Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Pekka de Gr ei kyennyt vastaamaan
1 view
Skip to first unread message
TJT2
Jun 21, 2015, 12:41:21 AM6/21/15
to
Laitoin nämä TAMMIkuussa 2015 ketjussa "Ja sitten itse asiaan eli The
Holocaustiin" s.k.politiikka ja s.k.yhteiskunta -ryhmissä. Nyt on KESÄkuun
loppu menossa, eikä de Groot (eikä kukaan muukaan holocaustiuskova) ole
vastannut yhteenkään näistä kysymyksistä. Joten kyllä tämä näyttää täysin
selvältä tapaukselta: Holocaustiin uskovat eivät kykene ollenkaan
keskustelemaan itse holocaustista vaan vänkyttävät vain jostain
väestötilastoista ja muuttoliikkeistä sodan jälkeen, joten The Holocaust on
satua. Näinollen on kummallista, että esim Skepsis ry lähinnä levittää
holocaustisatua sen sijaan että antaisi sen huuhaa-palkinnon holocaustisadun
levittäjille (esim YLElle, tai vaikkapa KD:n kansanedustajille, Skepsis
ry:llähän on muutenkin nuiva, suorastaan nyrpeä asenne
kristillisdemokraatteja kohtaan, joten todella outoa että Skepsis ry ei
käytä tätä heitä vastaan...)
x x x clip x x x
(1) What explanation can there be for the low levels of traces, and absence
of blue staining, in the homicidal gas chambers?
(2) If one suggests that the Zyklon traces in the homicidal gas chambers
have been "weathered away", how can one explain the traces and staining on
the OUTSIDE of the delousing complexes...traces which have NOT been
weathered away after fifty years?
(3) It has been suggested that the amount of Zyklon B needed to kill people,
even cumulative millions of people, would not leave traces as strong as the
amount needed to kill lice in the delousing chambers. But when we factor in
the Zyklon B traces still existing in the camp barracks and offices, we see
that infrequent gassings will still leave SOME traces. Thus, we have the
traces in the camp offices and barracks, which reveal what levels of traces
would remain, fifty years after the fact, in rooms which were gassed
infrequently.
Then we have the delousing chambers, which reveal what levels of traces
would remain, fifty years after the fact, in rooms which were gassed
frequently. Can it not be expected that the levels of traces in the
homicidal gas chambers, while perhaps not being as high as those in the
delousing rooms, would AT LEAST be substantially higher than the traces in
the buildings which were only fumigated infrequently? Yet the traces in
Kremas 1, 2 and 3 are not markedly higher than the office and barracks
traces. Does this not suggest that the traces which DO exist in Kremas 1, 2
and 3 come from the same fumigation routine that all the other buildings
went through?
(4) Once one has fashioned an explanation for the minute traces and no blue
staining in Kremas 1, 2 and 3 at Auschwitz, how does one THEN explain the
HIGH levels of Zyklon B traces and DEEP, FLOOR-TO-CEILING blue staining in
three of the four Majdanek gas chambers? Far fewer people are said to have
been killed at Majdanek than at Auschwitz. The four Majdanek gas chambers
would never have had to handle the workload of Kremas 1,2 and 3. Yet whereas
Kremas 1,2 and 3 have only minute traces and no blue staining, three of the
four Majdanek gas chambers have heavy traces and deep blue staining. How
could gassing a GREATER amount of people (at Auschwitz) leave minute traces
and no blue staining, yet gassing a much SMALLER amount (at Majdanek) leave
heavy traces and deep blue staining?
(5) The gas chambers at the Majdanek camp not only have heavy Zyklon B blue
stains on the INSIDE, but also on the OUTSIDE walls, as well. What could
account for this? The delousing facilities at Birkenau have heavy blue
staining on their outside walls, staining which is said to come from the
mattresses which were propped up against the outside walls and beaten after
delousing (to rid them of Zyklon B residue). Do the heavy blue stains on the
outside walls of the Majdanek gas chambers therefore suggest that these
rooms were used as delousing facilities? Isn't the building which contains
the gas chambers labeled the "Bath and Disinfection" complex? If, as with
Auschwitz, it is said that gassing people wouldn't leave blue stains on the
INSIDE walls of a homicidal gas chamber, how then, at Majdanek, could
gassing people leave heavy blue stains not only on the INSIDE walls but also
on the OUTSIDE ones as well?
(6) To sum up the Zyklon B issue, we can take an overview of the Nazi gas
chambers and their respective states RE Zyklon B traces:
Krema 1 (Auschwitz Main Camp): Minute traces, no blue staining
Krema 2 (Auschwitz-Birkenau): Minute traces, no blue staining
Krema 3 (Auschwitz-Birkenau): Minute traces, no blue staining.
Majdanek gas chambers 1, 3 and 4: Heavy traces, heavy blue staining (on
inside and outside walls).
Dachau gas chamber: No traces, no blue staining.
Mauthausen gas chamber: No traces, no blue staining.
The revisionist explanation for the above is:
Kremas 1, 2 and 3 were not used as gas chambers; - the only Zyklon B they
saw was from the routine camp fumigations.
Majdanek rooms 1, 3 and 4 were delousing rooms, like the ones at
Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The Dachau gas chamber was a shower.
The Mauthausen gas chamber was a shower
What theory can be offered which explains the wildly divergent states of the
gas chambers re Zyklon B traces, while still supporting the concept of mass
homicidal gassings at these camps?
(7) Why was the area between Kremas 2 and 3, the area where thousands of
people were marched daily to their deaths, left completely unfenced? The
ditches which run the length of the camp perimeter would make a person
invisible both to ground fire AND fire from the guard tower. Why would the
Nazis risk an attempted escape, especially considering the fact that many
inmates were gassed after they had been in the camp for a while, and knew
what their fate would be if marched into either of those buildings? Doesn't
the Auschwitz State Museum claim that the inmates would often "riot" as they
were being marched toward Kremas 2 and 3?
(8) Why were Kremas 2 and 3 not hidden in any way from the view of the
inmates? Isn't it claimed at the Auschwitz State Museum that gassings were
stopped at Krema 1 (Auschwitz Main Camp) and moved to Birkenau because the
inmates were starting to get an idea of the homicidal purpose of Krema 1?
Why then were Kremas 2 and 3 put in plain sight of all sectors of the
Birkenau camp, with no camouflage of any kind? Wouldn't this just create
hundreds of thousands of "eyewitnesses", with everyone in the camp becoming
well aware of the exterminations (and with many of these inmates later
transferred to other camps in other parts of Europe to "spread the word"
about the gassing program)? How could this profit the Nazis?
(9) It is claimed that there were four holes on the roofs of Kremas 2 and 3,
which served as Zyklon B induction holes. The best piece of evidence that
these holes ever existed is found in the U.S. aerial photos taken of
Auschwitz during the war. Is there any discrepancy between the size of these
holes as depicted in the U.S. aerial photos, and the size of the holes as
depicted on the model of the Krema 2 gas chamber (on display at the
Auschwitz State Museum and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum), the size as
theorized by Jean-Claude Pressac in his book "Auschwitz; Technique and
Operation of the Gas Chambers", the size as depicted in the movie "Triumph
of the Spirit" (which recreated a gassing at Krema 2), and the size as
described over the decades by eyewitnesses? Indeed, can it be said that the
holes as depicted in the aerial photos are ridiculously large...larger than
what would have been needed for pouring in a can of Zyklon B gas?
(10) Why are the four holes not present today in the roof slab of Krema 2?
The roof slab, though collapsed, is intact and both the top and underside of
the roof are still visible. There are two crudely chiseled holes at opposite
ends of the roof slab (one is more like a huge crack than a hole), but the
other two holes are non existent, and the underside of the roof, with the
two-by-fours lining the ceiling still visible, shows no sign of two holes
having ever been present. There are also no traces of the two holes on the
top of the roof. How can the absence of the two holes, and any traces of the
two holes, be explained?
(11) What circumstances would produce the Krema 2 roof slab as we now see
it, with two holes visible and the other two non-existent? If the Nazis
attempted to erase the traces of the roof holes, why did they stop after
two? Why would they expend much effort to erase all traces of two of the
roof holes, then not make any effort to erase the two which survived the
demolition?
(12) Could the still existing roof holes have been added after the
liberation, by the Soviets or Poles? Doesn't Pressac admit that these two
holes don't correspond with the positions of the holes in the aerial photos
(Pressac says that this might be because the roof "shifted" during
demolition, but even if the roof "shifted", that wouldn't account for why
these holes, which were supposed to run in a straight line down the middle
of the roof, have changed their positions, and are no longer in a straight
line down the middle of the intact roof slab)? These holes are in incredibly
bad condition; their edges are consistently rough, with not an inch of
smoothness left. And they are no longer circular. They look like someone
took a jack-hammer and roughly hammered through the roof slab. It is
explained by Auschwitz State Museum officials that the demolition of the
roof is what accounts for the awful condition of the holes (that is, they
USED to be round and smooth until the demolition)
But if one observes the wreckage of the "undressing room" roof slab, which
was similarly destroyed and is now in even worse shape than the gas chamber
roof slab, one sees the remains of the undressing room front ventilation
hole, which is still round and smooth even after the demolition and fifty
years of laying around as rubble. Why did the undressing room roof hole
survive intact, while the two still existing gas chamber roof holes emerged
from the demolition without even the slightest trace that they had once been
round and smooth? If we consider that the two still existing gas chamber
roof holes don't correspond with their supposed position on the roof, can we
theorize that MAYBE these two holes were chiseled in after the liberation?
It is now admitted by the Auschwitz State Museum that the Soviets, after
liberation, drilled four "Zyklon B induction holes" in the roof of Krema 1
(Auschwitz Main Camp). One needn't assume bad faith on the part of the
Soviets (they might have honestly believed that they were "restoring" the
roof to the state in which it had once been), but this act clearly
establishes that the Soviets DID in fact drill post-liberation "Zyklon B
induction holes" in roofs that, at that time, had none. Is it possible that
this accounts for the two sloppy "Zyklon B induction holes" in the roof slab
of the Krema 2?
(13) It is said that the Nazis destroyed Kremas 2 and 3 in order to hide the
proofs of their gas chambers. But what "proof" of gassings would have been
provided by Krema 2 if Krema 2 had not been dynamited? There are no heavy
Zyklon B traces or blue stains on the walls, and great care was obviously
taken to remove even the slightest trace of two of the Zyklon B induction
holes. The Krema 2 gas chamber would have resembled an ordinary morgue. Was
the destruction of Krema 2 an attempt to hide the evidence of a gas chamber,
or simply the destruction of a cremation facility in the face of the
advancing Soviets? Were cremation facilities at other camps, camps that were
never claimed to have gas chambers, also destroyed?
(14) If one is to believe that four Zyklon B induction holes were at one
time in the roof slab of Krema 2, it must be assumed that the Nazis went
through great pains to meticulously hide any traces of at least two of those
holes. Yet we are told that when the Soviets, after liberation, "reopened"
the Zyklon B induction holes in the Krema 1 gas chamber state (at the time
of liberation, it was being used as an air-raid shelter), they know exactly
where to "reopen" the four holes because the traces where these holes had
been were STILL VISIBLE. The idea that the Zyklon B induction hole traces
were still visible is supported by the Auschwitz State Museum officials, and
by author Jean-Claude Pressac. Why didn't the Nazis attempt to "cover-up"
THOSE holes, especially keeping in mind that the Krema 1 gas chamber had
been abandoned as a gas chamber AT LEAST a year before liberation, giving
the Nazis more than enough time to erase the traces
The Nazis were apparently able to do an incredibly good job of erasing the
hole traces in the Krema 2 roof, even though time was short (the Nazis knew
the Soviets were advancing, and they were busy making preparations to
abandon the camp), yet we are told that they did NOT attempt to likewise
cover up the hole traces in the Krema 1 roof slab, even though they had at
least a year to do so. Why would the Nazis do such a fastidiously good job
of hiding the existence of Zyklon B induction holes in a roof that they were
then going to dynamite (Krema 2), yet allow the hole traces to remain in a
roof that was left intact for the advancing Soviets (Krema 1)? Isn't that
backwards?
(15) The gas chamber at concentration camp Mauthausen (in Austria) has no
locks on the doors, and no holes or fittings where locks may once have been.
The doors can be opened from inside or outside. How could human beings have
been gassed in this room?
(16) The peepholes in the two Mauthausen gas chamber doors have no
hemispherical metal grid covering the glass, as would have been necessary to
prevent the victims from knocking out the glass and causing a gas leak.
There are no holes or fittings where a grid might once have been. Doesn't
Pressac write extensively about the need for such hemispherical grids?
Doesn't Pressac recount survivor testimony regarding the need for such grids
during a homicidal gassing? With no grid, what stopped the inmates from
knocking out the glass, using either their hands or the ample shower piping
in the chamber?
(17) Why are there no Zyklon B traces, or blue stains, in this chamber?
(18) The hole in the ceiling of this chamber, through which the Zyklon B
crystals were supposedly poured, is small enough to be blocked by the
inmates hands, and the ceiling is low enough for them to block the hole. How
could the Zyklon B be effectively poured in?
(19) There is a large drain in the floor of this room. There are no holes or
fittings where a cover for this drain might have been attached. What would
stop the victims from brushing the Zyklon B crystals down this drain?
(20) Unlike the Dachau "fake shower room", which indeed has fake shower
heads (which were directly screwed into the concrete to a maze of water
pipes which run the length of the ceiling AND across the walls. Doesn't this
room resemble a real shower room? How do we know it wasn't?
(21) What would have been the wisdom of construction a fake shower room with
such a maze of pipes running across the ceiling and walls? Wouldn't the
victims have torn these fixtures down? Doesn't Pressac write about how the
victims in the Auschwitz gas chambers would destroy the electrical fixtures
and anything else in the chamber? Wouldn't the pipes serve as perfect
weapons with which to smash a hole through the unguarded peepholes (not to
mention the doors have no locks)? And if the prisoners didn't wish to block
the Zyklon B induction hole with their hands, the showers heads would've fit
inside the hole nicely. Why wasn't the "fake shower heads screwed directly
into the ceiling" method (a la Dachau) employed here?
(22) Considering the absence of Zyklon B traces, locks on the doors,
peephole covers, and a viable means of pouring in the Zyklon B, and
factoring in the floor drain and the water pipes and genuine shower heads in
this room, why can't we assume this was a genuine shower room?
(23) The method of Zyklon B induction for the Dachau gas chamber is claimed
to be via two chutes carved through one of the walls, through which the
Zyklon B would be poured. What would have stopped the victims from putting
their backs against the mouths of these chutes, thus preventing the crystals
from entering the room?
(24) If the crystals WERE able to enter the room, the two chutes are located
just above two large drains in the floor. There are no holes or fittings
where covers for these drains might have been. What would stop the crystals
from falling down the drains?
(25) There is a mystery room (not open to the public but visible through
several windows) adjoining the gas chamber room. This room appears to have
water and steam pipes which appear to lead into the gas chamber. Was the gas
chamber room actually a shower? What is the purpose of this "mystery room"?
What can be gained by ignoring this room which, it stands to reason, must
have had SOME purpose?
(26) It is often said that the Nazis tried to hide the evidence of their
extermination program by speaking in code, and rarely speaking of the
exterminations on the record. It is similarly held that, as it became clear
that they were losing the war, the Nazis tried to destroy the proofs of
their crimes (the destruction of the four Birkenau Kremas is said to have
been part of this "cover-up"). How, then, does one explain the Dachau gas
chamber? The obviously false shower heads are incontrovertible proof of the
homicidal purpose of this room. It is impossible not explain away the fake
shower heads/a homicidal gas chamber. Yet we are to believe that this gas
chamber was NEVER USED. And we are also supposed to believe that the room in
its present state is exactly as the U.S. Army found it when the camp was
liberated. Now, the details of the liberation of Dachau are well known:
Dachau was not taken in some surprise attack. The guards at Dachau knew that
the Americans were on their way. Therefore, we are asked to believe that the
Nazis, KNOWING the camp would be surrendered, left the gas chamber room
(which was not even being USED as a gas chamber) in a state which
unashamedly points to its homicidal purpose. Why were the fake shower heads
not removed?[1]
Why was there no attempt at a "cover-up," like at Auschwitz? Unlike the
Auschwitz gas chambers, THIS one was not even in use! What good was an
unused room which only served to scream to the world "the Nazis are gassing
the Jews"? Why would the Nazis, who were NOT using the "gas chamber" to kill
people, leave it in this blatantly homicidal state, especially as the
Americans drew closer? Keep in mind that, with the fake shower heads, this
room was also impossible to us as a SHOWER. Therefore, this room served NO
PURPOSE: it wasn't used as a gas chamber, and couldn't be used as a shower.
We are asked to accept that the Nazis kept a large, USELESS room in one of
the more important buildings in the Dachau camp (the "gas chamber" is
located in the building which houses the Zyklon B clothing fumigation
cubicles) and that this room remained UNUSED for years but was never
stripped of the fake shower heads which pointed irrefutably to the Nazi's
murderous intentions.
Surely, understanding the great pains the Nazis took to keep their
gassing/extermination plans a secret, and the great pains they supposedly
took at OTHER camps to "hide their crimes" once the Allies were advancing
(i.e. the destruction of Kremas 2 through 5 at Auschwitz), we can expect
that they would have performed the very simple task of removing the fake
shower heads (and perhaps plastering over the marks where the shower heads
had been). Why didn't the Nazis do this?
(27) Gas chamber 1 has two doors, both of which open INTO the gas chamber
room. How can a homicidal gas chamber have two doors which open IN? Wouldn't
the bodies be pressed up against the doors, as described numerous times by
eyewitnesses?
(28) The main door into the gas chamber 1 has no locks. It can be opened
from either the inside or the outside. There are no holes or fittings where
a lock might have been. What stopped the inmates from opening this door?
(29) Gas chamber 1 has a plate glass window in it. There are no holes or
fittings around the window where bars or any other kind of cover might once
have been. Since the plaster around the window is covered with blue stains,
we know that it is the plaster that existed during the time Zyklon B gas was
used in this room. If there WERE bars or any other type of cover attached to
this window, why are there no traces? What would have stopped the inmates
from trying to climb out the window, or breaking the window and causing a
gas leak?
(30) There is a room INSIDE gas chamber 1. Why would there be a separate
room INSIDE a gas chamber? Doesn't this room indicate that gas chamber 1 was
used for something OTHER than killing people?
(31) Gas chambers 2 and 3 are designed backwards. Chamber 2 has a Zyklon B
induction hole in the ceiling, but no Zyklon B traces or blue stains.
Chamber 3 has heavy, floor-to-ceiling Zyklon B traces and blue stains, but
no Zyklon B induction hole. And, like the roof of Krema 2 at Auschwitz, the
ceiling shows no sign of a hole having ever been there. Why would chamber 2
have a Zyklon B induction hole and no traces, and chamber 3 plenty of traces
but no hole?
(32) The ceilings in chambers 2 and 4 are low enough so that the Zyklon B
induction holes could have been blocked by the victims. What would have
stopped the inmates from blocking the holes?
(33) The doors to chambers 2,3 and 4 are built to latch from the outside AND
the inside. The latches can be opened from either side. Does this suggest
that the rooms were used for something other than killing people?
(34) Getting back to the issue of hemispherical grids covering the
peepholes, it is said that the point of these grids was to prevent the
inmates from breaking the glass of the peepholes and causing a gas leak. Yet
the hemispherical grids attached to the peepholes on the doors of chambers
2, 3 and 4 are attached on the OUTSIDE of the doors. These grids wouldn't
prevent someone INSIDE the room from breaking the glass...but they WOULD
prevent someone OUTSIDE the room from doing so. Why are the grids not on the
inside? Does this contradict with the statements by Pressac and the
eyewitnesses regarding the need for grids in a homicidal gas chamber?
(35) The Majdanek camp is built on a hill. At the top of the hill is the
camp crematorium. At the opposite end of the camp, at the bottom of the
hill, is the "Bath and Disinfection" complex, which houses the gas chambers.
From the Nazi's point of view, what was the wisdom in putting the gas
chambers at the opposite end of the camp from the ovens, and at the bottom
of the hill (after each gassing, the dead bodies would have to have been
dragged up the hill, the length of the entire camp, to the ovens)?
(36) As the Nazis were preparing to abandon the Majdanek camp, they
destroyed the crematorium building. Why were the gas chambers not similarly
destroyed? Why would the Nazis leave their weapons of mass murder intact for
the world to see? How hard would it have been for the Nazis to destroy the
gas chambers, just like they did the crematorium building? At least,
shouldn't the Nazis have filled in the Zyklon B induction holes, which serve
as direct proofs of homicidal gassings? Either way, the destruction of the
crematorium is clear proof that the Nazis had both the time and the ability
to demolish buildings in the camp if they wanted to. Why were the gas
chambers not demolished?
(37) In his book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers,
Jean-Claude Pressac publishes a photo of the Majdanek gas chambers, with the
caption "Photograph taken at the Majdanek concentration camp in June 1979,
showing one of the disinfestation gas chambers thought to be a homicidal gas
chamber." On page 555, he also has this to say about the Majdanek gas
chambers: "I am sorry to say, and I am not the only one in the West, that
the Majdanek homicidal and/or delousing gas chambers are still waiting for a
true historian, which is mildly upsetting in view of the fact that the camp
fell into the hands of the Russians intact in 1944." Do these comments
suggest that the gas chambers at Majdanek may in fact have been
disinfestation gas chambers? At least, don't these comments suggest that
there has not yet been a thorough investigation into the purpose of these
rooms?[2]
(38) To sum up the Majdanek gas chamber issue: If we take Pressac's comments
and then factor in the doors that don't lock, the doors that open INTO the
gas chamber, the doors with latches that can be manipulated from both the
outside AND the inside, the window in gas chamber 1, the room inside gas
chamber 1, the lack of any Zyklon B induction hole in gas chamber 3, the
lack of any Zyklon B traces in gas chamber 2 (which DOES have a "Zyklon B
induction hole"), the heavy blue stains on the OUTSIDE of the building, and
the location of the building, at the bottom of a hill, at the opposite end
of the camp from the crematorium, is it reasonable to suggest that these
rooms were delousing chambers?
(39) The Stutthof "gas chamber" has a large floor drain right in the middle
of the room, DIRECTLY BELOW the "Zyklon B induction hole." Any granules
dropped through this hole would automatically go right down the drain.
What's more, the floor of this room is DEPRESSED in the middle, where the
drain is, so that any water or, in this case, Zyklon granules, would
automatically roll into the drain. what would stop the Zyklon granules from
going down the drain, since they were being poured into the room directly
over this drain? And, if a few granules missed the drain, wouldn't they
simply roll, or couldn't the inmates brush them, down the drain?
(40) The roof of this room is low enough so that a tall person could reach
up and block the "Zyklon B induction hole." However, the thoughtful Nazis,
by installing the heating conduit that runs the length of on wall, have made
it possible for ANYONE, of whatever height, to stand on this conduit and
block the hole. What would stop the inmates from blocking the "Zyklon B
induction hole," especially since they would be EXPECTING foul play (this
room was the official Stutthof delousing chamber, known as such by all the
inmates. No Stutthof inmate would expect to be given a "shower" in this
room, and indeed the Stutthof Museum makes no claims about such a deception
(neither do the eyewitnesses)?
(41) Why was this building - a clear "proof" of Nazi crimes, what with its "
Zyklon B induction hole," - not DESTROYED as the Nazis evacuated the camp?
Amazingly, the crematorium RIGHT NEXT DOOR was blown up, and, in fact, one
side of the gas chamber building was actually HIT by shrapnel from the
exploding crematorium. Yet the gas chamber was allowed to remain intact,
even though, as reported by the Stutthof survivor interviewed on the
"Crusaders" TV show, at the end of the war the Nazis were ordered to KILL
EVERY INMATE at Stutthof, in order to erase any evidence of the gassings (by
killing all the eyewitnesses). For some unknown reason, this order was never
carried out, and the Stutthof inmates were evacuated west.
Why would the Nazis BLOW UP the crematorium, yet leave the "homicidal" gas
chamber standing? Why would the Nazis decide to KILL EVERY INMATE in order
to "cover up" their crimes, yet leave the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of those crimes
standing? Why wouldn't the Nazis AT LEAST cover up the "Zyklon B induction
hole," which would serve as CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE PROOF of homicidal usage
(unless we dare to imagine that this hole was put in by the Soviets/Poles,
as they ADMIT doing at the building the Nazis abandoned knowing it was soon
to fall into Soviet hands. Considering the great pains that the Nazis went
through to "cover up" the gassings elsewhere, how hard would it have been to
dynamite THIS building along with the crematorium just a few yards away?
(42) Since personal testimony is all we have to go on regarding the
homicidal usage of this chamber, and since much of this testimony also
mentions the "human soap" - which has long been officially debunked - what
evidence do we have that the testimony about the Stutthof homicidal gas
chamber is any more reliable than the testimony about the human soap?
(43) Majdanek Curator Tomasz Kranz had to admit, after I raised the same
questions I've raised in this list, that the biggest Majdanek "gas chamber,"
chamber #1, was not intended or used homicidally. Big revelation. With the
doors, window, and everything else that precludes homicidal usage, this is a
conclusion even a five year old child would come to. Although Kranz could
offer no evidence for homicidal usage in the other three chambers, chamber
#1 was the only one he was willing to completely jettison as a homicidal
room. Pressac went further. He is only willing to even CONSIDER homicidal
gassings in chamber #3. Of course, he has no evidence. What's more, he
admits that the Soviets laid down fake "gas piping" in chamber #3 to give
the room the appearance of a homicidal gas chamber. This is certainly in
keeping with Soviet precedent regarding the mishandling and faking of
important historical evidence. Pressac could offer no REAL evidence for
gassings in this room. But my question is: Why does Curator Tomasz Kranz
continue to allow this room to be represented to tourists and the world as a
homicidal gas chamber, when he privately acknowledges it never was? If there
is agreement that this room was never homicidally used, why continue to
promote it as a death chamber? If the Majdanek Curator and Europe's most
well known Holocaust author express such uncertainty about homicidal usage
of this and the other rooms, why are people like me who ask basic questions
like these labeled as anti-Semitic irrational cranks? If, as Pressac
believes, rooms 1,2 and 4 were not homicidal gas chambers, what evidence is
there that anyone was killed in room 3?
(44) At Auschwitz Birkenau, the rooms in Kremas 4 and 5 that are supposed to
have been used as homicidal gas chambers all had drains in the floor that
led right into the camp sewage system. These floor drains can still be seen
today. Since, in these "gas chambers," it is said that the Zyklon pellets
were dumped in loose, what stopped the pellets from going down the drain or
being kicked or brushed down by the victims? Pressac was aware of this
problem. He has tried to prove that the Zyklon pellets would present no
problem. He has tried to prove that the Zyklon pellets would present no
danger in the camp sewer, since the water would (in his opinion; this is a
debatable point) "neutralize" the poison so it wouldn't present a danger
when going through Birkenau's large sewage treatment plants. But Pressac
misses the point; the question of just how harmful the Zyklon would be in
the sewer is SECONDARY to the point that if the Zyklon is IN the sewer that
means it's NOT in the gas chamber doing the job the Nazis intended! If the
victims can dump the Zyklon into the sewer, that means they themselves won't
be gassed. How could these rooms have functioned as homicidal gas chambers?
(45) There is a large square manhole in the floor of the Krema 1 "gas
chamber" at the Auschwitz Main Camp. The manhole has a concrete cover with a
metal handle. It is possible for anybody of normal or even below-normal
strength to lift off the lid, and the manhole is large enough for anyone of
any size to climb down. What would stop the victims from climbing down the
manhole to either escape the gas chamber via the sewer OR at least escape
the gas? And even if escape wasn't possible, what would stop the victims
from kicking or brushing the Zyklon B pellets down the manhole and closing
the cover?
(46) Another thing I learned from Pressac is that he believes that the Krema
1 "gas chamber" had THREE "Zyklon B induction holes," running in a straight
line in the ceiling. But the Auschwitz State Museum believes that there were
FOUR holes, running in two lines of two holes. When the Poles and Soviets
put holes in the Krema 1 roof after liberation, this is the version they
installed; four holes in two lines. This is the version that can be seen
today in Krema 1. But Pressac says they're wrong; it was THREE holes in a
straight line. Who's right? Were there three holes or four? And how do we
know that there were ever ANY holes?
x x x clop x x x
http://codoh.com/library/document/987/
--
--TJT--
Myers had myriads of opportunities to make a fool of himself, and he missed
not a single one of them.
Holocaustiin" s.k.politiikka ja s.k.yhteiskunta -ryhmissä. Nyt on KESÄkuun
loppu menossa, eikä de Groot (eikä kukaan muukaan holocaustiuskova) ole
vastannut yhteenkään näistä kysymyksistä. Joten kyllä tämä näyttää täysin
selvältä tapaukselta: Holocaustiin uskovat eivät kykene ollenkaan
keskustelemaan itse holocaustista vaan vänkyttävät vain jostain
väestötilastoista ja muuttoliikkeistä sodan jälkeen, joten The Holocaust on
satua. Näinollen on kummallista, että esim Skepsis ry lähinnä levittää
holocaustisatua sen sijaan että antaisi sen huuhaa-palkinnon holocaustisadun
levittäjille (esim YLElle, tai vaikkapa KD:n kansanedustajille, Skepsis
ry:llähän on muutenkin nuiva, suorastaan nyrpeä asenne
kristillisdemokraatteja kohtaan, joten todella outoa että Skepsis ry ei
käytä tätä heitä vastaan...)
x x x clip x x x
(1) What explanation can there be for the low levels of traces, and absence
of blue staining, in the homicidal gas chambers?
(2) If one suggests that the Zyklon traces in the homicidal gas chambers
have been "weathered away", how can one explain the traces and staining on
the OUTSIDE of the delousing complexes...traces which have NOT been
weathered away after fifty years?
(3) It has been suggested that the amount of Zyklon B needed to kill people,
even cumulative millions of people, would not leave traces as strong as the
amount needed to kill lice in the delousing chambers. But when we factor in
the Zyklon B traces still existing in the camp barracks and offices, we see
that infrequent gassings will still leave SOME traces. Thus, we have the
traces in the camp offices and barracks, which reveal what levels of traces
would remain, fifty years after the fact, in rooms which were gassed
infrequently.
Then we have the delousing chambers, which reveal what levels of traces
would remain, fifty years after the fact, in rooms which were gassed
frequently. Can it not be expected that the levels of traces in the
homicidal gas chambers, while perhaps not being as high as those in the
delousing rooms, would AT LEAST be substantially higher than the traces in
the buildings which were only fumigated infrequently? Yet the traces in
Kremas 1, 2 and 3 are not markedly higher than the office and barracks
traces. Does this not suggest that the traces which DO exist in Kremas 1, 2
and 3 come from the same fumigation routine that all the other buildings
went through?
(4) Once one has fashioned an explanation for the minute traces and no blue
staining in Kremas 1, 2 and 3 at Auschwitz, how does one THEN explain the
HIGH levels of Zyklon B traces and DEEP, FLOOR-TO-CEILING blue staining in
three of the four Majdanek gas chambers? Far fewer people are said to have
been killed at Majdanek than at Auschwitz. The four Majdanek gas chambers
would never have had to handle the workload of Kremas 1,2 and 3. Yet whereas
Kremas 1,2 and 3 have only minute traces and no blue staining, three of the
four Majdanek gas chambers have heavy traces and deep blue staining. How
could gassing a GREATER amount of people (at Auschwitz) leave minute traces
and no blue staining, yet gassing a much SMALLER amount (at Majdanek) leave
heavy traces and deep blue staining?
(5) The gas chambers at the Majdanek camp not only have heavy Zyklon B blue
stains on the INSIDE, but also on the OUTSIDE walls, as well. What could
account for this? The delousing facilities at Birkenau have heavy blue
staining on their outside walls, staining which is said to come from the
mattresses which were propped up against the outside walls and beaten after
delousing (to rid them of Zyklon B residue). Do the heavy blue stains on the
outside walls of the Majdanek gas chambers therefore suggest that these
rooms were used as delousing facilities? Isn't the building which contains
the gas chambers labeled the "Bath and Disinfection" complex? If, as with
Auschwitz, it is said that gassing people wouldn't leave blue stains on the
INSIDE walls of a homicidal gas chamber, how then, at Majdanek, could
gassing people leave heavy blue stains not only on the INSIDE walls but also
on the OUTSIDE ones as well?
(6) To sum up the Zyklon B issue, we can take an overview of the Nazi gas
chambers and their respective states RE Zyklon B traces:
Krema 1 (Auschwitz Main Camp): Minute traces, no blue staining
Krema 2 (Auschwitz-Birkenau): Minute traces, no blue staining
Krema 3 (Auschwitz-Birkenau): Minute traces, no blue staining.
Majdanek gas chambers 1, 3 and 4: Heavy traces, heavy blue staining (on
inside and outside walls).
Dachau gas chamber: No traces, no blue staining.
Mauthausen gas chamber: No traces, no blue staining.
The revisionist explanation for the above is:
Kremas 1, 2 and 3 were not used as gas chambers; - the only Zyklon B they
saw was from the routine camp fumigations.
Majdanek rooms 1, 3 and 4 were delousing rooms, like the ones at
Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The Dachau gas chamber was a shower.
The Mauthausen gas chamber was a shower
What theory can be offered which explains the wildly divergent states of the
gas chambers re Zyklon B traces, while still supporting the concept of mass
homicidal gassings at these camps?
(7) Why was the area between Kremas 2 and 3, the area where thousands of
people were marched daily to their deaths, left completely unfenced? The
ditches which run the length of the camp perimeter would make a person
invisible both to ground fire AND fire from the guard tower. Why would the
Nazis risk an attempted escape, especially considering the fact that many
inmates were gassed after they had been in the camp for a while, and knew
what their fate would be if marched into either of those buildings? Doesn't
the Auschwitz State Museum claim that the inmates would often "riot" as they
were being marched toward Kremas 2 and 3?
(8) Why were Kremas 2 and 3 not hidden in any way from the view of the
inmates? Isn't it claimed at the Auschwitz State Museum that gassings were
stopped at Krema 1 (Auschwitz Main Camp) and moved to Birkenau because the
inmates were starting to get an idea of the homicidal purpose of Krema 1?
Why then were Kremas 2 and 3 put in plain sight of all sectors of the
Birkenau camp, with no camouflage of any kind? Wouldn't this just create
hundreds of thousands of "eyewitnesses", with everyone in the camp becoming
well aware of the exterminations (and with many of these inmates later
transferred to other camps in other parts of Europe to "spread the word"
about the gassing program)? How could this profit the Nazis?
(9) It is claimed that there were four holes on the roofs of Kremas 2 and 3,
which served as Zyklon B induction holes. The best piece of evidence that
these holes ever existed is found in the U.S. aerial photos taken of
Auschwitz during the war. Is there any discrepancy between the size of these
holes as depicted in the U.S. aerial photos, and the size of the holes as
depicted on the model of the Krema 2 gas chamber (on display at the
Auschwitz State Museum and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum), the size as
theorized by Jean-Claude Pressac in his book "Auschwitz; Technique and
Operation of the Gas Chambers", the size as depicted in the movie "Triumph
of the Spirit" (which recreated a gassing at Krema 2), and the size as
described over the decades by eyewitnesses? Indeed, can it be said that the
holes as depicted in the aerial photos are ridiculously large...larger than
what would have been needed for pouring in a can of Zyklon B gas?
(10) Why are the four holes not present today in the roof slab of Krema 2?
The roof slab, though collapsed, is intact and both the top and underside of
the roof are still visible. There are two crudely chiseled holes at opposite
ends of the roof slab (one is more like a huge crack than a hole), but the
other two holes are non existent, and the underside of the roof, with the
two-by-fours lining the ceiling still visible, shows no sign of two holes
having ever been present. There are also no traces of the two holes on the
top of the roof. How can the absence of the two holes, and any traces of the
two holes, be explained?
(11) What circumstances would produce the Krema 2 roof slab as we now see
it, with two holes visible and the other two non-existent? If the Nazis
attempted to erase the traces of the roof holes, why did they stop after
two? Why would they expend much effort to erase all traces of two of the
roof holes, then not make any effort to erase the two which survived the
demolition?
(12) Could the still existing roof holes have been added after the
liberation, by the Soviets or Poles? Doesn't Pressac admit that these two
holes don't correspond with the positions of the holes in the aerial photos
(Pressac says that this might be because the roof "shifted" during
demolition, but even if the roof "shifted", that wouldn't account for why
these holes, which were supposed to run in a straight line down the middle
of the roof, have changed their positions, and are no longer in a straight
line down the middle of the intact roof slab)? These holes are in incredibly
bad condition; their edges are consistently rough, with not an inch of
smoothness left. And they are no longer circular. They look like someone
took a jack-hammer and roughly hammered through the roof slab. It is
explained by Auschwitz State Museum officials that the demolition of the
roof is what accounts for the awful condition of the holes (that is, they
USED to be round and smooth until the demolition)
But if one observes the wreckage of the "undressing room" roof slab, which
was similarly destroyed and is now in even worse shape than the gas chamber
roof slab, one sees the remains of the undressing room front ventilation
hole, which is still round and smooth even after the demolition and fifty
years of laying around as rubble. Why did the undressing room roof hole
survive intact, while the two still existing gas chamber roof holes emerged
from the demolition without even the slightest trace that they had once been
round and smooth? If we consider that the two still existing gas chamber
roof holes don't correspond with their supposed position on the roof, can we
theorize that MAYBE these two holes were chiseled in after the liberation?
It is now admitted by the Auschwitz State Museum that the Soviets, after
liberation, drilled four "Zyklon B induction holes" in the roof of Krema 1
(Auschwitz Main Camp). One needn't assume bad faith on the part of the
Soviets (they might have honestly believed that they were "restoring" the
roof to the state in which it had once been), but this act clearly
establishes that the Soviets DID in fact drill post-liberation "Zyklon B
induction holes" in roofs that, at that time, had none. Is it possible that
this accounts for the two sloppy "Zyklon B induction holes" in the roof slab
of the Krema 2?
(13) It is said that the Nazis destroyed Kremas 2 and 3 in order to hide the
proofs of their gas chambers. But what "proof" of gassings would have been
provided by Krema 2 if Krema 2 had not been dynamited? There are no heavy
Zyklon B traces or blue stains on the walls, and great care was obviously
taken to remove even the slightest trace of two of the Zyklon B induction
holes. The Krema 2 gas chamber would have resembled an ordinary morgue. Was
the destruction of Krema 2 an attempt to hide the evidence of a gas chamber,
or simply the destruction of a cremation facility in the face of the
advancing Soviets? Were cremation facilities at other camps, camps that were
never claimed to have gas chambers, also destroyed?
(14) If one is to believe that four Zyklon B induction holes were at one
time in the roof slab of Krema 2, it must be assumed that the Nazis went
through great pains to meticulously hide any traces of at least two of those
holes. Yet we are told that when the Soviets, after liberation, "reopened"
the Zyklon B induction holes in the Krema 1 gas chamber state (at the time
of liberation, it was being used as an air-raid shelter), they know exactly
where to "reopen" the four holes because the traces where these holes had
been were STILL VISIBLE. The idea that the Zyklon B induction hole traces
were still visible is supported by the Auschwitz State Museum officials, and
by author Jean-Claude Pressac. Why didn't the Nazis attempt to "cover-up"
THOSE holes, especially keeping in mind that the Krema 1 gas chamber had
been abandoned as a gas chamber AT LEAST a year before liberation, giving
the Nazis more than enough time to erase the traces
The Nazis were apparently able to do an incredibly good job of erasing the
hole traces in the Krema 2 roof, even though time was short (the Nazis knew
the Soviets were advancing, and they were busy making preparations to
abandon the camp), yet we are told that they did NOT attempt to likewise
cover up the hole traces in the Krema 1 roof slab, even though they had at
least a year to do so. Why would the Nazis do such a fastidiously good job
of hiding the existence of Zyklon B induction holes in a roof that they were
then going to dynamite (Krema 2), yet allow the hole traces to remain in a
roof that was left intact for the advancing Soviets (Krema 1)? Isn't that
backwards?
(15) The gas chamber at concentration camp Mauthausen (in Austria) has no
locks on the doors, and no holes or fittings where locks may once have been.
The doors can be opened from inside or outside. How could human beings have
been gassed in this room?
(16) The peepholes in the two Mauthausen gas chamber doors have no
hemispherical metal grid covering the glass, as would have been necessary to
prevent the victims from knocking out the glass and causing a gas leak.
There are no holes or fittings where a grid might once have been. Doesn't
Pressac write extensively about the need for such hemispherical grids?
Doesn't Pressac recount survivor testimony regarding the need for such grids
during a homicidal gassing? With no grid, what stopped the inmates from
knocking out the glass, using either their hands or the ample shower piping
in the chamber?
(17) Why are there no Zyklon B traces, or blue stains, in this chamber?
(18) The hole in the ceiling of this chamber, through which the Zyklon B
crystals were supposedly poured, is small enough to be blocked by the
inmates hands, and the ceiling is low enough for them to block the hole. How
could the Zyklon B be effectively poured in?
(19) There is a large drain in the floor of this room. There are no holes or
fittings where a cover for this drain might have been attached. What would
stop the victims from brushing the Zyklon B crystals down this drain?
(20) Unlike the Dachau "fake shower room", which indeed has fake shower
heads (which were directly screwed into the concrete to a maze of water
pipes which run the length of the ceiling AND across the walls. Doesn't this
room resemble a real shower room? How do we know it wasn't?
(21) What would have been the wisdom of construction a fake shower room with
such a maze of pipes running across the ceiling and walls? Wouldn't the
victims have torn these fixtures down? Doesn't Pressac write about how the
victims in the Auschwitz gas chambers would destroy the electrical fixtures
and anything else in the chamber? Wouldn't the pipes serve as perfect
weapons with which to smash a hole through the unguarded peepholes (not to
mention the doors have no locks)? And if the prisoners didn't wish to block
the Zyklon B induction hole with their hands, the showers heads would've fit
inside the hole nicely. Why wasn't the "fake shower heads screwed directly
into the ceiling" method (a la Dachau) employed here?
(22) Considering the absence of Zyklon B traces, locks on the doors,
peephole covers, and a viable means of pouring in the Zyklon B, and
factoring in the floor drain and the water pipes and genuine shower heads in
this room, why can't we assume this was a genuine shower room?
(23) The method of Zyklon B induction for the Dachau gas chamber is claimed
to be via two chutes carved through one of the walls, through which the
Zyklon B would be poured. What would have stopped the victims from putting
their backs against the mouths of these chutes, thus preventing the crystals
from entering the room?
(24) If the crystals WERE able to enter the room, the two chutes are located
just above two large drains in the floor. There are no holes or fittings
where covers for these drains might have been. What would stop the crystals
from falling down the drains?
(25) There is a mystery room (not open to the public but visible through
several windows) adjoining the gas chamber room. This room appears to have
water and steam pipes which appear to lead into the gas chamber. Was the gas
chamber room actually a shower? What is the purpose of this "mystery room"?
What can be gained by ignoring this room which, it stands to reason, must
have had SOME purpose?
(26) It is often said that the Nazis tried to hide the evidence of their
extermination program by speaking in code, and rarely speaking of the
exterminations on the record. It is similarly held that, as it became clear
that they were losing the war, the Nazis tried to destroy the proofs of
their crimes (the destruction of the four Birkenau Kremas is said to have
been part of this "cover-up"). How, then, does one explain the Dachau gas
chamber? The obviously false shower heads are incontrovertible proof of the
homicidal purpose of this room. It is impossible not explain away the fake
shower heads/a homicidal gas chamber. Yet we are to believe that this gas
chamber was NEVER USED. And we are also supposed to believe that the room in
its present state is exactly as the U.S. Army found it when the camp was
liberated. Now, the details of the liberation of Dachau are well known:
Dachau was not taken in some surprise attack. The guards at Dachau knew that
the Americans were on their way. Therefore, we are asked to believe that the
Nazis, KNOWING the camp would be surrendered, left the gas chamber room
(which was not even being USED as a gas chamber) in a state which
unashamedly points to its homicidal purpose. Why were the fake shower heads
not removed?[1]
Why was there no attempt at a "cover-up," like at Auschwitz? Unlike the
Auschwitz gas chambers, THIS one was not even in use! What good was an
unused room which only served to scream to the world "the Nazis are gassing
the Jews"? Why would the Nazis, who were NOT using the "gas chamber" to kill
people, leave it in this blatantly homicidal state, especially as the
Americans drew closer? Keep in mind that, with the fake shower heads, this
room was also impossible to us as a SHOWER. Therefore, this room served NO
PURPOSE: it wasn't used as a gas chamber, and couldn't be used as a shower.
We are asked to accept that the Nazis kept a large, USELESS room in one of
the more important buildings in the Dachau camp (the "gas chamber" is
located in the building which houses the Zyklon B clothing fumigation
cubicles) and that this room remained UNUSED for years but was never
stripped of the fake shower heads which pointed irrefutably to the Nazi's
murderous intentions.
Surely, understanding the great pains the Nazis took to keep their
gassing/extermination plans a secret, and the great pains they supposedly
took at OTHER camps to "hide their crimes" once the Allies were advancing
(i.e. the destruction of Kremas 2 through 5 at Auschwitz), we can expect
that they would have performed the very simple task of removing the fake
shower heads (and perhaps plastering over the marks where the shower heads
had been). Why didn't the Nazis do this?
(27) Gas chamber 1 has two doors, both of which open INTO the gas chamber
room. How can a homicidal gas chamber have two doors which open IN? Wouldn't
the bodies be pressed up against the doors, as described numerous times by
eyewitnesses?
(28) The main door into the gas chamber 1 has no locks. It can be opened
from either the inside or the outside. There are no holes or fittings where
a lock might have been. What stopped the inmates from opening this door?
(29) Gas chamber 1 has a plate glass window in it. There are no holes or
fittings around the window where bars or any other kind of cover might once
have been. Since the plaster around the window is covered with blue stains,
we know that it is the plaster that existed during the time Zyklon B gas was
used in this room. If there WERE bars or any other type of cover attached to
this window, why are there no traces? What would have stopped the inmates
from trying to climb out the window, or breaking the window and causing a
gas leak?
(30) There is a room INSIDE gas chamber 1. Why would there be a separate
room INSIDE a gas chamber? Doesn't this room indicate that gas chamber 1 was
used for something OTHER than killing people?
(31) Gas chambers 2 and 3 are designed backwards. Chamber 2 has a Zyklon B
induction hole in the ceiling, but no Zyklon B traces or blue stains.
Chamber 3 has heavy, floor-to-ceiling Zyklon B traces and blue stains, but
no Zyklon B induction hole. And, like the roof of Krema 2 at Auschwitz, the
ceiling shows no sign of a hole having ever been there. Why would chamber 2
have a Zyklon B induction hole and no traces, and chamber 3 plenty of traces
but no hole?
(32) The ceilings in chambers 2 and 4 are low enough so that the Zyklon B
induction holes could have been blocked by the victims. What would have
stopped the inmates from blocking the holes?
(33) The doors to chambers 2,3 and 4 are built to latch from the outside AND
the inside. The latches can be opened from either side. Does this suggest
that the rooms were used for something other than killing people?
(34) Getting back to the issue of hemispherical grids covering the
peepholes, it is said that the point of these grids was to prevent the
inmates from breaking the glass of the peepholes and causing a gas leak. Yet
the hemispherical grids attached to the peepholes on the doors of chambers
2, 3 and 4 are attached on the OUTSIDE of the doors. These grids wouldn't
prevent someone INSIDE the room from breaking the glass...but they WOULD
prevent someone OUTSIDE the room from doing so. Why are the grids not on the
inside? Does this contradict with the statements by Pressac and the
eyewitnesses regarding the need for grids in a homicidal gas chamber?
(35) The Majdanek camp is built on a hill. At the top of the hill is the
camp crematorium. At the opposite end of the camp, at the bottom of the
hill, is the "Bath and Disinfection" complex, which houses the gas chambers.
From the Nazi's point of view, what was the wisdom in putting the gas
chambers at the opposite end of the camp from the ovens, and at the bottom
of the hill (after each gassing, the dead bodies would have to have been
dragged up the hill, the length of the entire camp, to the ovens)?
(36) As the Nazis were preparing to abandon the Majdanek camp, they
destroyed the crematorium building. Why were the gas chambers not similarly
destroyed? Why would the Nazis leave their weapons of mass murder intact for
the world to see? How hard would it have been for the Nazis to destroy the
gas chambers, just like they did the crematorium building? At least,
shouldn't the Nazis have filled in the Zyklon B induction holes, which serve
as direct proofs of homicidal gassings? Either way, the destruction of the
crematorium is clear proof that the Nazis had both the time and the ability
to demolish buildings in the camp if they wanted to. Why were the gas
chambers not demolished?
(37) In his book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers,
Jean-Claude Pressac publishes a photo of the Majdanek gas chambers, with the
caption "Photograph taken at the Majdanek concentration camp in June 1979,
showing one of the disinfestation gas chambers thought to be a homicidal gas
chamber." On page 555, he also has this to say about the Majdanek gas
chambers: "I am sorry to say, and I am not the only one in the West, that
the Majdanek homicidal and/or delousing gas chambers are still waiting for a
true historian, which is mildly upsetting in view of the fact that the camp
fell into the hands of the Russians intact in 1944." Do these comments
suggest that the gas chambers at Majdanek may in fact have been
disinfestation gas chambers? At least, don't these comments suggest that
there has not yet been a thorough investigation into the purpose of these
rooms?[2]
(38) To sum up the Majdanek gas chamber issue: If we take Pressac's comments
and then factor in the doors that don't lock, the doors that open INTO the
gas chamber, the doors with latches that can be manipulated from both the
outside AND the inside, the window in gas chamber 1, the room inside gas
chamber 1, the lack of any Zyklon B induction hole in gas chamber 3, the
lack of any Zyklon B traces in gas chamber 2 (which DOES have a "Zyklon B
induction hole"), the heavy blue stains on the OUTSIDE of the building, and
the location of the building, at the bottom of a hill, at the opposite end
of the camp from the crematorium, is it reasonable to suggest that these
rooms were delousing chambers?
(39) The Stutthof "gas chamber" has a large floor drain right in the middle
of the room, DIRECTLY BELOW the "Zyklon B induction hole." Any granules
dropped through this hole would automatically go right down the drain.
What's more, the floor of this room is DEPRESSED in the middle, where the
drain is, so that any water or, in this case, Zyklon granules, would
automatically roll into the drain. what would stop the Zyklon granules from
going down the drain, since they were being poured into the room directly
over this drain? And, if a few granules missed the drain, wouldn't they
simply roll, or couldn't the inmates brush them, down the drain?
(40) The roof of this room is low enough so that a tall person could reach
up and block the "Zyklon B induction hole." However, the thoughtful Nazis,
by installing the heating conduit that runs the length of on wall, have made
it possible for ANYONE, of whatever height, to stand on this conduit and
block the hole. What would stop the inmates from blocking the "Zyklon B
induction hole," especially since they would be EXPECTING foul play (this
room was the official Stutthof delousing chamber, known as such by all the
inmates. No Stutthof inmate would expect to be given a "shower" in this
room, and indeed the Stutthof Museum makes no claims about such a deception
(neither do the eyewitnesses)?
(41) Why was this building - a clear "proof" of Nazi crimes, what with its "
Zyklon B induction hole," - not DESTROYED as the Nazis evacuated the camp?
Amazingly, the crematorium RIGHT NEXT DOOR was blown up, and, in fact, one
side of the gas chamber building was actually HIT by shrapnel from the
exploding crematorium. Yet the gas chamber was allowed to remain intact,
even though, as reported by the Stutthof survivor interviewed on the
"Crusaders" TV show, at the end of the war the Nazis were ordered to KILL
EVERY INMATE at Stutthof, in order to erase any evidence of the gassings (by
killing all the eyewitnesses). For some unknown reason, this order was never
carried out, and the Stutthof inmates were evacuated west.
Why would the Nazis BLOW UP the crematorium, yet leave the "homicidal" gas
chamber standing? Why would the Nazis decide to KILL EVERY INMATE in order
to "cover up" their crimes, yet leave the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of those crimes
standing? Why wouldn't the Nazis AT LEAST cover up the "Zyklon B induction
hole," which would serve as CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE PROOF of homicidal usage
(unless we dare to imagine that this hole was put in by the Soviets/Poles,
as they ADMIT doing at the building the Nazis abandoned knowing it was soon
to fall into Soviet hands. Considering the great pains that the Nazis went
through to "cover up" the gassings elsewhere, how hard would it have been to
dynamite THIS building along with the crematorium just a few yards away?
(42) Since personal testimony is all we have to go on regarding the
homicidal usage of this chamber, and since much of this testimony also
mentions the "human soap" - which has long been officially debunked - what
evidence do we have that the testimony about the Stutthof homicidal gas
chamber is any more reliable than the testimony about the human soap?
(43) Majdanek Curator Tomasz Kranz had to admit, after I raised the same
questions I've raised in this list, that the biggest Majdanek "gas chamber,"
chamber #1, was not intended or used homicidally. Big revelation. With the
doors, window, and everything else that precludes homicidal usage, this is a
conclusion even a five year old child would come to. Although Kranz could
offer no evidence for homicidal usage in the other three chambers, chamber
#1 was the only one he was willing to completely jettison as a homicidal
room. Pressac went further. He is only willing to even CONSIDER homicidal
gassings in chamber #3. Of course, he has no evidence. What's more, he
admits that the Soviets laid down fake "gas piping" in chamber #3 to give
the room the appearance of a homicidal gas chamber. This is certainly in
keeping with Soviet precedent regarding the mishandling and faking of
important historical evidence. Pressac could offer no REAL evidence for
gassings in this room. But my question is: Why does Curator Tomasz Kranz
continue to allow this room to be represented to tourists and the world as a
homicidal gas chamber, when he privately acknowledges it never was? If there
is agreement that this room was never homicidally used, why continue to
promote it as a death chamber? If the Majdanek Curator and Europe's most
well known Holocaust author express such uncertainty about homicidal usage
of this and the other rooms, why are people like me who ask basic questions
like these labeled as anti-Semitic irrational cranks? If, as Pressac
believes, rooms 1,2 and 4 were not homicidal gas chambers, what evidence is
there that anyone was killed in room 3?
(44) At Auschwitz Birkenau, the rooms in Kremas 4 and 5 that are supposed to
have been used as homicidal gas chambers all had drains in the floor that
led right into the camp sewage system. These floor drains can still be seen
today. Since, in these "gas chambers," it is said that the Zyklon pellets
were dumped in loose, what stopped the pellets from going down the drain or
being kicked or brushed down by the victims? Pressac was aware of this
problem. He has tried to prove that the Zyklon pellets would present no
problem. He has tried to prove that the Zyklon pellets would present no
danger in the camp sewer, since the water would (in his opinion; this is a
debatable point) "neutralize" the poison so it wouldn't present a danger
when going through Birkenau's large sewage treatment plants. But Pressac
misses the point; the question of just how harmful the Zyklon would be in
the sewer is SECONDARY to the point that if the Zyklon is IN the sewer that
means it's NOT in the gas chamber doing the job the Nazis intended! If the
victims can dump the Zyklon into the sewer, that means they themselves won't
be gassed. How could these rooms have functioned as homicidal gas chambers?
(45) There is a large square manhole in the floor of the Krema 1 "gas
chamber" at the Auschwitz Main Camp. The manhole has a concrete cover with a
metal handle. It is possible for anybody of normal or even below-normal
strength to lift off the lid, and the manhole is large enough for anyone of
any size to climb down. What would stop the victims from climbing down the
manhole to either escape the gas chamber via the sewer OR at least escape
the gas? And even if escape wasn't possible, what would stop the victims
from kicking or brushing the Zyklon B pellets down the manhole and closing
the cover?
(46) Another thing I learned from Pressac is that he believes that the Krema
1 "gas chamber" had THREE "Zyklon B induction holes," running in a straight
line in the ceiling. But the Auschwitz State Museum believes that there were
FOUR holes, running in two lines of two holes. When the Poles and Soviets
put holes in the Krema 1 roof after liberation, this is the version they
installed; four holes in two lines. This is the version that can be seen
today in Krema 1. But Pressac says they're wrong; it was THREE holes in a
straight line. Who's right? Were there three holes or four? And how do we
know that there were ever ANY holes?
x x x clop x x x
http://codoh.com/library/document/987/
--
--TJT--
Myers had myriads of opportunities to make a fool of himself, and he missed
not a single one of them.
0 new messages