruins”

So the amount of insecticide used in these buildings was far in excess of the quantity of insecticide suggested by Leuchter’s samples? The fundamentalists constantly reiterate the fact that “you need far more cyanide to kill insects than you do to kill humans”, wouldn’t the excessive amounts of cyanide present in the rooms investigated therefore suggest that the cyanide was introduced to kill insects as part of routine fumigation?

Would this be the newest "heads I win, tails you lose" revisionist argument?

[calvin]

"Would this be the newest "heads I win, tails you lose" revisionist argument?"

Why do you call it an “argument”?

When revisionist seemed to be claiming that residual traces of the active agent of a fumigant insecticide that were found in the Auschwitz morgues indicated that these buildings could not possibly have been used for gassing humans because the evidence suggested that fumigations were infrequent, the fundamentalist knee-jerk reaction was to explain that far lower concentrations of insecticide fumigant were required to kill humans than were required to kill insects. This claim is based on an acceptance that the traces of insecticide indicate low exposure.

There seems to be a parallel claim that rejects speculation that the physical evidence indicates low exposure and asserts that residual traces of insecticide were fairly massive but have literally washed away over the decades. Massive concentrations of cyanide could indicate that the Germans were using Zyklon to kill insects or that massive amounts were required to kill massive amounts of people. If the fundamentalists believe the latter, why did they initially stridently insist that only small amounts of insecticide were required to kill humans? It seems reasonable to me to assume that their initial response was made in panic, a panic that resulted from the lack of any coherent understanding of the subject matter or in other words the fundamentalists are making their story up as they go along.

[cerberus]

So the amount of insecticide used in these buildings was far in excess of the quantity of insecticide suggested by Leuchter’s samples? The fundamentalists constantly reiterate the fact that “you need far more cyanide to kill insects than you do to kill humans”, wouldn’t the excessive amounts of cyanide present in the rooms investigated therefore suggest that the cyanide was introduced to kill insects as part of routine fumigation?
You see the odd thing is lice are not accustomed to feeding of the dead, they find blood vessels by way of body heat , when you die your circulation closes down , blood clots , tere is no body heat so the lice can't feed.
What they generally do is look for another host and do so quite quickly.
The number of lice found would small compared to that which you would find on living people.

As far as Zykon being used to fumigate on a regular basis - a weak theory to start with.
When you know causes of death why take bodies to an underground morgue -straight to cremation would sem a more reasonable step.
And if these peole were so well looked after and so much care taken of them , why no trace of for their dead ?

As far as gas chambers being kaput , I think you are misrpresnting the facts.
Misprepresent now who here is always being misrpresented. :) ?

[Alvo]

It's amazing! The more we dig into the Nazi's shameful past we come to realize how cruel beyond comprehension those criminals were. Fortunately America crushed them during World War II. Let's make sure they'll never make a comeback! Those dogs!

[Commander]

Leuchter's assumptions regarding engineering, architecture, history and cremation technology were all flawed. In open court, he proved his ignorance of the history of the buildings, for example arguing that there was no ventilation system, and assuming that it would take 1 week to clear the rooms of gas before anyone could enter. There are many more howlers.


[...]
The Leuchter report blew up in the face of revisionism.

[..]
On the contrary, every time revisionism has tried to discredit the story, the attempt has failed. Nothing essentially new has been tried on vis-a-vis Auschwitz since approximately 1994, which leaves revisionism repeating itself over and over again.

Why keep jailing these evil heretics, who are proving your "holocaust" to be factual? Would it not be in the best interest of humanity for these men to be allowed to continue embarrasing themselves?

Why not let the Iranians do their studies of these events? They [Iran] are almost Nazis themselves [according to the ADL] , why waste a chance to discredit them?

[calvin]

Cerberus

“When you know causes of death why take bodies to an underground morgue -straight to cremation would seem a more reasonable step”

There were 46 muffles in the crematoria, unless the inmates were dying in convenient batches of 46, it’s reasonable to assume that temporary corpse storage facilities (morgues) would be required isn’t it?

[eggheadbanga]

It seems reasonable to me to assume that their initial response was made in panic, a panic that resulted from the lack of any coherent understanding of the subject matter or in other words the fundamentalists are making their story up as they go along.

The only fundamentalists are the revisionists, who shift tack sometimes on the same page between calling the gas chambers, air-raid shelters, carburetion chambers, morgues occasionally deloused, delousing chambers for morgues/clothing, and several other mutually contradictory explanations.

The following factors were at work in the genuine delousing chambers during and after the war.

1. use of significantly higher concentrations of HCN (16,000 ppm to kill lice)
2. long time periods for each fumigation (up to 24 hours)
3. no washing down of walls and floors after fumigation
4. no presence of large numbers of CO2-breathing organisms inside the delousing chambers
5. essentially continuous (daily) use
6. no dismantling of facilities, buildings remained intact and unexposed to elements

The following factors were at work in the gas chambers during and after the war

1. use of much lower concentrations of HCN (100s to at most low 1000s of pppm, versus 5 figures for delousing chambers).
2. short period of fumigation (half hour maximum)
3. ventilation system/air extraction for underground chambers
4. ventilation through opening doors for above-ground chambers, normal air current sufficient to ventilate within hours
5. washing down of walls and floors after fumigation
6. presence of large numbers of CO2-breathing human beings inside gas chambers
7. inhalation of a proportion of the HCN combined with absorption of some parts through the skin.
8. less than continuous use, much less than daily - there were up to 11 actual rooms in which people could be gassed, across all the facilities.
9. blowing up of chambers and resulting exposure to elements for 45 years until 3 separate tests were conducted.

Much larger quantities of cyanides were found in the delousing chambers than in the ruins of the crematoria. Given the considerable differences outlined above, the test results by Leuchter, Rudolf and the Krakow Institute are all in conformity with what one should logically expect. The peculiar features of the gas chambers also explain why the much-vaunted Prussian Blue stable ferrocyanide compound did not form in the gas chambers - as has been empirically tested, cyanide exposed to CO2 and rinsed with water is absorbed much less readily by building materials than cyanide which has not been exposed to CO2 and water. This is quite apart from the other six factors which create an entirely different chemical environment inside the gas chambers than prevailed inside the delousing chambers.

[eggheadbanga]

Why keep jailing these evil heretics, who are proving your "holocaust" to be factual? Would it not be in the best interest of humanity for these men to be allowed to continue embarrasing themselves?


Read my sig.

Why not let the Iranians do their studies of these events? They [Iran] are almost Nazis themselves [according to the ADL] , why waste a chance to discredit them?

Iranians can do all the studies they like using the available archival materials. They can get their US embassy to order copies of microfilms from the Holocaust Museum for a pittance. I don't see why anyone should take any study which ignores the archival materials (building plans, construction reports, other evidence) seriously, much less let them loose on archaeological sites to conduct scrapings when there is a prime political motive for them to misrepresent the results.

[eggheadbanga]

Cerberus

“When you know causes of death why take bodies to an underground morgue -straight to cremation would seem a more reasonable step”

There were 46 muffles in the crematoria, unless the inmates were dying in convenient batches of 46, it’s reasonable to assume that temporary corpse storage facilities (morgues) would be required isn’t it?

:rofl:

That's why there's a paper trail about building extra morgues inside the camp after the crematoria were opened. If the designated morgues inside the crematoria were actually morgues, then why build extra ones, especially when the death-rate among registered inmates from natural causes was falling?

[calvin]

“That's why there's a paper trail about building extra morgues inside the camp after the crematoria were opened. If the designated morgues inside the crematoria were actually morgues, then why build extra ones, especially when the death-rate among registered inmates from natural causes was falling?”

That’s very interesting. Would you mind citing your sources for this paper trail? What’s the relevance of death rates from natural causes in a discussion about mass death from either epidemic disease or exposure to insecticide BTW? Were the extra morgues going to be part of a general expansion or increase in the camp population?

Your previous post is just a bad chemistry lesson. There is no possible way to accurately estimate how much residual cyanide was washed away over time so there is therefore no way in which residual cyanide traces can be used to establish usage. Given that cyanide traces are found in many areas of the Auschwitz industrial complex and not just in delousing facilities, it is doesn't seem reasonable to me to assume that cyanide deposits in the Auschwitz morgues indicates their use as instruments of mass murder. This allegation depends upon the veracity of corroborating evidence.

Why were the morgues washed down after use in gassing operations; it couldn’t have been for the safety of the next batch of victims could it?

What was the purpose of the gif included in your post, I find the need to mock people is generally a sign of personal insecurity. Strange!

[Trojan]

Your previous post is just a bad chemistry lesson. There is no possible way to accurately estimate how much residual cyanide was washed away over time so there is therefore no way in which residual cyanide traces can be used to establish usage. Given that cyanide traces are found in many areas of the Auschwitz industrial complex and not just in delousing facilities, it is doesn't seem reasonable to me to assume that cyanide deposits in the Auschwitz morgues indicates their use as instruments of mass murder. This allegation depends upon the veracity of corroborating evidence.


Earlier Kolchab was proclaiming the Leuchter report as the scientific breakthrough that would destroy the "homicidal gas chamber myth" or some such nonsence.


Why were the morgues washed down after use in gassing operations; it couldn’t have been for the safety of the next batch of victims could it?


Or to keep up the facade.

[calvin]

I don’t know about CO2 but the buildings in question were not exposed to the elements during their alleged period of usage as extermination chambers. You are claiming that the chambers came into contact with water when they were washed down after gassing operations. I don’t recall the routine washing down of gassing installations being a prominent feature of eyewitness testimony. I genuinely don’t know about that, there may well be several eyewitnesses who attest to the routine washing down of gas chambers.

My quick attempt to verify eyewitness testimony uncovered this;

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gclipstadt2.html

Why is regarding this kind of analysis as coherent, lucid and rational (not necessarily right) indicative of your status as an asshole and an idiot?

If I saw someone hosing or washing down a shower room I would be wondering why they weren’t turning on the showers. Washing down the morgues between operations would increase the time lapse between operations; has this additional time been factored into fundamentalist estimates of the killing capacities of these facilities?

[Trojan]

If I saw someone hosing or washing down a shower room I would be wondering why they weren’t turning on the showers.


And this point of fact is important why? Are you under the presumption that the next batch of vicitims was present during the clean-up operations of the showers?


Washing down the morgues between operations would increase the time lapse between operations; has this additional time been factored into fundamentalist estimates of the killing capacities of these facilities?


The only calculations I recall are those regarding the crematorium capacity, not the capacity of the gas chambers to kill.

[Commander]

Iranians can do all the studies they like using the available archival materials. They can get their US embassy to order copies of microfilms from the Holocaust Museum for a pittance. I don't see why anyone should take any study which ignores the archival materials (building plans, construction reports, other evidence) seriously, much less let them loose on archaeological sites to conduct scrapings when there is a prime political motive for them to misrepresent the results.

Well of course there is, that's the whole point. They can be proved to be Nazis who are dangerous, why pass this chance up? I think someone is protecting them, there must be some Nazi sympathizers out there somewhere.

[calvin]

Why were the morgues washed down after use in gassing operations; it couldn’t have been for the safety of the next batch of victims could it? ME.

Or to keep up the facade. YOU

If I saw someone hosing or washing down a shower room I would be wondering why they weren’t turning on the showers ME

And this point of fact is important why? Are you under the presumption that the next batch of victims was present during the clean-up operations of the showers? YOU

Were you under that impression when you made your assertion about keeping up a facade?

The time required for gassing operations and the time required for ventilation between gassing operations has been a point of vigorous contention between revisionists and fundamentalists, it seems obvious to me that the time required for washing down chambers between gassing operations would have to be factored into this debate. I don’t think that it has. I still can’t find transcripts of the eyewitness testimony regarding the operation of the gas chambers, can you direct me to a source of this information?

[Trojan]

I still can’t find transcripts of the eyewitness testimony regarding the operation of the gas chambers, can you direct me to a source of this information?

AHF has some good information - try this thread to find some answers.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=73796

[calvin]

Thank you!

[Kolchab]

The following factors were at work in the gas chambers during and after the war
5. washing down of walls and floors after fumigation
That must have been quite a job to do, with 2000 bodies all tangled up on a floor area of only 210 sqm.

And what did they do with the poisoned water which contained now all that HCN gas? Disposed it in the environment and poisoned the groundwater?

The body of the excecuted, the floor and walls in US execution gas chambers was first treated wih a ammonium solution after an execution. The prussic acid formed a harmless compound with the ammonium which then could be safely washed away.

Only then could the body safely be handled.

Source:
The Leuchter Report
http://64.143.9.197/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html

and:
Statement by Bill M. Armontrout, Warden of Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd31armontrout.html

[Trojan]

That must have been quite a job to do, with 2000 bodies all tangled up on a floor area of only 210 sqm.

And what did they do with the poisoned water which contained now all that HCN gas? Disposed it in the environment and poisoned the groundwater?


Do you really think the camps were concerned about the local environment? There was no German EPA to address ground water contamination issues.


The body of the excecuted, the floor and walls in US execution gas chambers was first treated wih a ammonium solution after an execution. The prussic acid formed a harmless compound with the ammonium which then could be safely washed away.

Only then could the body safely be handled.

Source:
The Leuchter Report
http://64.143.9.197/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html

and:
Statement by Bill M. Armontrout, Warden of Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd31armontrout.html


What do you think they did in the fumigation chambers, in which the dosage would be significantly higher?

[eggheadbanga]

“That's why there's a paper trail about building extra morgues inside the camp after the crematoria were opened. If the designated morgues inside the crematoria were actually morgues, then why build extra ones, especially when the death-rate among registered inmates from natural causes was falling?”

That’s very interesting. Would you mind citing your sources for this paper trail? What’s the relevance of death rates from natural causes in a discussion about mass death from either epidemic disease or exposure to insecticide BTW?

For purposes of discussion, 'natural causes' means death by any cause other than being killed. It's a linguistic habit that revisionists display in their writings sometimes, so don't bother to kick up a fuss.

Sources: you can read about the extra morgues in the work of Carlo Mattogno, published in 'The Revisionist' 3/2004. Like much of revisionism, the article verges on the self-refuting when the evidence is placed back into its proper context.

Were the extra morgues going to be part of a general expansion or increase in the camp population?

No, they were there to rectify the fact that there were improvised morgues made out of wooden barracks, therefore exposing bodies to the teeth of rats, and thus constituting a potential health hazard. That was because the brick morgues were being used for other purposes. :D

Your previous post is just a bad chemistry lesson. There is no possible way to accurately estimate how much residual cyanide was washed away over time so there is therefore no way in which residual cyanide traces can be used to establish usage.

Who said anything from establishing actual usage in terms of frequency from the cyanide traces? That is about as idiotic as trying to establish how many times a gun has been fired from powder residues. If someone is treating their gun/gas chamber right, then they'll be cleaning it.

Given that cyanide traces are found in many areas of the Auschwitz industrial complex and not just in delousing facilities, it is doesn't seem reasonable to me to assume that cyanide deposits in the Auschwitz morgues indicates their use as instruments of mass murder. This allegation depends upon the veracity of corroborating evidence.

Except the Krakow Institute ran control tests on a barracks which was known to have been fumigated, and found nothing. Cyanide traces are in fact not found in 'many areas of the Auschwitz industrial complex'. I very much doubt that you can cite any tests proving otherwise.

You are quite right that the mere presence of cyanide does not prove anything in and of itself; but then even the CSI detectives do interrogations of witnesses and suspects, don't they? Forensics merely corroborates what eyewitnesses say.

Given the presence of cyanide traces in buildings which have been identified by eyewitnesses as having been used to gas human beings, the only way to fully discredit the eyewitnesses is to produce an equal or greater body of evidence which proves that the structures were used for another purpose. Since there is not a single piece of evidence saying that there was another purpose, this leaves any attempted alternative explanation at the level of wishful thinking.

Why were the morgues washed down after use in gassing operations; it couldn’t have been for the safety of the next batch of victims could it?

To clean up the piss and shit left behind by the last batch of victims. Bear in mind that there might be a time lapse of several days between gassings. Repeat use of the same chamber on the same day was almost never needed.

What was the purpose of the gif included in your post

Because you are sucking made-up explanations out of your thumb faster than you are even putting any real thought into this discussion. Because you have so far demonstrated very little knowledge of revisionist arguments beyond the generic, and perhaps even less knowledge of the normative history of Auschwitz.

, I find the need to mock people is generally a sign of personal insecurity. Strange!

I don't need to mock you, however you are presenting me with irresistible opportunities to do so. Besides which, taking the piss out of revisionists is fun. :D

[eggheadbanga]

That must have been quite a job to do, with 2000 bodies all tangled up on a floor area of only 210 sqm.


Oh yes, it was quite a job, that's why they employed hundreds of slave labourers to remove the bodies. You'll find that there was rarely any need to try and breach German streetcar crush capacity in the gas chambers, most of the transports were much smaller. So spare us the 2000 bodies routine when we can precisely identify that on October 7, 1943, for example, 1313 people arriving from Theresienstadt were all selected for the gas chamber, of whom 1260 were children.

And what did they do with the poisoned water which contained now all that HCN gas? Disposed it in the environment and poisoned the groundwater?

HCN dissolves harmlessly into water, it is no longer toxic after that. Moreover, the crematoria were hooked up to their own plumbing system. :D

[calvin]

"What do you think they did in the fumigation chambers, in which the dosage would be significantly higher?"

I think that they wouldn’t have bothered to wash down the interiors between fumigations. The intention in the delousing facilities was to create a toxic environment that would kill insects, wouldn't removing residual cyanide be both dangerous and counter productive?

[eggheadbanga]

"What do you think they did in the fumigation chambers, in which the dosage would be significantly higher?"

I think that they wouldn’t have bothered to wash down the interiors between fumigations. The intention in the delousing facilities was to create a toxic environment that would kill insects, wouldn't removing residual cyanide be both dangerous and counter productive?

all probably true. It just goes to show how different the environments inside a delousing chamber and a gas chamber actually were.

[calvin]

“On the occasion of his visit to Auschwitz on July 17 and 18, 1942, Himmler decided to enlarge the PoW camp Birkenau for a capacity of 200,000 detainees”

So there was a planned expansion.

"Furthermore, the site for the new crematorium, next to the quarantine camp, was decided on."

They didn't tell me about a quarantine camp in Schindler's List!

http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Mattogno271-278.html

You are right Trojan, I am deeply ignorant about the holocaust; I never dreamed that there was so much documentary evidence contradicting what you call the “normative” history of the holocaust. I am quite sure that Mattogno is, at least to a degree, selecting his evidence but he is able to quote far more extensively from source material than the scribes of the “educational” site, Nizkor for example. This suggests to me that the burden of documentary evidence proof possibly rests with the revisionists. Mattogno doesn’t come across as an idiot or a fanatic; he comes across as a highly disciplined and intelligent researcher.There is more relevant information in this one essay by Mattogno that there is in the entire Nizkor site, no wonder you want to shut these people up.I have had a few brief exchanges with revisionists online, I personally have found them to be far less arrogant and abusive that the defenders of the faith. It’ my impression that the proponents of “normative” history react to any questioning of the party line as a challenge to their assumed authority rather than as an opportunity to educate and explain. You’re not going to win may converts adopting an attitude of sneering self-importance are you?

[calvin]

Sorry Egghead, I just noticed your post in which you state that the gas chambers were wahed down, "to clean up the piss and shit left behind by the last batch of victims"

In a previous post you have stated that,"cyanide exposed to CO2 and rinsed with water is absorbed much less readily by building materials than cyanide which has not been exposed to CO2 and water"

I would imagine that most of the "piss and shit" would end up on the floor, where were the sample used by the Krakow Institute taken from? Did they take any from the ceiling or only from the lower part of the walls and the floor?

"Except the Krakow Institute ran control tests on a barracks which was known to have been fumigated, and found nothing"

And I expect that if the Tehran Institute conducted similar tests they would establish the opposite. I'm sure that I have seen photographs of blue staining around the window of a fumigated barrack, probably not one of the buildings investigated by the Institute of Krakow of course.

[Kolchab]

The following factors were at work in the gas chambers during and after the war:

1. use of much lower concentrations of HCN (100s to at most low 1000s of pppm, versus 5 figures for delousing chambers).

You may be a little on the low side here.

Dr. Green of THHP estimated that for each gassing an amount of 6 kg Zyklon-B was used. He based this on an estimate by Pressac.

This would come to 14 g/m³ in the morgue, which is well at the upper level used in the fumigation rooms and results in 12,000 ppm HCN gas density.

Then why no blue staining like in the fumigation rooms?

Kolchab

[eggheadbanga]

You may be a little on the low side here.

Dr. Green of THHP estimated that for each gassing an amount of 6 kg Zyklon-B was used. He based this on an estimate by Pressac.

This would come to 14 g/m³ in the morgue, which is well at the upper level used in the fumigation rooms and results in 12,000 ppm HCN gas density.


There are other sources suggesting 1kg use, which works out as 1.99g/m3 for the 502m3 of Krema II.

Then why no blue staining like in the fumigation rooms?

1. less frequent usage (every few days rather than every day)
2. far briefer usage (half hour vs 12-24 hours)

this would reduce exposure of the walls by a very large multiple even at the same initial quantities of HCN.

3. ventilation, whether by air extraction system or simply opening the doors after half an hour.
4. absorption of HCN into lungs and skin
5. counteractive effects of CO2
6. counteractive effects of water used to wash down chambers.

these factors militate against the formation of Prussian Blue.

Sorry, Herr F.. Kolchab, your hoaxing is not going to work round here.

[eggheadbanga]

Sorry Egghead, I just noticed your post in which you state that the gas chambers were wahed down, "to clean up the piss and shit left behind by the last batch of victims"

In a previous post you have stated that,"cyanide exposed to CO2 and rinsed with water is absorbed much less readily by building materials than cyanide which has not been exposed to CO2 and water"

I would imagine that most of the "piss and shit" would end up on the floor, where were the sample used by the Krakow Institute taken from? Did they take any from the ceiling or only from the lower part of the walls and the floor?


Try reading the study, it's online at the Holocaust History Project website.

The ceiling and floor had a different construction to the walls; one important factor is the relative absorption capabilities of different construction materials - plaster, brick, mortar, cement etc.


"Except the Krakow Institute ran control tests on a barracks which was known to have been fumigated, and found nothing"

And I expect that if the Tehran Institute conducted similar tests they would establish the opposite. I'm sure that I have seen photographs of blue staining around the window of a fumigated barrack, probably not one of the buildings investigated by the Institute of Krakow of course.

No, those are the outsides of delousing chambers, as depicted e.g. in Rudolf's report. I don't recall ever having seen a brick barracks showing such staining. Even if one could be produced, then one would need to compare the construction materials. The formation of Prussian Blue, contrary to Leuchter and Rudolf's assertions, is far from an automatic process. For example, the delousing chambers in Auschwitz I (main camp) do not, apparently, show the same kind of blue staining as those in Auschwitz II-Birkenau.

Thus, the argument about PB is purely on the basis of negative evidence; and thus commits the fallacy of negative proof. (As indeed do most revisionist arguments, I'm sorry to say.)

[calvin]

"Try reading the study, it's online at the Holocaust History Project website"

Why don't you just tell where the report says the samples were taken from?

As I've already said denial of access to source material, and the acompanying invitations to earn a masters degree in holocaustology, rather than the straight forward provision of answers is one of the most annoying hallmarks of holocaust fundamentalism and it's a trait not generally shared by revisionists.

[calvin]

And BTW the only thing that your post proves is that conditional imperatives dictate the accumulation of cyanide residue. In order to prove that these conditions prevailed during the operation of the gas chambers at Auschwitz you need to provide some corroborating evidence to support the allegation that these installations were washed down after use. You still haven’t indicated a source for any eyewitness corroboration of this allegation. I’m not saying that you don’t have one; indeed it’s the normal procedure for the revelation of one small piece of evidence by holocaust fundamentalists to require several hundred words worth of painful extraction, a fairly obvious anti-debating technique that does nothing to enhance your credibility.

[Niko Bellic]

This is the first time I've clicked on this thread, and I haven't read it all, because these are usually pointless repitition of things I've read before.

To preface my comment, I should say that I generally believe the holocaust official story, though the body count has been heavily, and irresponsibly inflated, and I blame Himmler more than Hitler for it.

The soap story is one of the worst myths about the holocaust. Who would actually use that soap? EEEWWWWWWW!!!!!! That's fucking disgusting! I would no sooner use human fat soap than animal fat soap, just because it's sick, and I highly doubt that the average German Nazi would use it for the same reason.

I.E. I'd love to genocide the muslims, but I'd never use muslim soap.

Just my 2 cents.

[tempus fugit]

Wow, you guys go on and on about this in such detail, in so many different threads. Quite amazing efforts by both sides.

I have nothing intelligent to add. :)

[eggheadbanga]

"Try reading the study, it's online at the Holocaust History Project website"

Why don't you just tell where the report says the samples were taken from?


Because it's not up to me to do your homework for you. And because I don't have the page bookmarked, not being on my usual computer. Okay?

I've already indicated that since the ceiling and walls were made of different materials, and since there were multiple other factors involved in the gas chambers, that your latest theory does not necessarily have the explanatory power you think it might. If you want to know what I think is possibly the most crucial factor in the non-appearence of PB in the gas chambers, I would say the large quantities of CO2 exhaled by the victims before they died. Washing the walls with water, remember, was ONE of more than half a dozen factors involved. The fact that you seem incapable of juggling so many variables at once but instead try a new tack and fixate on one only does not speak volumes about your honesty in this discussion.

As I've already said denial of access to source material,

This is a supremely redundant comment when I have clearly indicated where the report can be found, for free, using the same web-browser you have open right now.

and the acompanying invitations to earn a masters degree in holocaustology, rather than the straight forward provision of answers is one of the most annoying hallmarks of holocaust fundamentalism

I've provided some very straightforward answers to you across two threads.
Only you just are not willing to accept them; and twist in the wind trying to come up with yet more nitpicks that you think are somehow of crucial importance.

From this behaviour, I am getting the impression that you don't know nearly as much about EITHER side as you'd like to pretend. Had you even read that Mattogno article before I pointed it out to you? C'mon, I'm supposed to be Mr Normative Account here and I seem to know more about revisionist arguments than you do. What's wrong with this picture?

and it's a trait not generally shared by revisionists.

:rofl:

There is a lengthy thread started by Sulla in which he has asked revisionists on this forum for the past four MONTHS to come up with a coherent explanation of who created the alleged 'Hoax', how this alleged gigantic falsehood started and was sustained. So far we have not had a single convincing answer from any revisionist.

I would be very eager to hear from a revisionist how the conspiracy/hoax worked. I really would. I've yet to hear any detailed answer from a single revisionist, in print or online.

So, tell me, Calvin, how did this 'hoax' start?

Give me a straight answer.

[Rob Roy MacGregor]

http://marriagecarriageandmore.com/media/Oy_Vey_bar_soap.jpg

[Starr]

The soap story is one of the worst myths about the holocaust. Who would actually use that soap? EEEWWWWWWW!!!!!! That's fucking disgusting! I would no sooner use human fat soap than animal fat soap, just because it's sick, and I highly doubt that the average German Nazi would use it for the same reason.

Yes, it is not exactly a pleasant thought and would not be for most people. When I hear all of these tales about soap and lampshades I am reminded of someone like Ed Gein, and I just don't buy it. Someone said something very simply earlier about it being too "mad scientist" and I would agree.

[Felix the Cat]

Animal fat was used for centuries in soapmaking, with no negative health consequences that I'm aware of

[eggheadbanga]

And BTW the only thing that your post proves is that conditional imperatives dictate the accumulation of cyanide residue. In order to prove that these conditions prevailed during the operation of the gas chambers at Auschwitz you need to provide some corroborating evidence to support the allegation that these installations were washed down after use. You still haven’t indicated a source for any eyewitness corroboration of this allegation.

.
There are multiple eyewitness sources for the procedure of emptying the chambers and washing down the walls.

Have you read Pressac's Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, online at THHP? There are multiple statements there from Sonderkommando survivors. Henryk Tauber is particularly detailed.

Alternatively, try visiting RODOH, they have a large number of witness statements in their Reference section.

http://p102.ezboard.com/brodohforum

You should also look out in their Debate section for excerpts from Gideon Greif's 'We Wept Without Tears'. Here's a small taster in German from Josef Sackar:

'Nach jeder Vergiftungsaktion wusch man alles ab und verspruehte auch ein Mittel, damit kein Geruch von gas in dem Raum haengen blieb. Wir spritzeten auch den Fussboden der Gaskammer ab.'

I’m not saying that you don’t have one; indeed it’s the normal procedure for the revelation of one small piece of evidence by holocaust fundamentalists to require several hundred words worth of painful extraction, a fairly obvious anti-debating technique that does nothing to enhance your credibility.

I see absolutely no reason to dance to your demands for reprinting sources in full or in part, when there are well-known internet sites where testimonies, statements, documents and arguments can be found on both sides.

The great irony of your insistence on sourcing is that it is NOT obeyed by revisionist authors such as Walter Lueftl and Germar Rudolf, who repeatedly state that 'it is claimed by witnesses that...' and then DON'T CITE ANY SOURCES.

The even greater irony is that if you ever allowed yourself to be pinned down to a specific position as to what, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, the rooms known to the rest of the world as gas chambers actually were, if they were not gas chambers, you'd have no evidence, no testimonies, no sources to back up your contention.

So, please. Was Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II

a) a carburetion chamber

b) an air-raid shelter

c) a room into which delousing boxes were installed

d) a delousing chamber as a whole

e) an ordinary morgue

f) something else

Please provide ONE answer or provide a chronology explaining when and why it changed function. Then state your documentary evidence. Then provide corroboration in the form of a different kind of evidence, preferably a clear description of how it was used by an eyewitness.

Because anything less is speculative bullshit.

[eggheadbanga]

Yes, it is not exactly a pleasant thought and would not be for most people. When I hear all of these tales about soap and lampshades I am reminded of someone like Ed Gein, and I just don't buy it. Someone said something very simply earlier about it being too "mad scientist" and I would agree.

Soap wasn't _used_, certainly not to shower with. At most it was made on a test basis. It may have been used as cleaning material to wash floors etc inside Danzig Anatomy Institute. But that's all, and even this is not certain.

The lampshade (singular) still exists in the US National Archives. Nothing that hasn't been done before over the centuries. One sicko out of 50,000 Germans working in the concentration camp system is hardly that much of a surprise, is it? Weimar Germany was for a while leading the world in serial-killers.

[Kolchab]

The following factors were at work in the genuine delousing chambers during and after the war:
2. long time periods for each fumigation (up to 24 hours)

This is not correct.

The “up to 24 hours” fumigation time applied to dwellings, housings, barracks, in accordance with the Zyclon-B instructions NI-9912, and not to delousing chambers.

The gassing time for fumigation rooms like BW-5a & 5b, which show heavy blue staining of the walls inside and outside, was only about 2 hours gassing and 1½ to 2 hours ventilation time.

Kolchab

[Trojan]

This is not correct.

The “up to 24 hours” fumigation time applied to dwellings, housings, barracks, in accordance with the Zyclon-B instructions NI-9912, and not to delousing chambers.

The gassing time for fumigation rooms like BW-5a & 5b, which show heavy blue staining of the walls inside and outside, was only about 2 hours gassing and 1½ to 2 hours ventilation time.

Kolchab

Why don't you respond to Egghead's challenge?

[calvin]

“I see absolutely no reason to dance to your demands for reprinting sources in full or in part, when there are well-known internet sites where testimonies, statements, documents and arguments can be found on both sides”

You have poured out literally thousands of words in this debate, I find it a bit rich that you are claiming that pursuing an alternative strategy of directing me to the source material by posting links would constitute you “dancing to my demands”. The revisionist/denier poster on this thread is posting substantial relevant quotations from relevant sources. I find it strange that you do not respond in kind in order to refute this poster in the most direct and convincing way.

I am reading the Pressac book online right now, the thing I am finding absolutely astonishing about it is how much of it accords with the revisionist version of events.
I grew up with the pop culture perception of Auschwitz as a straightforward extermination camp; a camp that served no other purpose than mass-murder on an industrial scale. It seems that this was not the case. This is a lengthy and detailed book and will tale several days to read properly. My initial impression is that there is a preponderance of technical data that is of peripheral relevance to the subject of homicidal gassings. Most of the detailed information seems to pertain to non-lethal operations within this complex and even some of this seems distinctly fishy, for example the deposition of Andrzcje Rablin regarding the delousing of clothing. The diagram of the delousing room does not include measurements but the room does look to be of substantial size this supposition would seem to be confirmed by this statement in Rablin’s deposition,

“Sometimes, filling the gas chamber with clothes took as much as two days”

In his introduction to Rablin’s evidence, Pressac heavily suggests that only one can of Zyklon is used in this operation; he does this because of the need to confirm minimal risk of poisoning through skin absorption to the naked Rablin.

“It may appear surprising that the witness did not wear any clothes, this being highly dangerous in an atmosphere containing 2% by volume of hydrocyanic acid, since a subject exposed to such a concentration of the gas can lose consciousness after ten minutes by absorption through the skin, even when wearing a gas mask. However, about 5 1.5kg cans of Zyklon-B would be necessary in ONE of the gas chambers in Block 3, to obtain this concentration (24g/m³). The witness does not specify the number of cans used, but states that "the chisel, the hammer and THE can of Zyklon-B)" were put ready in advance” Pressac.

The claim that one can of Zyklon was enough to fumigate a room that was large enough to take two days to fill with clothes, seems to contradict the assertion that substantially larger quantities of Zyklon were required to kill lice than were required to kill humans, an assertion that I understand was produced as a trump card in the refutation of the Leuchter Report.

Rablin goes on to say,“Twenty-four hours later, we put our gas masks on again, the extractor fans were switched on and we opened the windows. The ventilation continued for two hours”.

So it takes two hours to vent a room exposed to one standard can of Zyklon, with extractor fans. That’s Interesting.

Pressac concludes his introduction to this witness testimony with this gem, “The best proof that the witness was not subjected to very high concentrations of hydrocyanic acid – 2% per cent actually being lethal in 30 seconds if no mask is worn – is that he was still alive in 1961 and was able to give this account” The survival of the witness, indeed proves that he was not subjected to very high concentrations of hydrocyanic acid but it certainly does nothing to establish the veracity of his testimony.

[Trojan]

The claim that one can of Zyklon was enough to fumigate a room that was large enough to take two days to fill with clothes, seems to contradict the assertion that substantially larger quantities of Zyklon were required to kill lice than were required to kill humans, an assertion that I understand was produced as a trump card in the refutation of the Leuchter Report.



http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/hydrogencyanide/recognition.html

Would you take OSHA's word on it?

[calvin]

Congratulations! You finally post a link and it’s a broken one. Why not try cutting and pasting like that Neo person?

The relevance of the point I’m making would partially depend upon the size of the room in question; unfortunately Pressac’s definitive description of the machinery of mass-murder at Auschwitz didn’t include any measurements.

Nothing to say about Pressac’s deeply unscholarly belief that the mere fact of Rablin’s survival proves the veracity of his account?

[Trojan]

Congratulations! You finally post a link and it’s a broken one. Why not try cutting and pasting like that Neo person?



Link works for me :google:

google "osha hydrogen cyanide" and go to the first link

[Kolchab]

So, please. Was Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II

a) a carburetion chamber

b) an air-raid shelter

c) a room into which delousing boxes were installed

d) a delousing chamber as a whole

e) an ordinary morgue

f) something else

Please provide ONE answer or provide a chronology explaining when and why it changed function. Then state your documentary evidence. Then provide corroboration in the form of a different kind of evidence, preferably a clear description of how it was used by an eyewitness.
Egghead is fishing for a fool and gives instructions like a school master.

Cute!

What is a “carburetion chamber”? Is that the chamber inside the carburetor where “carburetion”. i.e. the process of mixing fuel with air takes place?

This is obviously a wordplay with the German “Vergasung”, i.e. the process of mixing fuel with air in a carburetor.

“Vergasung” was also used in Auschwitz at that time to mean “fumigation with Zyklon-B”.

See:
Standort-und Kommandanturbefehle des Konzentrationslagers Auschwitz
1940-1945, Heraugegeben von Norbert Frei, Thomas Grotum, Jan Parcer, Sybille
Steinbacher und Bernd C. Wagner...Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte, K. G. Sauer,
Muenchen, 2000, ISBN 3-598-24030-9, pp. 161, 162.

or:

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0201.htm

The SS fumigated the barracks regularly, according to the testimony of the Chief of Fumigation at Auschwitz, Artur Breitweiser, during the Auschwitz Prozeß in Germany.
He also used the German “Vergasung” during the trial to describe the fumigation.

See: Langbein Der Auschwitz-Prozeß

I don’t think that I make the grade, professor. Another F!

I just don’t have the right stuff to make a good Holocaust hoaxer.
:(

Kolchab

[calvin]

“The claim that one can of Zyklon was enough to fumigate a room that was large enough to take two days to fill with clothes, seems to contradict the assertion that substantially larger quantities of Zyklon were required to kill lice than were required to kill humans, an assertion that I understand was produced as a trump card in the refutation of the Leuchter Report.”

I’m not disputing the fact that it takes much more Zyklon to kill insects than it does humans, you have completely missed the point.

The witness claims that a room big enough to take two days to fill with clothing required only one standard can of Zklon for fumigation.

I am assuming that either the room was very big or it was filled very slowly. I doubt that it would be best practice to keep lice infested clothing lying around for any longer than was strictly necessary, so I am assuming that the room was quite large.

If this is the case, it’s the witness’s own testimony that seems to be in contradiction with the fact that it takes quite a large amount of Zyklon fumigant to kill lice. Big room, lots of clothes, one can of Zyklon = not much cyanide to kill vast amount of lice.

The witness also says this, “Despite the speed of this operation the lice jumped on our legs and to protect ourselves we spread a little Zyklon-B around our feet. Immediately, I could feel the lice drop off, dead”

Instantaneous death of lice caused by “a little Zyklon-B”?

It is the witness testimony that seems to be in contradiction to the know scientific facts regarding the toxicity of cyanide to insects.

It seems contradictory to me to claim that significantly more Zyklon was required to fumigate clothing than was required to kill humans but that a room that required two days to fill with clothing would not require a sufficient amount of Zyklon to make death or severe illness through dermal absorption inevitable during the operation described. Pressac;s introduction indicates that he too is trouble by this paradox; ultimately Pressac ducks the whole issue by making the absurd claim that the witness must be telling the truth because he lived to tell the tale.

[Trojan]

“The claim that one can of Zyklon was enough to fumigate a room that was large enough to take two days to fill with clothes, seems to contradict the assertion that substantially larger quantities of Zyklon were required to kill lice than were required to kill humans, an assertion that I understand was produced as a trump card in the refutation of the Leuchter Report.”

I’m not disputing the fact that it takes much more Zyklon to kill insects than it does humans, you have completely missed the point.

The witness claims that a room big enough to take two days to fill with clothing required only one standard can of Zklon for fumigation.

I am assuming that either the room was very big or it was filled very slowly. I doubt that it would be best practice to keep lice infested clothing lying around for any longer than was strictly necessary, so I am assuming that the room was quite large.

If this is the case, it’s the witness’s own testimony that seems to be in contradiction with the fact that it takes quite a large amount of Zyklon fumigant to kill lice. Big room, lots of clothes, one can of Zyklon = not much cyanide to kill vast amount of lice.

The witness also says this, “Despite the speed of this operation the lice jumped on our legs and to protect ourselves we spread a little Zyklon-B around our feet. Immediately, I could feel the lice drop off, dead”

Instantaneous death of lice caused by “a little Zyklon-B”?

It is the witness testimony that seems to be in contradiction to the know scientific facts regarding the toxicity of cyanide to insects.

It seems contradictory to me to claim that significantly more Zyklon was required to fumigate clothing than was required to kill humans but that a room that required two days to fill with clothing would not require a sufficient amount of Zyklon to make death or severe illness through dermal absorption inevitable during the operation described. Pressac;s introduction indicates that he too is trouble by this paradox; ultimately Pressac ducks the whole issue by making the absurd claim that the witness must be telling the truth because he lived to tell the tale.

Revisionist quote mining - isn't it wonderful. ;)

Could it be the witness is confusing insect death with insect paralysis?

Toxicity to Insects

"Among the commonly used famigants, HCN is one of the most toxic to insects. It aiso has a rapid paralyzing effect on most species. This action is an important consideration in dealing with insects, because sublethal concentrations may bring about apparent death. After exposure to the fumigant, the reversible action of the poison may permit the insect to recover. This reaction has already been referred to as protective stupefaction (Lindgren, 1938). It is important from the practical point of view because it means that the maximum recommended concentration should be atteined as quickly as possible during the application of the fumigant."

Give you an "A" for effort.

Next issue??

[NeoNietzsche]

.

So, please. Was Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II

a) a carburetion chamber

b) an air-raid shelter

c) a room into which delousing boxes were installed

d) a delousing chamber as a whole

e) an ordinary morgue

f) something else

Please provide ONE answer or provide a chronology explaining when and why it changed function. Then state your documentary evidence. Then provide corroboration in the form of a different kind of evidence, preferably a clear description of how it was used by an eyewitness.

Because anything less is speculative bullshit.

b, c, and e are covered by the following:


www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Mattogno271-278.html

On May 16, Bischoff sent to Kammler a "report on measures taken for the realization of special program ordered by SS Brigadeführer and Major General of the Waffen-SS Dr.-Ing. Kammler for PoW camp Auschwitz," in which we read under item 6:[26]

"6. Disinfestation plant. For the disinfestation of the clothing of detainees, each subsection of BAII will have an OT-disinfestation unit. To ensure a faultless delousing of the detainees themselves, the two existing detainee baths of BAI will be equipped with heaters and boilers to provide hot water for the existing showers. Furthermore, it is planned to install heating coils in the garbage incinerator at crematorium III thereby to provide water for the shower installation to be built in the cellar of crematorium III. Concerning the design of this unit, negotiations have been carried out with Topf & Söhne of Erfurt."

The project of setting up shower facilities in the basement of crematorium III was quickly extended to crematorium II as well. On June 5, the Topf Co. sent the following letter to the Central Construction Office at Auschwitz, with reference to "Krematorium II and III waste incineration furnace"...

Still, the project of showers resurfaces on March 25, 1944. On that day, SS Obersturmführer Werner Jothann, who had succeeded Bischoff as head of Central Construction Office on October 1, 1943, sent a letter to Topf on the subject "PoW camp Auschwitz, Kremat., exploitation of exhaust gases," in which he wrote:[40]

"You are asked to send soonest offer with pictorial representation and calculations plus detailed explanation. Crematoria II and III, possibly also IV and V are being considered."

In a listing of Topf dated April 13, 1943, referring to an unknown letter with the reference "24674/43/Ro-Pru/Pa," it is written:[41]

"2 Topf disinfestation ovens for crematorium II at PoW camp, Auschwitz."

There is also an invoice from the firm Vedag Betriebe Schlesien, dated July 28, 1943, on the subject of "Auschwitz-Krematorium" which concerns "sealing works done on the disinfestation plant."[42] It is known that the "2 Topf disinfestation ovens" had been ordered from Topf on February 11, 1943, (order no. 148) for building 32, i.e., for the central sauna.[43] There is also an "individual invoice" from Vedag with date and text identical to the one already mentioned, in which there is an explicit reference to "BW 32 - disinfestation facility."[44]

These two documents, even if they contain erroneous references, do confirm the general atmosphere with the crematoria being used for sanitary purposes as described in this section.



www.codoh.com/incon/inconscrmtgno.html

Mattogno's Positive Contribution

The positive part of Mattogno's article involves the unveiling of two documents that strongly support the contention that the "Vergasungskeller" was a disinfection installation. One of these documents speaks of the use of hot water generated by the crematorium/waste disposal thermal energy for showers, and the other speaks of "disinfection ovens" (Entwesungsofen).

These are excellent documents because they prove that the "Vergasungskeller" as well as the associated space in Crematorium III, were equipped with showers, as well as hot air delousing installations. This strongly supports the notion that they were not and could not have been used for gassing.

However, Mattogno, by failing to say even one word about the gastight doors with peepholes falls into the trap laid by Pressac. He still cannot explain what such a door would be doing on a space containing showers.

To recapitulate, if Krema II had two disinfection ovens then these could only have been applied to a small portion of the morgue's (very large) area. In all likelihood, bearing in mind the configuration in the disinfection literature, and at Majdanek as well, the hot air disinfection facilities would have been placed at the far end of the morgue, while the rest of the space would have been given over to delousing showers and, yes, areas for corpse-cleansing or storing. After all, even Henryk Tauber in May, 1945, argued that the morgue was subdivided by other walls.

But in any case one would still have the shower-space closed off by a gastight door with a peephole. And that is where Pressac's question arises, just as it arises at Dachau and Majdanek: why would a space containing showers need a gastight door, particularly one with a peephole? To be sure, one can argue that, technically speaking, these doors were not "gastight". But that gets one nowhere. The doors may have been unsuitable for sealing off HCN gas, but they were certainly suitable for the liquid aerosol which is what mustard gas actually is.

Mattogno doesn't answer this question, and he systematically avoids dealing with it. This is a pity, because as I have indicated in my other writings for two years now, the dual purpose of disinfection facilities and gastight air raid/decontamination facilities are in no way contradictory, and, in addition, explain -- instead of avoiding -- the various types of evidence that make little or no sense in a disinfection context, including:

#1 gastight doors with peepholes
#2 screens
#3 wooden shutters
#4 "little doors"
#5 gasdichte Tuerme
#6 red lamps
#7 reinforced concrete roofs and walls
#8 underground location
#9 attested use as air raid shelters

In short, the concept of air raid shelter protection, combined with the disinfection paradigm, explains completely and without omission all of the so-called "criminal traces" of JC Pressac, while the disinfection paradigm alone leaves behind a number of anomalies such as those listed above which are simply ignored.

The crematoria at Birkenau were large buildings that served a multitude of functions, and I have argued since July, 1997 that corpse handlers, new arrivals, and potential mustard gas victims all could have used the showers in the basements of the crematoria. They were sturdy, prominent stuctures of sufficient size and expanse to allow both the disinfection paradigm and the air raid shelter paradigm to exist side by side. By the same token, both functions should be able to coexist in the minds of most revisionists. Not only would it "only have been common sense" to do this, as Dr. Stäglich observes, compelling evidence shows that this was indeed the case.

It was not designed as a homicidal gas chamber and was not adapted to that purpose:


http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0.htm

“the situation in the LK 1 after the gassing of a large number of people: the corpses are heaped on top of one another; they block most of the air extraction orifices; the room is full of warm toxic gas; how can there be rapid and efficient mechanical ventilation? I would say that it is nor possible...”


These remarks mean that Leichenkeller I used as a gas chamber had a poorly designed ventilation system and in the case of large-scale gassings [3000 people in 210 m² according to Nyiszli, or 13.3 per square meter], the lower orifices being blocked ventilation would become impossible [a model visible at the Museum illustrates this “maximum” case, though there are probably no more than one thousand victims depicted].

The figure of 3000 is theoretical and exaggerated, but if we take it as correct, then so is my correspondent's hypothesis and the ventilation is blocked and cannot work.

What would the SS have done in the case of such an “incident”?

They would have proceeded in two stages:

1. Open wide the doors giving basement access through the north yard and those of the undressing room, whose ventilation system working at full power would prevent the basement being contaminated:

Before putting on their gas masks, the SS would have then ordered two to four members of the Sonderkommando to put on masks, open the gas chamber door and drag bodies out into the vestibule until several of the air extraction orifices had been cleared. Then the gas-tight door would have been closed again, the ventilation restarted, and to improve its efficiency all that was required was to open the Zyklon-B introduction covers, but not until that moment. After verifying by means of a gas detector that there was no longer any danger of hydrocyanic acid intoxication outside the gas chamber, operations would have resumed their “normal” course.
2. Once the gas chamber had been emptied, a squad of fitters or bricklayers would have fixed at the end of the chamber, in the southeast corner a steel duct of about 20 cm diameter and 2 meters high or built a brick chimney of about the same dimensions connecting with or protecting one of the lower air extraction orifices and enabling it to take in warm contaminated air from above. The time taken for the “repair” would not have been longer than an afternoon. Such an incident would not have interrupted the “operation” of the Krematorium. As the documents we possess at present make no mention of such work we can assume for the moment that the case of the “3000” never occurred, the number of victims from a convoy always being less than this.

The initial ventilation system of Leichenkeller I, which was designed for a basement morgue, is not a “definitive” obstacle to using the room as a gas chamber.

[NeoNietzsche]

http://www.rodoh.us/arts/arts1/allen/devil-details.pdf

Examining technical details of the ventilation systems of the Birkenau morgues, this article argues that from the beginning of October 1941 the SS planned Morgue I of Crematoria II and III as a gas chamber for the extermination of human beings.
Do our Hoaxers wish to agree or disagree with the magnificently inept Michael Thad Allen of the Georgia Institute of Technology - perhaps after troubling themselves to actually examine his diagram of LK I?

Perhaps our Hoaxers would also like to consult the linked work to see a diagram of an authentic gaskammer, which has a fume generator at one end and an extraction chimney at the other, precisely where Pressac would have located the latter in "repairing" the non-functional LK I - as would have I, as I stated even before seeing the LK I diagram, as a matter of simple pneumo-dynamic logic.

[cerberus]

One would still have to ask a few questions.
Why if these building were so innocnet would Himmler give ortder for the contents of the bukidings to be dismantled and the structure blown up so as not to have them fall intact into the hands of the Red Army ?

Why would these buildings and the Canada Compound be singled out for destruction , in an isloated part of a large camp ?

It just does not add up.
And why steps down into a morgue ?
Showers to wash bodies - hoses would be better.
Why wash bodies when you are going to destroy them ?
The sauna area - did it not house the delossing equipment which Fred Toben spoke so highly of ?

This does not add up.

[NeoNietzsche]

One would still have to ask a few questions.

Why if these building were so innocnet would Himmler give ortder for the contents of the bukidings to be dismantled and the structure blown up so as not to have them fall intact into the hands of the Red Army?
Reproduce Himmler's order for us - that might give us a hint as to his intent.

www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/vanpelt/vanpelt-dismantel.shtml



It just does not add up.
And why steps down into a morgue ?
To carry a corpse down on a stretcher.



Showers to wash bodies - hoses would be better.
Showers in which to "faultlessly delouse detainees," according to Bischoff's letter, quoted above.


The sauna area - did it not house the delossing equipment which Fred Toben spoke so highly of?
It seems so, though it is not clear from Mattogno's contribution whether there were not also 2 such chambers at Krema II, or the same 2 chambers first installed in Krema II and later moved to the sauna, or first intended for Krema II and redirected to the sauna.

[calvin]

Trojan

“Give you an "A" for effort”

It was no “effort” at all it was simply a question and I accept your answer about insect toxicity. Kudos to you, point conceded.

[Trojan]

... point conceded.

Damn, first I've seen this in a while. ;)

At one time, Basil had the integrity to also concede a point, that's been lost over the last year or so.

[Basil Fawlty]

Damn, first I've seen this in a while. ;)

At one time, Basil had the integrity to also concede a point, that's been lost over the last year or so.I beg your pardon? What piece of skullduggery is this now, and from you of all people?

[NeoNietzsche]

It's a shame that our agent-in-place, Globby, got himself banned.

He has done us great service in exposing Hoaxer literature.

I look forward to his return and further revelations.

Also, Cerberus owes us that Himmler order, and APE needs to give us his no-bullshit comment on Michael Thad Allen and that elaborately-developed thesis as to LK I as a purpose-built extermination facility.

[Trojan]

I beg your pardon? What piece of skullduggery is this now, and from you of all people?

Just an observation ... you've grown obstinate in your old-age.

[Basil Fawlty]

Just an observation ... you've grown obstinate in your old-age.I've transitted into old-age in one year?! :eek: Please don't say that, it undermines one's sense of well being.

Obstinate? No more than before. If I'm shown to be wrong or am corrected in some way concerning facts, I have no problem admitting that. But don't confuse such matters with disputes over interpretation.

[xxx]

[QUOTE]Toxicity to Insects

"Among the commonly used famigants, HCN is one of the most toxic to insects. It aiso has a rapid paralyzing effect on most species. This action is an important consideration in dealing with insects, because sublethal concentrations may bring about apparent death. After exposure to the fumigant, the reversible action of the poison may permit the insect to recover. This reaction has already been referred to as protective stupefaction (Lindgren, 1938). It is important from the practical point of view because it means that the maximum recommended concentration should be atteined as quickly as possible during the application of the fumigant."
[/QUOTE
Has the phenomenon of protective stupefaction been observed in the following insects, human lice, crabs, bed bugs or fleas.? The above qoute seems to come from the mannual of fumigation and doesn't appear to have actual information on human parasites. It deals mainly with weevils and such.

[Trojan]

Here's the link ...

http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5042E/x5042E0b.htm

[cerberus]

NeoAlso, Cerberus owes us that Himmler order
remind me Neo , what Himmler order in particular ?

[calvin]

"Effective immediately, I forbid any extermination of Jews and order to the contrary that care be taken of the feeble and sick. I hold you [Kaltenbrunner and Pohl] personally responsible for this, even if this order should not be strictly complied with by my subordinate quarters."

Is this the Himmler order in question?

[The Retard]

The Nazis couldn't have made many bars of soap from the fat of Jews.....
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/6079/auschwitzqc0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
not enough meat on their bones.

[cerberus]

CalvinIs this the Himmler order in question?
Good question Calvin.
Might it have been 14f13 ?

[Trojan]

Neo
remind me Neo , what Himmler order in particular ?

Actually, I think it was an alleged written order from Himmler to destroy Auchwitz before it was captured by the Soviets (or some such item).

[NeoNietzsche]

Actually, I think it was an alleged written order from Himmler to destroy Auchwitz before it was captured by the Soviets (or some such item).
Correct, except as to the allegation of its having been written.

[xxx]

[QUOTE] Here's the link.... [QUOTE]

The fumigation manual on the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N site(linked to ) does not mention the following insects: phthiraptera(lice), siphonaptera(fleas), cimex lectularius(bed bugs), or any other ectoparasite. Agricultural pests are the only insects mentioned. There is no reference to protective stupefaction having occurred in ectoparasites on this site. Is there another source?

[cerberus]

NeoCorrect, except as to the allegation of its having been written

I think it is more than reasonable that he did order the destruction of the gas chambers and Krem, units at Auschwitz and I have no problem in believing that this order was given - Himmler did after all run these camps and took a great interest in them.

Apart from this over seeing their destruction had some self preservation issues as far as Himmler was concerned.
Why Neo , do you think he didn't order their destruction , or do you like some some other revisionist followers seem to think that it was the soviets who destroyed them ?

To me it is a little bit like saying Hitler never knew nor ordered "the final solution" as it is merely a rational used to divorce purpose and responsibility.

[calvin]

So Himmler issued one directive that ordered the destruction of physical evidence and issued another directive ordering the preservation of eyewitnesses?

[Trojan]

So Himmler issued one directive that ordered the destruction of physical evidence and issued another directive ordering the preservation of eyewitnesses?

Auchwitz was liberated in January 1945, not sure when the other directive was issued (nor do I subscribe to your description of the order).

[cerberus]

Yes , clever old Himmler - on the whole he did quite a good job ( in terms of removing equipment and eventually destroying the structures , having started it in November 44 and had until January 45 to work on it.

Clever old Himmler , he never really considered that his life's work would be subject to investigation or that he might be asked to explain just what was going on.

Clever old Himmler topped himself and left Kaltenbrunner to carry the can or rather to "take the drop" for him.

[calvin]

The following exchange is from the first Zundel trial, Douglas Christie is cross-examining holocaust authority, Raul Hilberg.
………………………………………………………………………………………
“Christie returned to The Destruction of the European Jews at page 631 where Hilberg had written:

"In November, 1944, Himmler decided that for all practical purposes the Jewish question had been solved. On the twenty-fifth of that month he ordered the dismantling of the killing installations" (Affidavit by Kurt Becher, March 8, 1946, PS 3762)

How do you explain the fact, asked Christie, that the affidavit of Kurt Becher provides no basis for your statement, neither as to the date or any mention of killing installations?”
……………………………………………………………………………………
In fact this exchange is doubly damning because, not only does the Becher Affidavit say nothing at all about dismantling killing machines, it explicitly asserts that Himmler ordered that there was to be no harsh treatment or extermination of prisoners.

"Effective immediately, I forbid any extermination of Jews and order to the contrary that care be taken of the feeble and sick. I hold you [Kaltenbrunner and Pohl] personally responsible for this, even if this order should not be strictly complied with by my subordinate quarters." Kurt Brecher's account of the "Himmler order".

It seems that Raul Hilberg interpreted a second hand account of an order by Himmler, forbiding extermination of Jews, as a documented order by Himmler for the dismantling of killing installations. Unless someone can produce a source for a direct order from Himmler for the dismantling of killing installations, we must assume that this is a mythical order that has its genesis in Hilbergs sloppy research.

[cerberus]

CalvinIt seems that Raul Hilberg interpreted a second hand account of an order by Himmler, forbiding extermination of Jews, as a documented order by Himmler for the dismantling of killing installations. Unless someone can produce a source for a direct order from Himmler for the dismantling of killing installations, we must assume that this is a mythical order that has its genesis in Hilbergs sloppy research.


This is your take on it Calvin. Himmler was responsible for the Concentration camp system which was staffed by his people , it was he who ordered the construction of the camp (Auschwitz) ,its subsequent expansions and evolving role in the "Final Solution" and "Jewish Affairs".
He visisted the camp when it was under development and was instrumental in having firms like IG Farben becoming satalites to it and having them suppied with labour and having those who could not work disposed off.
(See Aktion 14f13).
To pretend that he had no say in the disposal of the gas Chambers and Krem. Units is a cop out , the key word in your quote is "assume".
You "assume" that no order was given , someone gave it and it was not given at camp level so who did give it ?
Himmler was attempting to save his own neck , self preservation pure and simple , he could read the writing on the wall - are you going to "assume" that he still believed in "final victory" ?

[eggheadbanga]

There is a whole series of reports from the Auschwitz-Birkenau labour department which specifies the existence of 'Abbruchkommandos' for the crematoria during December 1944. They begin on December 1 and go right up to December 30. The details can be found in the Auschwitz Chronicle aka Kalendarium.

There are also numerous affidavits from witnesses who participated in the dismantling of the crematoria. One can be found online here, though there are many more in archives:
http://motlc.specialcol.wiesenthal.com/instdoc/d04c10/meng72z2.html

Moreover, a manuscript written by one of the Sonderkommandos and discovered after the war specifies the date of 25 November 1944 as the point when the SS began the dismantling of the crematoria at Auschwitz. (this too can be read about in the Auschwitz Chronicle).

My copy of Hilberg, the 1991 German edition, gives the following fuller citation of this point.

Im November 1944 entschied Himmler, dass die juedische Frage praktisch geloest sei. Am 25. jenes Monats befahl er die Demontage der Vernichtungsanlagen (note 507). Am selben Tag wurden Auschwitz I und Auschwitz II zum Konzentrationslager zusammengelegt, aus Auschwitz III wurde das Konzentrationslager Monowitz. (note 508)

507- Affidavit von Kurt Becher, 8.3.46, PS-3762
508 - Czech, 'Kalendarium', Hefte von Auschwitz 8 (1964), p.88

If you want to get anal about things, note 507 justifiably supports the first sentence, while note 508 as a source - referring to the Kalendarium - supports the subsequent two sentences.

There are a total of 553 footnotes in the relevant chapter.

In fact this exchange is doubly damning because, not only does the Becher Affidavit say nothing at all about dismantling killing machines, it explicitly asserts that Himmler ordered that there was to be no harsh treatment or extermination of prisoners.

Not very strong on logic, are you? If Himmler forbade the extermination of Jews 'effective immediately', then this means that someone was exterminating them beforehand. That someone included Himmler, as any sane person reading the Posen speech of October 1943 would agree.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/

[Fade the Butcher]

I can't believe they are trying to revive this nonsense.

"Officials with Poland's Institute for National Remembrance (IPN)"

LOLZ

[cerberus]

CalvinIn fact this exchange is doubly damning because, not only does the Becher Affidavit say nothing at all about dismantling killing machines, it explicitly asserts that Himmler ordered that there was to be no harsh treatment or extermination of prisoners.

This begs the question when did "extermination" enter the language of the SS , what happened to " transportation", "resettlement" , "to the east" and the other euphemisms employed like so many flags of convenience ?

Posen described what was happening and it explained the theft or as it has been described as the "recycling" of property to the Reich - and Himmler lied - he said that " we have kept nothing for ourselves" - why did he send Odilo Globocnick to Trieste ? ( Answer -Theft and corruption , it would sem that the dead were not the only people being corrupted !)

Funny how this one section of the whole complex of Auschwitz / Birkenau was singled out for attention - an attention which was to last for about two months which ended with the structures being blown up and the Canada section being burnt to the ground - it burnt for two days tfhe Russians arrived and still not all the physical evidence was destroyed.

Theft and murder - it was all about attempting to destroy the evidence as had been done at the sites of the Reinhard Camps - you assume that Himmler didn't order it - and you "assume" the Hilberg and historians have "assumed" , in short Calvin "you assume too much" and "assume" wrongly.

Who ordered the dismantling and final destruction - if not Himmler who , and why ?
Neo may ask for evidence of an order from Himmler - as far as I am aware Himmler was still in firm control of the concentration camp system and the Commander at Auschwitz acted under the orders and authority of the Reichsfuhrer SS , who in turn acted under the authority of the Fuhrer.

[Trojan]

Calvin

Are you claiming there was no order destroy key buildings at Auchwitz?

[calvin]

Cerberus

“This begs the question when did "extermination" enter the language of the SS, what happened to " transportation", "resettlement" , "to the east" and the other euphemisms employed like so many flags of convenience ?”

If the words “transport” and “resettlement” were commonly understood to mean extermination, why would Himmler, at a point in time when he is supposed to be anxious to cover his tracks, suddenly start to use the incriminating word “extermination”? Why didn’t he just say that there must be no further transportations of Jews? Himmler took great care not to say that exterminations must cease or that exterminations must be suspended. If Himmler was carefully choosing his words in order to avoid incrimination why would he use the word “extermination” since, as you have pointed out, there were many other innocent and well understood euphemisms that he could have used?

“Funny how this one section of the whole complex of Auschwitz / Birkenau was singled out for attention - an attention which was to last for about two months which ended with the structures being blown up and the Canada section being burnt to the ground - it burnt for two days the Russians arrived and still not all the physical evidence was destroyed”

A delousing and disinfestation complex would be extremely useful to the advancing Red Army. Maybe the Germans were hoping that a typhus outbreak would inhibit the Soviet advance? Why wouldn’t you blow up these facilities?

Why would Himmler order the destruction of these facilities but expressly forbid the extermination of the remaining witnesses? In two months an SS unit could have liquidated the entire remaining camp population (according to the killing capacities attributed to these installations by the holocaust lobby), incinerated the corpses and then destroyed the buildings.

As Stalin would say, "No people, no problem"

[NeoNietzsche]

Neo

I think it is more than reasonable that he did order the destruction of the gas chambers and Krem, units at Auschwitz and I have no problem in believing that this order was given - Himmler did after all run these camps and took a great interest in them.
Why would Himmler self-preservatively order very selective dynamiting of facilities so as to create the consequent suspicion of the criminal use of such facilities? Had the structures not been dealt with in this fashion, what, specifically, would have been discovered? Perhaps a ventilation system in the LK I's that was unsuitable for homicidal gassings? Bracketing holes for shower plumbing? Small round exhaust holes in the roofs for delousing chamber chimneys?



Why Neo, do you think he didn't order their destruction, or do you like some some other revisionist followers seem to think that it was the soviets who destroyed them ?
I don't know whether he did or didn't - that's why I suggested that you locate the order, for inspection as to his intent. Upon reflection thereafter, however, and knowing the way the Hoax is promoted by the ad-libbing of "evidence," I suspected that there was no such order preserved on paper, and so I went looking and was not surprised to find that there was none.

Since the dynamiting created rather than eliminated suspicion, I suspect the Soviets. Wouldn't be the first time.



To me it is a little bit like saying Hitler never knew nor ordered "the final solution" as it is merely a rational[e] used to divorce purpose and responsibility.
You assume the homicidal use of the facilities. I do not claim that Himmler did not give orders regarding the abandoning of the Auschwitz facilities, as would be expected. The question is what was ordered and why.

[NeoNietzsche]

If Himmler forbade the extermination of Jews 'effective immediately', then this means that someone was exterminating them beforehand. That someone included Himmler, as any sane person reading the Posen speech of October 1943 would agree.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/


It is one of those things that is easily said. "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter."
Question: Would "every Party member have told you" that the Jews were being killed - or would every Party member have told you that the Jews were being uprooted? Or is this a silly impersonation of Himmler, planted in Rosenberg's files?


And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew.

And none of them has seen it, has endured it. Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when there are 500, or when there are 1000. And to have seen this through, and -- with the exception of human weaknesses -- to have remained decent, has made us hard and is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned.
And how could Himmler have the Germans "remaining decent" despite the 1000's of their own dead, if they had merely reciprocated by literally killing the Jews, in turn?

Is is evident, from making sense of the above, that the Himmler of this speech is not speaking literally of killing.

[calvin]

Neo triumphs again. The Posen speech, a vital pillar in the sparse evidence that props up exterminationism is demolished in two brief posts. The exterminationist translation of “ausrottung” as “extermination” makes no sense when placed in context. The alternative translation of “ausrottung” is “uprooting”.

“I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people”

Why jump from “evacuation” to “extermination”? The juxtaposition of the two terms is incongruous unless the alternative translation (uprooting) is used.

“Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when there are 500, or when there are 1000. And to have seen this through, and -- with the exception of human weaknesses -- to have remained decent”

The full text of the speech, kindly provided by the holocaust history website, make it clear that, Himmler is talking about German victims of area bombing as the next paragraph makes clear.

“Because we know how difficult things would be, if today in every city during the bomb attacks, the burdens of war and the privations, we still had Jews as secret saboteurs”

So much for the Posen speech; next please!

[Trojan]

Fine, please demonstrate the destination to which these Jews were then evacuated to.

[NeoNietzsche]

Fine, please demonstrate the destination to which these Jews were then evacuated to.
Using which documents not previously or presently in the possession of the Show Trial sponsors?

[Trojan]

Using which documents not previously or presently in the possession of the Show Trial sponsors?

Using evidence - show us what happened to them.

[NeoNietzsche]

Using evidence - show us what happened to them.
What evidence to that effect, contrary to the Hoax thesis promoted at the IMT/NMT with extorted false witness, did the Show Trial sponsors and Occupying Powers fail to destroy?

[Empress Cheesatine]

What evidence to that effect, contrary to the Hoax thesis promoted at the IMT/NMT with extorted false witness, did the Show Trial sponsors and Occupying Powers fail to destroy?

One stumblingblock to full documentation here: Russia has not released all of its wartime documentation and has in recent years tried to bribe Germany into giving them aid funding by offering to turn over papers.

However, the lack of full paperwork on this issue does mean ipso facto that the Jews were exterminated. Large chunks of train records are missing and consequently we may never get a full picture of the comings and goings to such locales as Auschwitz.

[Trojan]

One stumblingblock to full documentation here: Russia has not released all of its wartime documentation and has in recent years tried to bribe Germany into giving them aid funding by offering to turn over papers.

However, the lack of full paperwork on this issue does mean ipso facto that the Jews were exterminated. Large chunks of train records are missing and consequently we may never get a full picture of the comings and goings to such locales as Auschwitz.

Bullsh*t, show us some evidence to demonstrate that the Jews went further than the 'death camps' - show us the relocation camps in the East.

[cerberus]

CPHowever, the lack of full paperwork on this issue does mean ipso facto that the Jews were exterminated. Large chunks of train records are missing and consequently we may never get a full picture of the comings and goings to such locales as Auschwitz.

Trojan is right CP.
You mention that train records are missing , and that you believe that until all the paper work is on the table that "we" may not be able to understand the workings of places like Auschwitz.
A reasonable comment up to a point.
You neglect to mention and address that simple fact that apart from records being missing several million people are missing , you don't seem to take this into account nor do you consider this to be important.( You didn't mention it !).

As far as records go , they may or may not still exist - what is quite certain is that the missing people are not just going to turn up living in the basement of some EX- Russian KGB records department.

You also don't mention CP that the records which have surfaced and been examined in Russia do fully support that genocide did take place , if the train records do surface all well and good - but what will they prove ?
They won't prove that these people went beyond the known stops - Auschwitz only provided two destinations - the labour camp or the grave and the former was for many but a stop over en route the grave , which proved to be were your ashes were dumped.
"Ipso facto" is not on the table CP - other than you assume that it is or that It suits your own menu that it be so - that you don't even consider that there are about five million plus people who just disappeared from the planet is "ipso facto" ?

Try harder CP and dump the shades.

[calvin]

We are now arguing about holocaust demographics. This is a whole separate issue. Exterminationists should summarise their objections and post them in a new thread.

[NeoNietzsche]

CP

You neglect to mention and address that simple fact that apart from records being missing several million people are missing , you don't seem to take this into account nor do you consider this to be important.( You didn't mention it !).
Who reported the "several million people" as "missing" - and to whom? How does Yad Vashem know that only half of it's reportings are phoney? And how do we know the fate, from their mere missingness, of the balance?

I remember reading, long ago, of the complaint of SS officers that they didn't know what to do with the Jews that were being dumped on them in the East without resources to sustain them. One is left to conclude that the Jews were simply shot. That does not follow, however. I also recall reading of the extraordinary number of DP Jews passing through Germany on their way elsewhere in the immediate aftermath of the war. This has led me to suspect that great numbers of Jews were simply dumped in Russia, without resources, as is consistent with APE's information as to the absence of such resources, and that some were shot under the pretext of being potential partisans, others were left to join the partisans and were shot upon apprehension, and others managed to make their way to Soviet lines or drifted back to the West while not again making the mistake of identifying themselves as Jewish. I very much doubt that anyone was killed in the barracks, morgues, bunkers, barber shops, air-raid shelters, and shower baths. But the Powers that Be have decreed that It Was So, and they have devised various impostures in the aftermath of the event, as they had done in the prelude thereto, leading us to be suspicious of the creation of existing documents and to suspect the destruction of non-existent documents. I am troubled by the issue of "which way did they go," but the implication that they went to their proximate deaths due to extermination measures does not yet follow in a reasonable reckoning as against the failure to show the suitability of the supposed "gas chambers" for the purpose and in view of the prevarication involved in the effort to do so.



You also don't mention CP that the records which have surfaced and been examined in Russia do fully support that genocide did take place...
I haven't been keeping up - last I heard, the records were of registrations that counter the Exterminationist case. If these other Russian "records" are other than propaganda and rumor, why did the Soviets perform the Auschwitz Lie of the 4 Million rather than use a documented number?

[cerberus]

NeoWho reported the "several million people" as "missing" - and to whom? How does Yad Vashem know that only half of it's reportings are phoney? And how do we know the fate, from their mere missingness, of the balance?

I think Neo that your jump to " Yad Vashem" does tend to illustrate your own denial and the paragraph which followed really sets out your stall.

NeoWho reported the "several million people" as "missing" - and to whom? How does Yad Vashem know that only half of it's reportings are phoney? And how do we know the fate, from their mere missingness, of the balance?

I remember reading, long ago, of the complaint of SS officers that they didn't know what to do with the Jews that were being dumped on them in the East without resources to sustain them. One is left to conclude that the Jews were simply shot. That does not follow, however. I also recall reading of the extraordinary number of DP Jews passing through Germany on their way elsewhere in the immediate aftermath of the war. This has led me to suspect that great numbers of Jews were simply dumped in Russia, without resources, as is consistent with APE's information as to the absence of such resources, and that some were shot under the pretext of being potential partisans, others were left to join the partisans and were shot upon apprehension, and others managed to make their way to Soviet lines or drifted back to the West while not again making the mistake of identifying themselves as Jewish. I very much doubt that anyone was killed in the barracks, morgues, bunkers, barber shops, air-raid shelters, and shower baths. But the Powers that Be have decreed that It Was So, and they have devised various impostures in the aftermath of the event, as they had done in the prelude thereto, leading us to be suspicious of the creation of existing documents and to suspect the destruction of non-existent documents. I am troubled by the issue of "which way did they go," but the implication that they went to their proximate deaths due to extermination measures does not yet follow in a reasonable reckoning as against the failure to show the suitability of the supposed "gas chambers" for the purpose and in view of the prevarication involved in the effort to do so.

Neo - when I read this I have to ask if you have ever read anything remotely relating to "The Final Solution" , if this is meant to be a serious comment all i can do is ......:rofl:

NeoI haven't been keeping up - last I heard, the records were of registrations that counter the Exterminationist case. If these other Russian "records" are other than propaganda and rumor, why did the Soviets perform the Auschwitz Lie of the 4 Million rather than use a documented number?

Neo - its quite simple - when so many people disappeared into the camp systems and off the face of the earth - when those murdered never appeared on admission registers , when the reinhard camps killed with out asking names its rather hard to be exact.

Even today a best estimate is all that can be achieved - when revisionist say that they are reviwing history - I find it odd that they should be critical of those who do likewise - historians have always done this - on the basis of research and evidence - do you deny that the figures reflected by the Ss themselves are wrong ?

Bloody murder is bloody murder Neo - you may not like it but that does not change it - you may wish to explain it away but that is your concern - wishful thinking cannot translate into fact - this is your conundrum - your house of cards.

Three books which may further complicate your problem;
"Commanders of Auschwitz - The SS Officers who ran the largest nazi concentration camp 1940-1945 by Jeremy Dixon.
(Schiffer Military Press) ISBN 0-7643 2175-7.

"Auschwitz" by Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Van Pelt. (Norton) ISBN 0-393-32291.

"The Unwritten Order - Hitler's role in The Final Solution" by Peter Longerich. (Tempus) ISBN 0 7524 2564 1.

Sometime back Sulla passed the comment that anyone who denied the records of the Einsatzgruppen must be well out of touch - you seem to have fallen into this bracket , or do you really swallow what Himmler wrote in his own hand following a meeting with Der Fuhrer , "Jews to be shot as partisans" ?
Key words being to be shot as , as does imply that all is not as it seems.
What is this Neo, " The Glorious page in our history which never can nor never shall be written" - I think this is how Himmler described it - feel free to correct me on this quote if it is not 100% correct.

[cerberus]

CalvinWe are now arguing about holocaust demographics. This is a whole separate issue. Exterminationists should summarise their objections and post them in a new thread.
Calvin , I have no objections or conflict with the historical record , so I will leave the objections up to those who do - they may wish to do so at any time.

[NeoNietzsche]

I think Neo that your jump to " Yad Vashem" does tend to illustrate your own denial and the paragraph which followed really sets out your stall.
I note that you do not answer the question.



Neo - when I read this I have to ask if you have ever read anything remotely relating to "The Final Solution" , if this is meant to be a serious comment all i can do is ......:rofl:
While you are joyfully incapacitated, perhaps someone else could respond substantively.



Neo - its quite simple - when so many people disappeared into the camp systems and off the face of the earth - when those murdered never appeared on admission registers , when the reinhard camps killed with out asking names its rather hard to be exact.
But it's rather easy to assume that which is to be proven, as you have just done.



Even today a best estimate is all that can be achieved - when revisionist say that they are reviwing history - I find it odd that they should be critical of those who do likewise - historians have always done this - on the basis of research and evidence - do you deny that the figures reflected by the Ss themselves are wrong ?
What figures as to missing persons?



Bloody murder is bloody murder Neo - you may not like it but that does not change it - you may wish to explain it away but that is your concern - wishful thinking cannot translate into fact - this is your conundrum - your house of cards.
You mean like the missing Auschwitz 2.5 million?



Three books which may further complicate your problem;
"Commanders of Auschwitz - The SS Officers who ran the largest nazi concentration camp 1940-1945 by Jeremy Dixon.
(Schiffer Military Press) ISBN 0-7643 2175-7.

"Auschwitz" by Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Van Pelt. (Norton) ISBN 0-393-32291.

"The Unwritten Order - Hitler's role in The Final Solution" by Peter Longerich. (Tempus) ISBN 0 7524 2564 1.
Presumably you have read these, so why don't you do the complicating right now?



Sometime back Sulla passed the comment that anyone who denied the records of the Einsatzgruppen must be well out of touch - you seem to have fallen into this bracket, or do you really swallow what Himmler wrote in his own hand following a meeting with Der Fuhrer , "Jews to be shot as partisans" ?
You have not been paying attention - I dispute none of this at present.



What is this Neo, " The Glorious page in our history which never can nor never shall be written" - I think this is how Himmler described it - feel free to correct me on this quote if it is not 100% correct.
It is evident that Himmler was not speaking of killing Jews in the one instance and was writing of killing them, under pretext, in the other.

[cerberus]

NeoI note that you do not answer the question.

Try the approx.150,000 requests made of the International Red Cross each year ?

While you are joyfully incapacitated, perhaps someone else could respond substantively.
You mean , your answer was serious ? I would not have thought so.
But it's rather easy to assume that which is to be proven, as you have just done
As my comment on your paragraph shows the assumptions are yours.
missing persons?
can you explain where they are or why as frred Toben of the "Aderlaide Institute" states - they simply stopped wanting to be jewish , must rank as one of the best escuses I have heard to date.
You mean like the missing Auschwitz 2.5 million?
Try the figures quoteed by Hilburg what is it , something like 5.3 million.
So you admit that some pople are not accounted for ?
( And it so easy to see where you are going with this . (yawn ).
Presumably
Why presume ?
I didn't presume when I suggested you consult them .
You have not been paying attention - I dispute none of this at present.
It is not a case of my not paying attention , I just need to be sure what exactly it is you are denying to begin with.
if you are not denying these records then you are not denying that heydrich was directing mass murder and that when Himmler made his note he was deciding in advance under what grounds he could justify the mass shooting of jews in eastern europe and the soon to be invaded Soviet Union.
Nothing really new here at the time of Himmler's meeting with Hitler ( pre Barbarossa if memory serves me correctly) , Carnaris had as early as Sept. 39 asked for clarification of murders in Poland from Keitel and had been refused it.( On the grounds that ti had already been decided by the Fuhrer).
It is evident that Himmler was not speaking of killing Jews in the one instance and was writing of killing them, under pretext, in the other.

Can you explain ?
I have already given you an example of how Himmler was agreing to the mass killing of Jews and how it was to be justified - written in his own hand - so what exactly are you saying he was saying ?
Just helpful to know what words mean - seeing you don't have any problem accepting what heydrichs "Special Action Groups" were doing ?

You see Neo this is what revsionism always boils down to , word play , trying to stay one jump ahead on the basis of word play- beyond that revisionist thnking has no substance.

[Trojan]

We are now arguing about holocaust demographics. This is a whole separate issue. Exterminationists should summarise their objections and post them in a new thread.

What objections, I stand on the historical record, let's hear your objections. :deadhorse:

[calvin]

"Sometime back Sulla passed the comment that anyone who denied the records of the Einsatzgruppen must be well out of touch - you seem to have fallen into this bracket, or do you really swallow what Himmler wrote in his own hand following a meeting with Der Fuhrer , "Jews to be shot as partisans" ?"

That's brilliant! All you need now is the note that says, "and the remaining five million are to be gassed with insecticide"

[cerberus]

CalvinThat's brilliant! All you need now is the note that says, "and the remaining five million are to be gassed with insecticide"

Take the trouble to read what took place before you comment Calvin , at the moment your foot is in your oral cavity.:p :naughty:

(You will find that Heydrich's men shot more than you actually quote and and that gassing was but one method of killing employed).

[calvin]

It’s bullshit to call these people “partisans”; we are talking about an illegal army of communist collaborators. The communist guerrillas were being fought by the Germans with the assistance of the locals. Do you really think that Poles and Balts who had watched elements in their population assist in the Soviet liquidations were just going to kiss and make up when the commies got booted out?

[cerberus]

CalvinIt’s bullshit to call these people “partisans”; we are talking about an illegal army of communist collaborators. The communist guerrillas were being fought by the Germans with the assistance of the locals. Do you really think that Poles and Balts who had watched elements in their population assist in the Soviet liquidations were just going to kiss and make up when the commies got booted out?
Calvin , do you really believe that when Hitler and Himmler met to discuss the fate of Jews in the soon to be occupied Soviet Union that they knew by means of cyrstal ball that the jews would all be partisans ?
key words are to be shot as partisans
Did this "illegal army" also consist of children , the aged and infants ?
Tell me how children and infants carry arms ?
Tell me the Germans treated and planned to treat the people whom they did not kill ?
Don't you think it strange that it reflected the same policy which was enacted in Poland , don't you think it a disgusting parallel to a similar policy which Stalin had the NKVD inflict on on Polish officers in 1940 ?
Calvin , you are flogging a dead horse here .:deadhorse:
( And no way is it going to get up and walk for you).

[calvin]

Alexander Solzhenitsyn affirms extensive collaboration between Jewish communities and the NKVD.A huge partisan army constantly harassed the Germans. It seems logical to me that locals would want to take revenge upon these collaborators. It would also seem logical that Jews would seek refuge within the ranks of the partisans. Before you try to guilt trip me about women and children try educating yourself about area bombing.

[cerberus]

Calvin.Alexander Solzhenitsyn affirms extensive collaboration between Jewish communities and the NKVD.A huge partisan army constantly harassed the Germans. It seems logical to me that locals would want to take revenge upon these collaborators. It would also seem logical that Jews would seek refuge within the ranks of the partisans. Before you try to guilt trip me about women and children try educating yourself about area bombing.
Calvin, did it ever occur to you that many of the soldiers of the Red Army cut of behind german lines might have had something to do with the partisans ?
Certainly the Russians fought this way - that you assume that Heydrichs Special action Units shot partisans alone is an utter flight of fantasy and bears little resemblence to the facts , but why let a small isssue like that upset your apple cart ?

The time honoured jump to area bombing - the standard jumping of the horse by the rider - I note that you did not answer any of the points raised , only to use an assumption ( that I was sending you on a guilt trip) to justify this departure from the subject.

Let me ask you this calvin , what was the standard bomb mix employed by the Luftwaffe when they bombed British Cities ?
How did it compare with that dropped by the Allies ?

The answer might surprise you.
May I refer you to last month's issue of the BBC History magazine and an article in it by Richard Overy - often referred to as a "Court Historian" - a term much favoured by David Irving when he is sucking on sour grapes and nursing that huge chip on his shoulder. (And now popular with those who require sound bites).
Overy passes comment on the nature of Allied bombing and that it could well be considered a war crime - now Calvin when you come back the Luftwaffe bomb mix we can take this on if you so wish.
( I would suggest another thread on this subject - you will find that it has been done to death. ).

[Captain Marinesko]

Alexander Solzhenitsyn affirms extensive collaboration between Jewish communities and the NKVD.A huge partisan army constantly harassed the Germans. It seems logical to me that locals would want to take revenge upon these collaborators. It would also seem logical that Jews would seek refuge within the ranks of the partisans. Before you try to guilt trip me about women and children try educating yourself about area bombing.


Alexander Solzhenitsyn isn't a historian and has made several outlandish claims regarding the history of the Soviet Union and the Stalin era. Information in the Soviet archives has caused his claims to sink faster than the Willhelm Gustloff.

[calvin]

“that you assume that Heydrichs Special action Units shot partisans alone is an utter flight of fantasy and bears little resemblence to the facts , but why let a small isssue like that upset your apple cart ?”

I didn’t say that. What I’m saying is that the Germans marched into a situation in which a prior brutal occupation had created an irreconcilable polarization that created a virtual civil war situation. The Germans had no problem whatsoever recruiting local volunteers to participate in their liquidations and that’s purely because of the prior activities of the communist NKVD and their collaborators.

“Let me ask you this calvin , what was the standard bomb mix employed by the Luftwaffe when they bombed British Cities ?
How did it compare with that dropped by the Allies ?”

My mother’s uncle was killed when the Germans bombed my hometown. He was one of a very few casualties because the Germans confined their bombing to purely military targets. My mothers surviving uncle served as a rear gunner in the RAF for the entire course of the war. The Germans initiated terror bombing, by which I mean the bombing of the civilian infrastructure to terrorise the population into surrender; the British initiated area bombing, an attempted annihilation of the civilian population. Neither course of action is particularly honourable but there is a substantial degree of divergence between the two policies in terms of morality.

”Alexander Solzhenitsyn isn't a historian”

This is from “The Gulag Archipelago” published in 1973, “As always, Stalin did not pronounce that final word, and his subordinates had to guess what he wanted”. My, my, my, that sounds remarkably like “historian” Ian Kershaw’s psychic Hitler order theory, not a real historian but good enough to be plagiarized by "real" historians.

[Burrhus]

TERROR BOMBING
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had given an assurance that:

'The British Government would never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children and other civilians for the purpose of mere terrorism.'
However, his successor Winston Churchill appointed as his personal adviser the Jew Professor Lindemann. Lindemann, later Lord Cherwell, suggested the bombing of German cities and that working class areas were legitimate targets, and from then onwards the last vestiges of civilised decency in warfare were abandoned. These bombings began on 10 August 1940 with the bombing of the small open town of Freiburg on the Swiss frontier. Fifty-three civilians were killed, including twenty children playing in the park. It was reported by Mr. Taylor of the American Red Cross in the New York Times of 3 May 1940. This was before the Germans began bombing British cities. Mr. J. M. Speight, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, wrote in his book The Splendid Decision: (Justifying bombing cities--Burrhus)
'Adolf Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets... It gave Coventry, Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton the right to look Kiev, Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sebastopol in the face. Our Soviet allies would have been less critical of our inactivity if they had understood what we had done... Hitler would have been willing at my time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones.'

http://www.heretical.com/mkilliam/wwii.html

[cerberus]

CalvinThe Germans had no problem whatsoever recruiting local volunteers to participate in their liquidations and that’s purely because of the prior activities of the communist NKVD and their collaborators
Calvin - The local populations thought that they would be liberated - they very soon found out otherwise - Stalin and Hitler employed similar means for differring rationals to achieve the same end.
As far as willing local volunteers went - they soon found out that their dreams of even limited self goverment were illusions.
It is well known that the potential goodwill , the traditional gifts of salt and bread given to the advancing German soldiers was wasted on the Golden birds who followed in their wake.

The Bombing of Cities , initally both sides seemed not to want to do this - German bombs fell on London first - and the Luftwaffe did have its first bombing of civilians under its belt in Spain , Warsaw and Rotterdam - no worries there , later lenningrad and numerous towns in Russia - no worries there.
As far as bombloads went both sides dropped the same - and german bombers first appeared over London in 14-18 and this helped shape British plans for future wars.

Bombing - my father had a brother who was lost on ops. with Bomber Command .
Check out Middlebrook and Everitt's Bomber Command War Diaries and The Blitz then and Now Vols 1-2 by After The Battle - I am not so sure that your quotes are correct - I will check out the dates and get back to you.
Correct me if I am wrong - but was Warsaw not bombed in 1939 - and did Goring not threaten to Bomb Prague in march 1939 unless the Czechs. surrended and "invited" German troops to come in to "protect" them ?

This does move us nicely away from the topic.

German rule in the east - playing ethnic groups off against each other - divide and rule - used to good effect.

[Captain Marinesko]

“

I didn’t say that. What I’m saying is that the Germans marched into a situation in which a prior brutal occupation had created an irreconcilable polarization that created a virtual civil war situation. The Germans had no problem whatsoever recruiting local volunteers to participate in their liquidations and that’s purely because of the prior activities of the communist NKVD and their collaborators.

.


This is a fallacy that even the nationalists in many cases admitted. Even Ukrainian nationalist leaders openly put in writing their lamentations about the hostility they were encountering from the local population, even in Galicia. Other than that the willing participants were nothing but opportunists, people a socialist state can do without.

[calvin]

“Calvin - The local populations thought that they would be liberated - they very soon found out otherwise - Stalin and Hitler employed similar means for differring rationals to achieve the same end.As far as willing local volunteers went - they soon found out that their dreams of even limited self goverment were illusions”

Yes but we are not talking about “limited self government”, we are talking about Germans committing wanton massacre as a matter of policy. The point I’m making is that the atrocities committed by the Germans were party attributable to non-German indigenes who were intent on exercising revenge upon Soviet collaborators for atrocities committed by the NKVD and partly actions against partisans and partly criminal actions against innocent civilians. Both sides committed massacres of civilians but only the Germans are accountable. The real question is, where do the persistent allegations that Jews disproportionately collaborated with the NKVD come from?

“Correct me if I am wrong - but was Warsaw not bombed in 1939 - and did Goring not threaten to Bomb Prague in march 1939 unless the Czechs surrendered and "invited" German troops to come in to "protect" them ?”

A great example of the difference between terror bombing and extermination through bombing.

“This does move us nicely away from the topic”

The initial topic was human soap. I don’t think that it’s solely down to me that we ended up comparing civilian atrocities.

[calvin]

Captain Marisenko

“Alexander Solzhenitsyn isn't a historian and has made several outlandish claims regarding the history of the Soviet Union and the Stalin era"

Thanks for your perfect demonstration of exterminationist hypocrisy. An eyewitness to mass murder’s testimony dismissed as an “outlandish claim”.

Eyewitness testimony that supports your claims is incontestable, even if these eyewitnesses make outlandish claims about gas chambers being whitewashed between use, but eyewitness testimony to any other event can be casually dismissed as outlandish.

[cerberus]

CalvinThe point I’m making is that the atrocities committed by the Germans were party attributable to non-German indigenes who were intent on exercising revenge upon Soviet collaborators for atrocities committed by the NKVD and partly actions against partisans and partly criminal actions against innocent civilians. Both sides committed massacres of civilians but only the Germans are accountable. The real question is, where do the persistent allegations that Jews disproportionately collaborated with the NKVD come from?



Calvin- the expectation of self determination - was widely felt in the Ukraine and in the Baltic States - the same Baltic States which Hitler signed over to the Soviet Union to get them signed up to the August 39 Pact.

The "Non-German indigenes you mention - would these be the same people whom Heydrich said should be secretly encouraged to take action against the Jews and that no restraining action be taken - in short encourage them to attack Jews but make it look like the action was spontaneous and self directed.
Browning in his book the "Origins of the Final Solution" quotes it exactly.

Yes both sides did - the civilians being caught in the middle - being punished for helping the Germans when in fact they had no choice.

Do you think that Stalin was going to punish his own people - acting under his orders ?
Do you think there might be just a litle tinge of antisemetism in the allegations you mention , just a tinge perhaps ?
we are talking about Germans committing wanton massacre as a matter of policy.

Which did take place - Heydrichs actions targeted the Jews in particular , just as they done in Poland.
A great example of the difference between terror bombing and extermination through bombing.


The Allies did not conduct bombing as a means of implementing a state policy of genocide - the British ( and later American) bombing started only after the Germans bombed English/ British Cities.
It was terrible but it did contribute to the defeat of Germany.
The initial topic was human soap. I don’t think that it’s solely down to me that we ended up comparing civilian atrocities.
And like shrunken heads and lamp shades it is not a major part of the holocaust but one which the idiot brigade tend to focus on to divert attention for what are the main issues.

[cerberus]

CalvinThanks for your perfect demonstration of exterminationist hypocrisy. An eyewitness to mass murder’s testimony dismissed as an “outlandish claim”.

Eyewitness testimony that supports your claims is incontestable, even if these eyewitnesses make outlandish claims about gas chambers being whitewashed between use, but eyewitness testimony to any other event can be casually dismissed as outlandish.

What is your source for this calvin ?
The hypocrisy you alledge is odd - you protect against the Captains reasonable observations and then speak about "exterminationists" , this term is a soundbite calvin - it is a meaningless term - but to you it represents something.

I have yet to see a claim that white washing took place between gassings - hosoing down and washing out yes but white washing ?
Who , when and where ?

[calvin]

"The hypocrisy you alledge is odd - you protect against the Captains reasonable observations and then speak about "exterminationists"

That's the point, anything that defenders of the orthodox argument put forth with even a modicum of evidence provided (and I'm not saying that they can't often back up their assertions with more than a modicum when pushed, it's just that it's tedious in the extreme to extract it) is a "reasonable observation" but if a sceptic makes reasonable observations about the infeasability of some conventional assertions, he is an anti-semite and a neo-nazi, as well as an intellectual newt, etc., etc.

[Trojan]

A great example of the difference between terror bombing and extermination through bombing.



Ok, I'll bite, what is the diffrence between "terror bombing" and "extermination through bombing"??

[calvin]

Trojan

The Ariel bombardment of Bhagdad was terror bombing. The Americans used the term "Shock and Awe". These attacks involved the bombing of strategic targets in the full relisation that this would result in some civilian deaths. The intention is to break the civilian populations will to resist. Area bombing involved deliberate targeting of civilians and explictly refrained from targeting strategic buildings. The first policy involves removing civilians as a factor by terrorising them into submission; the second policy involves removing civilians as a factor by exterminating them.

Cerberus

“Do you think there might be just a litle tinge of antisemetism in the allegations you mention , just a tinge perhaps ?”

No. If I thought that the people who made them were anti-Semites I wouldn’t believe them. The following are quotes from, Malcolm Muggeridge reporting from Russia in 1933.

“Why should it ever stop? I asked myself—soldiers, impersonal, some of them Mongols with leaden faces and slit eyes; members of the G.P.U, dapper, well-fed, often Jews, carrying out the orders of the dictatorship of the proletariat, destroying more surely than barbarians (who come with swords and fire, things relatively clean) the life, the soul of a country”

“This is the Terror. The people who execute it are naturally not normal. Most of them are not Russians. I counted in the Presiduum of the G.PU. only two unquestionably Russian names. The present acting head is a Polish Jew. A good number of the underlings are also Jews, with a fair sprinkling of Letts and Poles”

I don’t think that, Malcolm Muggeridge is an anti-Semite, I think he is just reporting what he sees and what he sees is Jews enjoying a dominant role in Communism. Jews flocked to the cause of Communism in Hungary and in Russia, why would it be strange that Jews flocked to the cause in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania?

[calvin]

"I have yet to see a claim that white washing took place between gassings - hosoing down and washing out yes but white washing ?
Who , when and where ?"

Daniel Bennahmias, Sonderkommando and eyewitness.

"Once the gas chamber had been cleared, it must be hosed free of all traces of blood and excrement - but mainly blood - and then it must be whitewashed with a quickdrying paint. This step is crucial, and it is done each time the gas chamber is emptied, for the dying have scratched and gouged the walls in their death throes. The walls are embedded with blood and bits of flesh, and none on the next transport must suspect that he is walking into anything other than a shower. This takes two or three hours"

"The Holocaust Odyssey of Daniel Bennahmias"

[cerberus]

MM commnets on Jews just as he does poles and the others who made up Stalin's NKVD.
Some have tried to say that it was they who told Stalin what to do, oragn grinder and the monkey don't have this type of relationship.

I have not read the account you mention - It may or may not have been , it may have been for a time only - does it really change what took place - I doubt it.

You are assuming Calvin - Poland was not a communist state when the Russians and Germans dismembered it in 39.

You are drawing the conclusion that Heydrichs boys killed partisans and as jews they were all partisans - even the youngsters.

Nothing new Clavin - :deadhorse: but nothing new .

So did the Luftwaffe bomb in a different way - I doubt it.

[calvin]

“So did the Luftwaffe bomb in a different way - I doubt it”.

Terror Bombing

Although exact numbers are not known, it is estimated that between 800 and 900 people were killed in the bombing raid and on Rotterdam. Around 1 square mile (2.6 square kilometres) of the city were almost completely leveled. 24,978 homes, 2,320 stores, and 775 warehouses were destroyed.

Area Bombing

By the summer of 1942, the United States was part of the air-terror campaign. On the night of July 27-28, British bombers attacked Hamburg, creating monstrous firestorms with temperatures of 800-1000 degrees centigrade over the city. The results: 40,000 people killed, 214,350 homes destroyed, 4,301 factories leveled, eight square miles burned.

[Trojan]

“So did the Luftwaffe bomb in a different way - I doubt it”.

Terror Bombing

Although exact numbers are not known, it is estimated that between 800 and 900 people were killed in the bombing raid and on Rotterdam. Around 1 square mile (2.6 square kilometres) of the city were almost completely leveled. 24,978 homes, 2,320 stores, and 775 warehouses were destroyed.

Area Bombing

By the summer of 1942, the United States was part of the air-terror campaign. On the night of July 27-28, British bombers attacked Hamburg, creating monstrous firestorms with temperatures of 800-1000 degrees centigrade over the city. The results: 40,000 people killed, 214,350 homes destroyed, 4,301 factories leveled, eight square miles burned.

You have got to learn to use the quote function. Your posts are enough to start a migraine.

[ quote ] begins (minus space between [ and q

[ / quote ] ends

[Captain Marinesko]

Captain Marisenko

“Alexander Solzhenitsyn isn't a historian and has made several outlandish claims regarding the history of the Soviet Union and the Stalin era"

Thanks for your perfect demonstration of exterminationist hypocrisy. An eyewitness to mass murder’s testimony dismissed as an “outlandish claim”.

Eyewitness testimony that supports your claims is incontestable, even if these eyewitnesses make outlandish claims about gas chambers being whitewashed between use, but eyewitness testimony to any other event can be casually dismissed as outlandish.

The problem is that Alexander Solzhenitsyn's claims that I am referring to, are the ridiculous "telephone" number claims regarding the amount of people killed in the purges. Sozhenitsyn comments on a number of things he was never in a position to know anything about. I am not necessarily going to say that this poisons everything he DID personally see, but he certainly espoused his own particular worldview. His claims on the number of dead were refuted by the Soviet archival evidence reported by J. Arch Getty.

Not all eyewitness testimony is accurate. Some is hearsay. The problem is that revisionists tend to claim hearsay is real evidence when it supports their argument(for example, causing a contradiction in a story).

[cerberus]

CalvinTerror Bombing

Although exact numbers are not known, it is estimated that between 800 and 900 people were killed in the bombing raid and on Rotterdam. Around 1 square mile (2.6 square kilometres) of the city were almost completely leveled. 24,978 homes, 2,320 stores, and 775 warehouses were destroyed.

Area Bombing

By the summer of 1942, the United States was part of the air-terror campaign. On the night of July 27-28, British bombers attacked Hamburg, creating monstrous firestorms with temperatures of 800-1000 degrees centigrade over the city. The results: 40,000 people killed, 214,350 homes destroyed, 4,301 factories leveled, eight square miles burned.

Calvin- the only difference is the number of aircraft and the size of the bombload which could be carried.

Was Hamburg the same as Coventry , Belfast , Liverpool or Manchester ?

See martin Middlebrooks "The Hamburg Raid" , it explains how a number of factors came together to product the firestorm.
1. The Weather conditions.
2. The New H2S system which made Hamburg a prime target .
(Defination provided by the docks and water ways).
3. The Use of Window which for a short time neutralisedthe German flak and
nightfighter radar support networks.
4. The Concentration of bombing as a product of the above factors.
5. The USAAF - their contribution was largely hampered by the effects of the
night bombing - they could not locate their targets.

This does not compare with deporting people to Ghettos , subjecting them to hardship (and disease) then deporting to camps and killing them and stealing their property .
Or the later version - Ghettos to camps , kill those who can't work , enslave those who can , work them to death and when they are "unsuitable for work" kil them , common to both their property is stolen and in comon with their use as slave labour it is used to support the German war effort.
Needless to say firms made money from the use of slave and forced labour and the SS made money as well.

PS Just out of interst Cal;vin - what is your source for the paragraphs you quote from ?

PPS Unless my memory is at fault - the firestorm was not "over the city" but restricted to certain areas of it.
The repeated bombing of Hamburg over a period of days and nights did bring home a message to the Nazi leadership whcih was not lost on Albert Speer - if this level of bombing could be kept up Germany would soon collapse .
Add Hamburg to what was going on at that time , Kursk , the recent collapse in Africa , the Invasion of Italy , the collapse of the U-Boat offensive, and the growing pressure from Allied bombing - collectively it does put the writing on the wall.

The local gauliter in Hamburg was instrumental in having the Jewish population " resettled in the east" so thier vacated homes could be used to re house people who had lost all to the Allied bombs - the party was quite in favour of this as the Jews had "started the war" according tot their twisted logic.

[cerberus]

Captain MarineskoNot all eyewitness testimony is accurate. Some is hearsay. The problem is that revisionists tend to claim hearsay is real evidence when it supports their argument(for example, causing a contradiction in a story).

True - it is coloured by the experience of the individuals,the effect it had on them and reflects in part their own understabding of the circumstances in which they found themselves.- it may make it in part unreliable - coloured by the hopes and fears which coloured their being , it may make some accounts unreliable but it does not make them worthless - and in common with all eye witnesses accounts some are better than others , this is human nature that some individuals can recall more and distance themselves emotionally from the hell in which they found themselves .

The revisionists demand that all accounts are discounted on the basis that they are all unreliable. For their own purpose they focus on what they deem to be the less accurate and on the basis of it decree that all other accounts from surivors must also be set aside - as if nothing ever happened.
Lawyers do this all the time - nothing new in it - and it does not prevent the revisionists from making use of eye witnesses as and when it suits them - playing poacher and game keeper.

[calvin]

“Was Hamburg the same as Coventry , Belfast , Liverpool or Manchester ?”

I said that the allies initiated extermination bombing; I didn’t say that the Germans didn’t retaliate.

“The local gauliter in Hamburg was instrumental in having the Jewish population " resettled in the east" so thier vacated homes could be used to re house people who had lost all to the Allied bombs”

These poor Jews never got die fighting in Stalingrad or get incinerated in bombing raids like normal Germans?

“The USAAF - their contribution was largely hampered by the effects of the
night bombing - they could not locate their targets”

If Harris and Churchill are right, they hit their targets, women, children, babies the sick, etc, pretty accurately.

“The revisionists demand that all accounts are discounted on the basis that they are all unreliable and they focus on the inaccurate and on the basis of it decree that the accurate must also be at fault”

This statement only makes sense if you make a prior assumption to measure accuracy by. If you assume that eyewitness testimony is accurate when it conforms to a picture of reality that is in itself based to a large extent upon eyewitness testimony, all you have is a bogus argument.

What you seem to be saying is that eyewitness testimony is generally accurate, but often wrong in detail.

In fact, if we look at a genuine eyewitness, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Solzhenitsyn’s account goes astray when he makes assertions about the extent of pogroms (which he could only know through hearsay) but is regarded as impeccable in terms of the details of the accounts of what he actually saw.

If you look at holocaust eyewitnesses like Daniel Bennahmias,

"Once the gas chamber had been cleared, it must be hosed free of all traces of blood and excrement - but mainly blood - and then it must be whitewashed with a quickdrying paint. This step is crucial, and it is done each time the gas chamber is emptied, for the dying have scratched and gouged the walls in their death throes. The walls are embedded with blood and bits of flesh, and none on the next transport must suspect that he is walking into anything other than a shower. This takes two or three hours"

It’s the accounts of what these people actually saw that seems to be nonsense.

[cerberus]

CalvinI said that the allies initiated extermination bombing; I didn’t say that the Germans didn’t retaliate.
Did you check your dates - you will find that you are not correct.
Bombs fell on London first , the aircraft may have been lost but none the less it happened.
Extermination bombing - oh come - this is the product of a deliberate distortion of fact , you have set out your benchmark , and pretty low it is proving to be.

These poor Jews never got die fighting in Stalingrad or get incinerated in bombing raids like normal Germans?

You mean the same "normal germans" that Hitler made stay and die for him in a battle which should never have been fought in an encirclement which should never have been allowed to take place ?
If Harris and Churchill are right, they hit their targets, women, children, babies the sick, etc, pretty accurately.
As I pointed out to you before - true colours now on display - the break with the subject matter now made - guilt trip Calvin ?
(That was your term , was it not ?)
What is the bottom line here Calvin ?
This statement only makes sense if you make a prior assumption to measure accuracy by. If you assume that eyewitness testimony is accurate when it conforms to a picture of reality that is in itself based to a large extent upon eyewitness testimony, all you have is a bogus argument.

You tend to forget Calvin , the Holocaust does not hinge on eye witness alone , when you discount eye witness completely with out regard to source or stature , discount documents , discount the simple fact that people -over 5 million just disappeared, discount detailed accounts and reports stating how many were killed and where - it all does seem to fall apart.
Thanks for eventually getting of the fence , more apologies for Hitler and his goverment are sure to follow.
Begs the question - let's see - "just what exactly have the revisionist actually been able to prove" and how have they done when presenting themselves as expert witnesses ?
Track record is not very good Calvin - perhaps the arguements they put forward were bogus ?
The science certainly was and has been proven to be so at regular intervals.
May I refer you to the foraml degbate which took place here a few months back - the revisionist case fell apart.
What you seem to be saying is that eyewitness testimony is generally accurate, but often wrong in detail.

No calvin - you are saying this - you are ever ready to use the word wrong, it can also be right - are you saying that it was all wrong ?
I am saying that it has to be considered on an individual basis - just as in any investigation , be it criminal or historical.
people see things differently , experience things differently , does it make them all liars , or are they all mistaken - not at all.
This simplitic self serving evaluation - interesting that for you it only works one way "wrong" ,very even handed of you.:confused: :rolleyes:
In fact, if we look at a genuine eyewitness, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Solzhenitsyn’s account goes astray when he makes assertions about the extent of pogroms (which he could only know through hearsay) but is regarded as impeccable in terms of the details of the accounts of what he actually saw.
Your point being ?
Do you say that eyewitnesses in the Cz/Ez system are not genuine ?
It’s the accounts of what these people actually saw that seems to be nonsense.

And how would that stand with say some of the SS who were at Auschwitz - try Oskar Groening for example ?

What about the account David Irving produce from a lady who was in Auschwitz 1 in 1944 who said she never saw a gas chamber - well unless she could see round corners and over walls at long distance this would be the case . ( It was one of two documents on which he based his appeal - he withdrew it along with papers from Germar Rudolf - giving no reason at the time and a smoke screen of codswallop afterwards).
Odd don't you think - it does seem to illustrate the need to take eye witness accounts seriously but to be both understanding and critical of them - seems that Irving could only do this in a way which accomadated his point of view - nothing new in this !

You should take a lesson frcom his experience .

[Trojan]

“So did the Luftwaffe bomb in a different way - I doubt it”.

Terror Bombing

Although exact numbers are not known, it is estimated that between 800 and 900 people were killed in the bombing raid and on Rotterdam. Around 1 square mile (2.6 square kilometres) of the city were almost completely leveled. 24,978 homes, 2,320 stores, and 775 warehouses were destroyed.

Area Bombing

By the summer of 1942, the United States was part of the air-terror campaign. On the night of July 27-28, British bombers attacked Hamburg, creating monstrous firestorms with temperatures of 800-1000 degrees centigrade over the city. The results: 40,000 people killed, 214,350 homes destroyed, 4,301 factories leveled, eight square miles burned.

Would you consider the bombing of Warsaw to be terror bombing or area bombing?

[cerberus]

That is a lot of factory.

[Trojan]

That is a lot of factory.

Is it just me? I seem to have lost track of the point of Calvin's posts.

[cerberus]

CalvinIf the words “transport” and “resettlement” were commonly understood to mean extermination, why would Himmler, at a point in time when he is supposed to be anxious to cover his tracks, suddenly start to use the incriminating word “extermination”? Why didn’t he just say that there must be no further transportations of Jews? Himmler took great care not to say that exterminations must cease or that exterminations must be suspended. If Himmler was carefully choosing his words in order to avoid incrimination why would he use the word “extermination” since, as you have pointed out, there were many other innocent and well understood euphemisms that he could have used?
Which still leavs you with the same question - if they had not been killing and eterminating why would he need to use the word ?
Does sound to me that Himmler knew the cat was out of the bag .
The last few weeks of killing - quite an effort to clear up loose ends. Sir Martin Gilbert decribes it in some detail in "Auschwitz and The Allies" , killing from both inside and outside the Auschwitz camp system .
A delousing and disinfestation complex would be extremely useful to the advancing Red Army. Maybe the Germans were hoping that a typhus outbreak would inhibit the Soviet advance? Why wouldn’t you blow up these facilities?
Is this a serious answer Calvin ?
I for one cannot take it as such.
Why would Himmler order the destruction of these facilities but expressly forbid the extermination of the remaining witnesses? In two months an SS unit could have liquidated the entire remaining camp population (according to the killing capacities attributed to these installations by the holocaust lobby), incinerated the corpses and then destroyed the buildings.

See my mention of the last killings. Unfortunately for the SS the Red Army did not present them with a plan of advance , so if the equipment was to be removed and the structures made to look like say a "delousing centre" - it had to be done and it had to done at once - the Red Army was not going to stand still for long.
As Stalin would say, "No people, no problem"
Killing everyone - not a runner - they did try to kill as many Sondorkommando as they could , one reason why so few are alive.
NeoWhy would Himmler self-preservatively order very selective dynamiting of facilities so as to create the consequent suspicion of the criminal use of such facilities?
I think it may have had to do with what actually took place in these buildings - that was why for nearly two months the equipment was removed and the structures levelled.
The delousing equipment , why is it still there Neo and why is it in anoter building ?
Odd , don't you think ??
I don't know whether he did or didn't - that's why I suggested that you locate the order, for inspection as to his intent. Upon reflection thereafter, however, and knowing the way the Hoax is promoted by the ad-libbing of "evidence," I suspected that there was no such order preserved on paper, and so I went looking and was not surprised to find that there was none.
And you simply assume that Himmler who was a master at "Empire building" just neglected a corner stone of his crumbling empire ?
Do you think that any written order might have been destroyed ?
Instead you assume it was never given , the chain of command and responsibility existed Himmler was the man - it is not unreasonable given the man and his personality that he gave the order , you can be 100% sure that it was an order which came from a superior officer outside the camp .
Since the dynamiting created rather than eliminated suspicion, I suspect the Soviets. Wouldn't be the first time.
So the suriving prisoners , who told them what to say , perhaps the SS invited an advanced party of Red Army soldiers to come for tea and cake and to set the party of with a bang they ecided to blow up some lice killing units .
Yes - it must have been the Russians , to frame the innocent SS.:deadhorse:
You assume the homicidal use of the facilities
I assume nothing , it is you assume , that I assume - the historical record stands and to date if I am correct the revisionist school have not been able to provide anything which can resaonably challange it .

I do not claim that Himmler did not give orders regarding the abandoning of the Auschwitz facilities, as would be expected. The question is what was ordered and why.
__________________

Then why the games which went something like "show me the order" , if you do not claim that Himmler never gave the order ?
Seems like you don't know what to say Neo - are you now agreeing that Himmler at least had some input into this decision , which went back as fr as November 44 , it was not a spur of the moment thing - it was planned and it had purpose - driven by a rational - to cover what had taken place.
In this Neo you have what and why - you have no reason to enquire further.

[cerberus]

NeoQuestion: Would "every Party member have told you" that the Jews were being killed - or would every Party member have told you that the Jews were being uprooted? Or is this a silly impersonation of Himmler, planted in Rosenberg's files?
Neo - not every party member would have known - but those taking the decision and those enforcing it knew , this "planting" not sure what you mean - are you saying that Himmler was fitted up post war or durring the war ?
Regarding Posen - I think that unless you are obtuse there is no doubt that he was talking about killing and explaining why killing was required.
That "Glorious page in our history" .
CalvinNeo triumphs again.
:rofl: (Sometimes words are not required).
CalvinThe full text of the speech, kindly provided by the holocaust history website, make it clear that, Himmler is talking about German victims of area bombing as the next paragraph makes clear.
Is this the "Glorious page of our history" that he was talking about ?
Calvin , you are deluded , not only are you deluded there is something of desperation in what you seek and how you seek it.
So much for the Posen speech; next please!

At the moment Calvin you are not doing so well , nor is Neo.
:deadhorse: syndrome.
NeoUsing which documents not previously or presently in the possession of the Show Trial sponsors?
Neo , you did not even attempt to answer.

NeoOriginally Posted by Trojan

Using evidence - show us what happened to them.

What evidence to that effect, contrary to the Hoax thesis promoted at the IMT/NMT with extorted false witness, did the Show Trial sponsors and Occupying Powers fail to destroy?

If I may quote Calvin Neo triumphs again.
By refusing to answer a simple question, which given what he "knows" to be true should be simple.
This might be simpler Neo , just say where they are now and why they cannot be traced ?

[calvin]

“Did you check your dates - you will find that you are not correct.
Bombs fell on London first , the aircraft may have been lost but none the less it happened” Cerberus.

“During a raid on Thames Haven, on 24 August 1940, some German aircraft strayed over London and dropped bombs in the east and north-east of the city, Bethnal Green, Hackney, Islington, Tottenham and Finchley. This prompted the British to mount a retaliatory raid on Berlin the next night with bombs falling in Kreuzberg and Wedding. Hitler was said to be furious and on 5 September issued a directive stating a requirement "...for disruptive attacks on the population and air defences of major British cities, including London, by day and night". The Luftwaffe began day and night attacks of British cities, concentrating on London. This relieved pressure on the RAF's airfields” Wikipedia

“some German aircraft strayed over London”

So, in fact, it was the British who started deliberately attacking civilian targets in urban connurbations. Cynics have suggested that it was a deliberate policy of the War Cabinet to inagurate civilian bombing in order to prevent the destruction of the RAF by the Luftwaffe. Yes Cerberus all dates in order. Strike one!

“Would you consider the bombing of Warsaw to be terror bombing or area bombing?” Trojan

Neither. The aerial bombardment of Warsaw was intended to dislodge an entrenched military force, that’s why it’s called the “battle” of Warsaw.

“The 1939 Battle of Warsaw was fought between the Polish "Warsaw Army" (Armia Warszawa) garrisoned and entrenched in the capital of Poland (Warsaw) and the German Army. It started with a huge aerial bombardments by the Luftwaffe starting on September 1, 1939.” Wikipedia. Strike two!

“You tend to forget Calvin , the Holocaust does not hinge on eye witness alone”

Maybe that’s why I said that it is based to a “large extent” on eyewitness testimony Cerberus? Didn't I say that? Strike three!

"That is a lot of factory”. Cerberus.

There is also the small detail of 40,000 people killed and 214,350 homes destroyed.

“Is it just me? I seem to have lost track of the point of Calvin's posts?” Trojan.

The point seems to be that you guys seem to be consistently wrong over a broad spectrum of subject matter. Your argumentative talents have almost no beginnings.

[Trojan]

Calvin

The Luftwaffe opened the war with mass attacks on Warsaw and other Polish cities, followed by Holland. Up to the battle of Britian, there were no concerted efforts to bomb German cities.

[calvin]

What part of “battle of Warsaw” don’t you understand? The bombing of Rotterdam also involved an attempt to drive out an entrenched military force.

Britain declared war on Germany so you can hardly complain about the Germans responding by bombing British military installations.

“The bomber is the savior of civilization.... 'We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland'. . . . because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision [of May, 1940] the publicity which it deserved. That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision”.
J.M. Spaight, principal assistant secretary of the [British] Air Ministry.

Was this "confession" beaten out of Spaight?

[Captain Marinesko]

Your rationale is no different than neoconservatives that blame massive amounts of deaths on their opponents using "human shields". As bad as terror bombing is- the Germans started the war and opened the door to anything that would have happened as a result. They wrote a check their armed forces couldn't cash.

[calvin]

Cerberus



“Which still leavs you with the same question - if they had not been killing and eterminating why would he need to use the word ?
Does sound to me that Himmler knew the cat was out of the bag”

If Himmler knew that the “cat was out of the bag” why did he bother to destroy the Auschwitz installations? You are trying to tell me that throughout lengthy periods of WWII in which the Germans seemed to be victorious and invincible, they meticulously avoided using the word “exterminate” but when they were on the brink of defeat and at the point in time when their “crimes” were at the greatest likelihood of being revealed, Himmler suddenly introduces incriminating evidence into his recorded orders? Why didn’t he simply say, using the vocabulary which had by now become reflexive, that evacuations, special actions or resettlement of Jews must now cease? And it isn't suspicious that the only evidence that the word "exterminate" was ever used, comes in a post-war deposition from an SS Colonel, facing possible criminal charges himself, who was, he suggests, able to order Himmler around like an office boy ("I caused the Reichsfuehrer S.S. Himmler to issue the following order")?

“Killing everyone - not a runner - they did try to kill as many Sondorkommando as they could , one reason why so few are alive”

Yeah! Killing 7,000 people in a mass extermination camp that killed at least a million people and that had cremation facilities that could incinerate eight bodies in one muffle, I can see that the problems must have been insurmountable. Six million; no problem! Seven thousand;impossible! Why didn't they just use "the German method"?

“I think it may have had to do with what actually took place in these buildings - that was why for nearly two months the equipment was removed and the structures levelled”

So were the women’s barracks. In the interests of logical consistency we must assume that these, apparently innocent, structures were also gas chambers.

“By refusing to answer a simple question, which given what he "knows" to be true should be simple.
This might be simpler Neo , just say where they are now and why they cannot be traced ?”

By jumping to a demographic defence of your position you are admitting that you have been spanked on the topic under discussion.

[Captain Marinesko]

Even when they were victorious, the Nazis had plenty of reasons not to blab about systematically wiping people out. For one thing, many of those people were from the occupied territories and Nazi propaganda had an interest in keeping those people docile if not pro-Nazi. Plus if the actual reality of the extermination was revealed to the German people they too might have eventually objected, since they were already pissed off about the euthenasia measures before.

Also I believe the Auschwitz crematory ovens were capable of burning four bodies per muffle, not eight. I have never seen anyone make that claim.

[Trojan]

What part of “battle of Warsaw” don’t you understand?

The part were they started bombing Warsaw on the first day of the war, long before German units approached the city - long before any bombing could be called tactical.

“I think it may have had to do with what actually took place in these buildings - that was why for nearly two months the equipment was removed and the structures levelled”

So were the women’s barracks. In the interests of logical consistency we must assume that these, apparently innocent, structures were also gas chambers.


Did you study logic? because if you did, you deserve a refund.

[Captain Marinesko]

The part were they started bombing Warsaw on the first day of the war, long before German units approached the city - long before any bombing could be called tactical.


ZING!!!!!!!!!

[cerberus]

Calvin“some German aircraft strayed over London”
And the British knew that this may have been in error , at that moment in time ??
( The German Goverment's track record was not exactly good when it came to trust and honour , was it ??)
Hindsight is a useful commodity , and at that moment in time how prepared was the RAF - even worse than the Luftwaffe.
What was your initial source in this exchange - was it in error ?
The downside of using neo nazi sources - they are economical with the truth.
CalvinSo, in fact, it was the British who started deliberately attacking civilian targets in urban connurbations
Deliberately - I again ask you how prepared either side was for night bombing ?
Yes they bombed Berlin - after London was bombed - why didn't the germans through diplomatic channels say "accident , won't happen again" - had they been so humanely motivated as you seem to believe they were , this would have been easily done.

Bottom line Calvin is this - a bare knuckle fight was bound to result at sometime - it was only a matter of time - both sides employed the same methods and the resulting civilian deaths caused them no real issues at the time.
Bishop Bell was one of the few who spoke out against bombing - and how else do you think , given the situation Britain found herself in was she to dcarry the war to Germany ?
Germany had no problems bombing Britain and but for the move east it would have continued and resources would have been directed towards it , just as Britain directed resources into bomber command.
Yes Cerberus all dates in order. Strike one!
You may be a cynic Calvin , but you are a mistaken one and you missed the ball.
Maybe that’s why I said that it is based to a “large extent” on eyewitness testimony Cerberus? Didn't I say that? Strike three!

And why "to a large extent" you have focused on being critical of eye witness accounts and them alone.
Keep your eye on the ball Calvin , and try and time your strikes - you never know - you might even bomb London if you keep this up .:whip:
There is also the small detail of 40,000 people killed and 214,350 homes destroyed.
This is true - I don't deny nor do I ignore this - which is why I mentioned Middlebrook's book and the circumstances which gave rise to the fire storm.
The Luftwaffe could not avoid killing civilians nor could the Allies - as I said a bare knuckle fight is dirty and painful and that is why I suggested you see Overy's article in the previous issue of the BBC History magazine - if you are UK based ytou may still be able to pick a copy up.

Why was Hamburg picked out Calvin ?
What message was begin imparted , and to whom ?
I have given you some sources Calvin - I suggest you take yourself down to your local library.
The point seems to be that you guys seem to be consistently wrong over a broad spectrum of subject matter. Your argumentative talents have almost no beginnings.
Cheers Calvin - you might do better if you depended less on what you can find on line - so far some of your sources have been less than exact.

[calvin]

Ohh! Look, here’s what it says in my book………..

“Finally, starting at 0800 on 25 September, Luftwaffe bombers under the command of Major General Wolfram von Richthofen conducted the first major city attack of World War II, dropping 500 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units. The center of Warsaw was badly damaged. Approximately 1,150 sorties were flown by a wide variety of aircraft, including even obsolescent Junkers Ju-52/3m bombers, which dropped 13 percent of the incendiary bombs dropped on the day.

Although commonly portrayed as being absolutely decisive, the Black Monday air attack was a mixed success. Smoke from fires and large amounts of dust obscured targets and greatly reduced accuracy. As a result, Luftwaffe bombers dropped a significant amount of their bomb loads on German infantry positions in the northwest suburbs of the city, leading to acrimonious discussions between Luftwaffe and Army commanders. The tonnage dropped combined with only approximate delivery on target and the short duration does not begin to approximate the intensity of attacks major European cities were subsequently to suffer.”
Colonel Walter J Boyne, “The Influence of Air Power upon History”

“The tonnage dropped combined with only approximate delivery on target and the short duration does not begin to approximate the intensity of attacks major European cities were subsequently to suffer”

Here’s another book…..

“Land fighting started on September 8, when the first German armoured units reached the Wola area and south-western suburbs of the city”

Land fighting around Warsaw begins September 8th; first major bombing attack, takes place September 25th, so the only major bombing attacks that can bear any semblance of similarity to the allied civilian, extermination bombings of German cities, actually took place during a battle. My family have an extensive private library Trojan.

Any word on that Himmler deposition?

[calvin]

“Cheers Calvin - you might do better if you depended less on what you can find on line - so far some of your sources have been less than exact”

"Once the gas chamber had been cleared, it must be hosed free of all traces of blood and excrement - but mainly blood - and then it must be whitewashed with a quickdrying paint. This step is crucial, and it is done each time the gas chamber is emptied, for the dying have scratched and gouged the walls in their death throes. The walls are embedded with blood and bits of flesh, and none on the next transport must suspect that he is walking into anything other than a shower. This takes two or three hours"

Dubious sources? Res ipsa loquitur!

[cerberus]

CalvinWas this "confession" beaten out of Spaight?

Calvin you sound like a bitter old queen who has just found out that his lover has left him for a younger man. :confused:
Always it is the same old sound bites and "the same old same old."

Calvin consider what the man said and how it balances with reality - when you have done this consider again what was said and what contribution in meaningful terms was actually made.

To make it easy for you consider the first daylight raids made on german ports and how totally inept bomber cammond was at even getting to within 50 miles of where they wanted to be.
Astro navigation is not very accurate and a diet of raw carrots does not really improve your night vision.

Rotterdam - a ruse which failed , surrender or be bombed - the Dutch who were already defeated surrendered - the bombing force could not be recalled - the threat of force , employed.
Terror bombing I think you call it.


CalvinIf Himmler knew that the “cat was out of the bag” why did he bother to destroy the Auschwitz installations? You are trying to tell me that throughout lengthy periods of WWII in which the Germans seemed to be victorious and invincible, they meticulously avoided using the word “exterminate” but when they were on the brink of defeat and at the point in time when their “crimes” were at the greatest likelihood of being revealed, Himmler suddenly introduces incriminating evidence into his recorded orders? Why didn’t he simply say, using the vocabulary which had by now become reflexive, that evacuations, special actions or resettlement of Jews must now cease? And it isn't suspicious that the only evidence that the word "exterminate" was ever used, comes in a post-war deposition from an SS Colonel, facing possible criminal charges himself, who was, he suggests, able to order Himmler around like an office boy ("I caused the Reichsfuehrer S.S. Himmler to issue the following order")?
This is your spin on it Calvin - often what a superior does is influenced by what his juniors tell him - they can "cause" a change in policy or "influence" events.
Do you think that siting camps in eastern Poland was an accident ?
Do you think the German people knew the truth ?
How would it have been greeted by the people - your goverment is involved in genocide ?
How did news of T4 go down when those murders leaked out ?
then there is the image peoblem of Hitler - he was in love with the image of himself which Goebbels had worked so hard to create - the man believed his own propaganda utterly.
Now calvin - do you believe that a great man like AH could actually be involved in killing people ?
The use of terms which made it seem neutral - easier for the Fuhrer and easier to explain away if asked - killing that was for people like Heydrch , Himmler , Globocnick .....
You seem to forget Calvin - all this was formulated when Victory was (it seemed ) the only outcome, it was largely implemented when defeat was an ever approaching certainty.

As far as Himmler goes - do you really think that his grip on reality was secure - he actually believed that he would be part of any post war administration - inspite of all that he had done.
Calvin - the more you post , the more I wonder about you. (Honestly).
Yeah! Killing 7,000 people in a mass extermination camp that killed at least a million people and that had cremation facilities that could incinerate eight bodies in one muffle, I can see that the problems must have been insurmountable. Six million; no problem! Seven thousand;impossible! Why didn't they just use "the German method"?
Calvin - as I have already pointed out to you - the Red Army did not forward a plan of advance , time was no longer on the side of the SS.
What you have done is acknowledge that the creamation units were of a criminal nature - not just for the disposal of those who died " through natural causes".
Thank you , now perhaps you will stop :deadhorse:

Calvin correct me if I am wrong - the womens side of the camp was largely brick built - when I was there last year it was intact - has it been levelled since August 2005 ?
By jumping to a demographic defence of your position you are admitting that you have been spanked on the topic under discussion
I guess I just love being spanked.:bitchfight: :whip:

[Trojan]

Calvin

From your private library, you would have seen this as the first attack.

Your intellectual dishonesty is showing.


BOMBING OF WARSAW: Poland. World War II. 1939. The Luftwaffe opened the German attack on Poland with operation Wasserkante, an air attack on Warsaw on 1 September.


The Luftwaffe opened the war with an attack on Warsaw. First day, first hours.

[cerberus]

CalvinDubious sources? Res ipsa loquitur!:confused:
I know your source , the on line one , do you think that it was this one I was referring to ? (Would be helpful if you did name your sources.)
First air attack on Warsaw on 25th September - I wonder ??

BTW Latin means bugger all to me , Del Boy's french means more !
" Mon doo , Mon Dooo".:)
Ah Mr. Google - "the thing itself speaks"- so your point is what ?

[calvin]

"The Luftwaffe opened the war with an attack on Warsaw. First day, first hours"

An attack that was little different from the recent British and American attacks on Belgrade and Baghdad. Significant aerial bombardment of Warsaw was only initiated in the course of the battle of Warsaw, initiated to dislodge the Polish army, not to exterminate civilians.

[Trojan]

"The Luftwaffe opened the war with an attack on Warsaw. First day, first hours"

An attack that was little different from the recent British and American attacks on Belgrade and Baghdad. Significant aerial bombardment of Warsaw was only initiated in the course of the battle of Warsaw, initiated to dislodge the Polish army, not to exterminate civilians.


Calvin

Did the Luftwaffe attack Warsaw on September 1st?


Was the attack in direct support of ground troops attacking the city?


Was this an isolated attack or part of the general campaign of terror on the Polish people/government?


What was your definition of terror attack again?

[Captain Marinesko]

"The Luftwaffe opened the war with an attack on Warsaw. First day, first hours"

An attack that was little different from the recent British and American attacks on Belgrade and Baghdad. Significant aerial bombardment of Warsaw was only initiated in the course of the battle of Warsaw, initiated to dislodge the Polish army, not to exterminate civilians.


So all that shows is that America and Britain in the present era have been and can be just as brutal and immoral as the Nazis. SCORE!!

[calvin]

Trojan

The Germans bombed Warsaw on Sept 1st when no direct military assault was taking place upon the city. The bombing was limited and the objectives of the bombing were no different from the objectives of America and the British, “shock and awe” attacks on Baghdad and Belgrade, neither of which took place as part of a military assault.

Warsaw suffered far more extensive bombing during the “battle” of Warsaw when the Germans were trying to remove an entrenched military force.

Did the US and Britain sit behind secure defences and simply attempt to erase either Baghdad or Belgrade from the map and exterminate their civilian populations?

Marinesko (or is it Kevin?)

“So all that shows is that America and Britain in the present era have been and can be just as brutal and immoral as the Nazis. SCORE!!”

The fact that you think that this deduction enhances your position in an argument in which I am asserting American and US brutality during WWII, speaks volumes on your powers of perception. Do you intend to score many more own goals?

[Captain Marinesko]

There was no military assault against Warsaw on 1 September, nor was there any such assault against Baghdad at the time. So I don't see a difference.