I hope that you are finding this thread and the books referred to as being very helpful in your research. Perhaps I can refer you to books on more specific topics?
The famous Poznan speech of Heinrich Himmler of October 4, 1943 was recorded on a Nazi gramophone record. He talks openly about the murder of the Jews and adds that this murder should never and will never become known.
[See IMT (Nuremberg Documents), PS 1919]
Does he imply that no one will ever be able to understand him? I do not think so. Himmler was, after all, not unique in his murderous intentions. Not to understand him would mean that we cannot understand any parallel or similar event in history. If we cannot understand this aspect of human history, we cannot explain anything at all, because half of history is murder and brutality. In that case, history becomes irrelevant.
But if Himmler was human—and he was—then his motives were human....
If Himmler is to be explained, then his statement that the murder should never become known is simply the expression of his fear, pointed out in a previous passage of the same speech, that the German people would not understand the Nazi motivation if murder was acknowledged and might reject the murder.
In addition, he foresaw a world without Jews, and he thought that future generations of Germans would not understand why total mass murder had been necessary, because they would have had no experience of who and what the Jews had been.
Himmler’s statement is therefore explainable and his actions can be understood. Indeed, as far as brutality, the will to murder, and sadism are concerned, little is unique about the Nazis except that they went further than any of their predecessors.
Quoted directly from Rethinking the Holocaust by Yehuda Bauer (2001), pages 21-22 hardback version, chapter two: “Is the Holocaust Explicable?”
For those with doubts about Adolph Hitler’s agenda:
“As in every year since 1933, the Reichstag was convened in festive session on January 30, 1939, to mark the anniversary of Hitler’s accession to power.
Hitler’s speech started at 8:15 in the evening and lasted for more than two and a half hours....
Up to [a] point, Hitler was merely rehashing an array of anti-Jewish themes that had become a known part of his repertory. Then, however his tone changed, and threats as yet unheard in the public pronouncements of a head of state resonated in the Reichstag:
Hitler speaking:
“One thing I would like to express on this day, which is perhaps memorable not only for us Germans: In my life I have often been a prophet, and I have mostly been laughed at. At the time of my struggle for power, it was mostly the Jewish people who laughed at the prophecy that one day I would attain in Germany the leadership of the state and therewith of the entire nation, and that among other problems I would also solve the Jewish one. I think that the uproarious laughter of that time has in the meantime remained stuck in German Jewry’s throat.”
Then came the explicit menace:
“Today I want to be a prophet again: If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe again succeeds in precipitating the nations into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the victory of the Jews, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”
From Saul Friedlander’s “Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1—The Years of Persecution: 1933 - 1939”, (1997), minor extractions from pages 308 - 310. Friedlander quoted Hitler’s speech from “Hitler, Reden und Proklamationen,” pages 1056 - 1058.
-------------------------------------
Also from Adolph Hitler:
“As a fledgling political agitator (born in 1889), he had defined the goal of systematic anti-Jewish policy in his notorious first political text, the letter on the ‘Jewish question’ addressed on September 16, 1919, to one Adolf Gemlich. In the short term the Jews had to be deprived of their civil rights: “The final aim however must be the uncompromising removal of Jews altogether."”
From Saul Friedlander’s “Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1—The Years of Persecution: 1933 - 1939”, (1997), page 72, paperback version. His source is “Nazism 1919 - 1945: A Documentary Reader. 3 vols. Edited by Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham (1983), vol 1, page 13.
-------------------------------------
And Hitler again:
In 1933:
Hitler “avoided public statements on the Jewish issue, he could not restrain himself entirely. In his closing speech at the September 1933 Nuremberg party rally, called (for the occasion) the Congress of Victory, he launched into disparaging comments about the Jews in his expostulations on the racial foundations of art:
Hitler speaking: “It is a sign of the horrible spiritual decadence of the past epoch that one spoke of styles without recognizing their racial determinants.... Each clearly formed race has its own handwriting in the book of art, insofar as it is not, like Jewry, devoid of any creative artistic ability.”
From Saul Friedlander’s “Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume 1—The Years of Persecution: 1933 - 1939”, (1997), page 71, paperback version. Quoted from “Die deutsche Kunst als stolzeste Verteidigung des deutschen Volkes,” Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte 4, no. 34 (Oct. 1933), page 437.
---------------------------------------
Goebbels noted on December 29, 1939, in his diary: “The Fuhrer is profoundly religious but totally antichristian. He considers Christianity as a symptom of decline. Rightly so. It is a deposit of the Jewish race. One also notices it in the similarity of religious rituals. Both have no relation to animals and this will destroy them in the end.”
In the summer of 1941, Hitler brought up his theory about religion and world history: “The worst blow to have hit humankind is Christianity; Bolshevism is a bas.tard child of Christianity; both are the monstrous product of the Jews.”
From Saul Friedlander’s “Nazi Germany and the Jews: 1939 - 1945—The Years of Extermination (2008 paperback), pages 17 and 203.
From Rethinking the Holocaust --- Chapter Nine --- “Theology, or God the Surgeon”
I have not been reading theological responses to the Holocaust in quite some time. However Yehuda Bauer’s Rethinking the Holocaust provides such:
Jewish (and Christian) theological explanations of the Holocaust offer a variety of justifications for God’s action or inaction at the time, some more and some less grounded in Jewish (and Christian) religious tradition. That tradition has the concept of an all-powerful Being who cannot be asked for any explanation because humans are too puny to understand his leadership (hanhaga) of the world.
His ways are not our ways. God, then, can be removed from the argument altogether in consideration of Job’s submission at the end of his struggle with the Almighty: Job admits God’s infiniteness and his own capacity to understand it.
Indeed, with Job, God ultimately acts outside human morality; in other words, he is the ultimate cosmic power, beyond good and evil. Regarding the Holocaust, this might appear to solve the problem.
Most orthodox commentators (and many nonorthodox ones as well) are right to ask then counterquestion: Don’t ask where God was, because you cannot grasp his ways; instead, ask, where was Man?
The ball is, so to speak, in the human, not the divine, court. Of course, after having said that we cannot understand God’s actions, Jewish (and many Christian) religious thinkers then desperately try to do just that—namely, to understand them.
According to the second argument, all evil is grounded in the freedom that God has given humans to choose between good and bad. Punishment for evil was, in the Psalms, promised to the evildoers in this world. Later, punishment was transferred to the next world.
In any case, evil is again a human choice, not a divine one.
There is a tension, even a contradiction, between the two arguments; the first says that we cannot question God’s leadership of the world (because we are too puny), and the second says that there is no need to question it (because he decided long ago to give freedom of choice to humans, and he will reward and punish us in due course).
The second argument again creates a problem. If Man is given the freedom to choose between good and evil (and a God-fearing Jew knows what good is: to obey the 613 commandments of Jewish Law—halakhah, Torah), the freedom to choose may well apply to the Nazis: they chose, and they chose evil.
Did the victims have any choice?
Hardly.
And if they chose what generally accepted standards would categorize as “good,” were they saved?
Were they saved if they were observant Jews and followed all the commandments?
Were they saved if they were not observant Jews?
Survival rates indicate the contrary of what the religious argument would suggest. Among the largely unorthodox Jews of Western Europe—in France, Belgium, Italy and Denmark—a relatively high proportion of Jews survived, whereas among the orthodox Jews of Poland the proportion of survivors was minimal.
Vehadra kushia le’dukhta—“the question returns to its beginning,” to use a phrase common in talmudic discourse. In other words, the objection is not answered.
As to the first argument, orthodox thinkers, in contradiction of their own view (the “we are too puny” argument), still wonder what God’s purpose might have been, because obviously he who rules the world and determined that the Holocaust should happen.
After all, according to tradition, God occasionally told humans why he did what he did.
Is not the whole Jewish tradition based upon the assumption that it was inspired by God, if not more than that, and that if the moral commandments it contains come from God, was he not more than just a neutral cosmic power—is he not obliged to act in accordance with his own decreed morality?
Serious ultraorthodox or haredi thinkers—I use the term they use to describe themselves: haredi (hered means “[God]fearing")—addressed the question, and this is what they said and wrote after the Holocaust.
From Rethinking the Holocaust by Yehuda Bauer-- Chapter Nine --- “Theology, or God the Surgeon”.
Below are the last paragraphs that focuses on the theological implications of the murder of over one million children aged twelve and below:
Are we too puny to understand God’s plan—does that argument hold water?
At least one million Jewish children under thirteen died in the Holocaust, and no one will argue that they were responsible for their deeds or misdeeds or that they could have sinned, at least according to the Jewish interpretation of sin.
True, one tradition visits the sins of the father (what about the mothers?) on their sons (what about daughters?), but more decisive is the tradition that says each person is responsible for her or his actions and therefore also for any transgressions.
Why were the children killed is the most bothersome question of all. In the haredi interpretation they were killed because God did not intervene, although he undoubtedly could have, and of course he knew that they were going to die.
If the answer is that we can never understand God’s intentions, the obvious and trite—but arguably true—reply is that we have no wish to know God’s intentions or reasons, whether we might understand them or not, because any reason, divine or human, for not preventing the murder of a million children when that murder might have been prevented is evil.
It can be judged evil by the very code of morals supposedlyl derived from divine inspiration. Otherwise God becomes Satan, and Jews do not want to believe in Satan.
Perhaps the answer of Walter Zvi Bacharach is not so bad: to be angry with God but to believe in him anyway. From the nonorthodox point of view, even more so from a nonreligious point of view, theology does not seem to have come up with any answers to the Holocaust. Historical, sociological, psychological, and maybe even philosophical explications have been more productive.
Some might even doubt the relevance of the theological answers altogether, so far. That, indeed, is my own position. The theology of the Holocaust is fascinating, but it is a dead end.
_________________
Between the opening paragraphs in my previous post and the ending paragraphs in this post, Yehuda Bauer discusses the theological arguments of Martin Buber, Eliezer Berkovits, Emil Fackenheim, Rabbi Irving “Yitz” Greenberg; Chief Rabbi of Palestine in 1942, Yitzhak Halevi Herzog; Reb Yoel ("Yoelish") Teitelboym, the Satmarer Rebbe; Lord Immanuel Jacobovits, the former Chief Rabbi of Britain; Kalman Klonymus Shapira while in the Warsaw ghetto of 1940-1942; Walter Zvi Bacharach; Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneershon (whom some within Habad believe is Messiah); Yossef Yitzhok Shneersohn, who led Habad during the Holocaust years; Chief Rabbi Avraham Hacohen Kook of Palestine until his death in 1935.
Most of the discussion regards Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneershon’s theological analysis and struggles.
From Deborah Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory regarding the key Holocaust deniers and minimizers who are not clearly and obviously Nazis or Neo-Nazis. In other words below is factual information regarding those generally known not to where Nazi clothing, have Nazi tattoos, etc. Extracts from pages 137-156—the chapter is titled “The Institute for Historical Review.”
Their efforts to present an academic and scholarly veil is primarily the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), founded in 1978 in California by William David McCalden, with the great assistance of Willis A. Carto.
McCalden uses pseudonyms, e.g. Sondra Ross, David Berg, Julius Finkelstein, and David Sanford. However McCalden, the real person, was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland in 1951. He received his teaching certificate from the University of London. He was known in England for his neofacist and extremist involvements. A former officer of England’s right-wing extremist party, the National Front, he edited antisemitic and racist publications in England prior to coming to the United States.
An admitted racist, McCalden was denied membership in the English National Union of Journalists because of what was termed his “racist politics.”
McCalden claimed to have been converted to Holocaust denial by reading Richard Harwood’s Did Six Million Really Die? In 1978 he moved to California, where initially he worked for the antisemitic journal the American Mercury. According to McCalden, when he saw that the magazine and everything associated with it were moribund, he helped found the IHR to spread the “gospel” of Holocaust denial. He served as IHR director from 1978 until 1981.
What probably garnered IHR’s most publicity was an offer in 1979, that was later collected via litigation, of $50,000 to anyone who “could prove that the Nazis operated gas-chambers to exterminate Jews during World War II.”
The IHR’s ideology can be directly linked to one of its founders and primary financial supporter, Willis A. Carto, who was also the founder and treasurer of the Liberty Lobby, a well established ultra-right organization that has a direct connection with other antisemitic publications, including American Mercury, Washington Observer Newsletter, and Noontide Press. At one point IHR, Noontide Press, and the American Mercury all shared the same post office box. This same network is known for its anti-Israel publications, many of which contain details of a “World Zionist conspiracy.”
For further background on Spotlight and the way certain members of Congress have chosen t cooperate with it, see Mark Hosenball, “Spotlight on the Hill,” New Republic, September 9, 1981, pp. 13-14.
Willis A. Carto was born in 1926 in Indiana. After serving in the army he attended college and then moved to San Francisco to work for a finance company as a debt collector. For a short while he was associated with the John Birch Society, until he had a falling out with the founder, Robert Welch.
According to a former editor at the Liberty Lobby, Carto’s antisemitic activities were too extreme even for Robert Welch, a known antisemite himself, who personally fired Carto. See Joseph Trento and Joseph Spear, “How Nazi Nut Power Has Invaded Capitol Hill,” True, November 1969, page 39.
In 1958 Carto organzied a “pressure group for patriotism,” which eventually emerged as the Liberty Lobby.
A former chairman of the Liberty Lobby’s Board of Policy acknowledged that by the 1980s its annual income wsa close to four million dollars. The Liberty Lobby’s antisemitic, anti-Zionist newspaper, Spotlight claims a circulation of more than 300,000. When it reached this goal in 1981, it celebrated by holding a gala reception at the National Press Club in Washington.
According to Mark Hosenball’s “Spotlight on the Hill,” page 13, the Liberty Lobby is so extreme that it is “estranged from even the fringes of the far right.”
The investigative columnist Drew Pearson described Carto as a Hitler “fan” and the Liberty Lobby as “infiltrated by Nazis who revere the memory of Hilter.”
The Wall Street Journal has identified Carto and the Liberty Lobby as antisemitic. For more information, please see Jason Berry, “Carto’s Day in Court,” Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 14, 1991, pp. 1-D, 4-D.
When Carto and the Liberty Lobby sued the Wall Street Journal for calling them antisemites, the District Court of Columbia ruled against them and concluded that it would be difficult to imagine a case in which the evidence of antisemitism was “more compelling.” See Liberty Lobby, Inc., v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.,638 F.Supp. 1149, 1152 n. 5 (D.D.C. 1986), affirmed, 838 F.2nd 1287 (D.C. Cir 1988) cert denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988), cited in Appellant’s Opening Brief, Mel Mermelstein v.s Legion, page 5.
From Deborah Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory regarding just some of the evidence that proves that the Nazis used gas chambers to exterminate millions:
Extracted from pages 225-229 from the paperback version:
Holocaust denies, lead by Robert Faurisson, repeatedly call for “one proof...one single proof” of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.
They dismiss the reliability of all human testimony (unless it agrees with them), whether it came from the SS, surviving inmates, or Sonderkommando members. They do so despite the fact that regarding the general details of gassings, the testimony of all the parties tends to corroborate each other.
Jean-Claude Pressac’s monumental study is, in essence, a response to this demand. Pressac’s sensitivity to Faurisson’s demand for documents may be rooted in the fact that Pressac almost was lured into denial and it was his own archival investigation which proved to him that Faurisson was consciously ignoring unequivocal evidence of homicidal gas chambers.
Since the publication of his book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (1989), he has spent time in former Soviet archives and has uncovered additional documents that demonstrate the absolute falsehood of the deniers’ claims that there is no material or documentary proof of the gas chambers.
Some examples that include work orders, supply requisitions, time sheets, engineering instructions, invoices, completion reprots, including much documentation from Topf and Sons, the company contracted to design and install the execution gas chambers. Topf and Sons documentation includes their own reports, that of their subcontractors, and civilian employees submitted to the SS. They generally make it appear as if they were building morgues. But they slipped up often enough to provide us with detailed documentation of the construction and installation of the gas chambers:
1. An inventory of equipment installed in Crematorium III called for the installation of one gas door and fourteen showers. These two items were absolutely incompatible one with the other. A gas-tight door could only be used for a gas chamber. Why would a room that functioned as a shower room need a gas-tight door?
2. Pressac calculated the area covered by a single shower head. He used the genuine shower installations in the reception building as a guideline. On the basis of this calculation, Crematorium III, which had a floor space of 210 square meters, should had had at least 115 shower heads, not fourteen.
3. On the inventory drawings, the water pipes are not connected to the showers themselves.
4. On February 13, 1943, an order was placed by the Waffen-SS and Police Central Construction Management for twelve gasdichten Turen (gas-tight doors) for Crematoria !V and V. According to the files in the Auschwitz Museum the work on this order was completed on the 25th of February. On February 28th, according to the daily time sheets submitted by the civilian contractors, the gastight shutters were fitted (Gasdichtefenster versetzten) and installed.
A time sheet of March 2, 1943, submitted by the same firm for work conducted on Crematorium IV, contained the following entry: “concrete floor in gas chamber.” The information on this work order and these two time sheets, when analyzed as a whole, indicate that on March 2, 1943, civilian employees of a German firm officially designated a room in Crematorium IV as a “gas chamber.” It made absolute sense for them to do so because two days earlier they had installed “gastight shutters” in the same room.
5. In a letter of January 29, 1943, SS Captain Bischoff, head of the Auschwitz Waffen-SS and Police Central Construction Management, wrote to an SS major general in Berlin regarding the progress of work on Creamtorium II. In his letter he referred to Vergasungskeller (gassing cellar). Arthur Butz and Faurisson tried to reinterpret the term Vergasung. Butz’s explanation was that it meant gas generation. Faurisson argued that it meant carburetion and the Vergasungskeller designated the room in the basement “where the ‘gaseous’ mixture to fuel the crematorium furnace was prepared. There are fundamental problems with this explanation. Not ony is there a significant amount of documentation which refers to gassing, but, more importantly, the cremation furnaces were coke fired and did not use gas generation.
6. A telegram of February 26, 1943, sent by an SS second lieutenant to one of the firms involved in the construction of the gas chambers, requested the immediate dispatch of “ten gas detectors.” The detectors were to be used to check the efficiency of the ventilation system in the gas chamber.
7. In a book containing the record of work carried out by the metal workshops for the construction and the maintenance of Birkenau Crematorium II, there is an order dated March 5, 1943, requesting the making of “one handle for a gas[tight] door.”
8. In a letter of March 6, 1943, a civilian employee working on the construction of Crematorium II referred to modifying the air extraction system of “Auskleidekeller [undressing cellar] II.” A normal morgue would have no use for such a facility. During March 1943 there were at least four additional references to Auskleidekeller. It is telling that civilians who, according to the deniers, had been brought to Birkenau in January 1943 to work on “underground morgues” repeatedly referred not to morgues but to ventilation of the “undressing cellars.”
9. In the same letter of March 6, 1943, the employee asked about the possibility of preheating the areas that would be used as the gas chamber. But a morgue should not be preheated. It must be kept cool. However, if the room were to function as a gas chamber, then the warmer temperature the faster the Zyklon-B pellet would vaporize.
10. A letter dated March 31, 1943, signed by SS Major Bischoff, contained a reference to an order of March 6, 1943, for a “gas[tight] door” for Crematorium II. It was to be fitted with a rubberized sealing strip and a peephole for inspection. Why would amorgue or a disinfection chamber need a peephole? There were also references in the Crematorium III work orders for gastight doors and for iron bars and fittings for gastight doors.
The deniers, still clinging to their “morgue” theory, claimed that morgues needed gastight doors to prevent odors and infectious germs from spreading. They also claimed the doors were necessary because morgues were disinfected with Zyklon-B. This contradicts basica science since Zyklon-B is an insecticide and not a disinfectant. This argument still does not answer why fourteen shower heads, none of which were connected to a plumbing system, were necessary for a morgue.
11. The inventory of Crematorium II, prepared when the civil firm had completed the conversions on it, contained references to it being fitted with a Gastur and a Gasdichtetur (gastight door).
12. A letter of March 31, 1943, regarding Crematorium III spoke of it having an Gastur, a gas door. Denies argue that this could mean many things. But the inventory attached to the handover documents for the crematorium makes short shrift of this argument. The list states that it has a Gasdichetur, a “gastight door.” One could possibly argue about the meaning of Gastur, but not a gastight door.
13. The deniers assert that Birkenau was designed to serve as a quarantine and hospital camp, not a death camp. They based their argument on architectural drawings of April 1943, which contained plans for a barracks for sick prisoners, a prisoner’s hospital, and a quarantine section. Why would the Nazis build a health camp but a few hundred yards from gas chambers where people were being annihilated on a massive scale, they ask. All this, they assert, indicates that Birkenau was not built as a place of homicide and annihilation.
But there exists another official drawing of an overall plan of Birkenau, completed approximately a year later. The first set of plans, completed in April 1943, described a camp that would house 16,000 prisoners. The drawings a year later show a camp that housed 60,000 prisoners and contained less than half the planned barracks from the preceding year’s plans. The existing barracks housed four times as many people as indicated by the original drawings. Any suggestion of this being a place of healing is contradicted by these conditions.
14. These references to gas chambers and this plan of the camp constitute the kind of proof the deniers claim to be seeking. There is, of course, a myriad of additional documentation regarding deportations, murders, supplies of Zyklon-B, and other aspects of the Final Solution.
For those interested in a book that is the most excellent and most well documented description of the “legal” process of the destruction of the European Jews is by Raul Hilberg. Rather than including eyewitness accounts of the victims, the perpetrators and the collaborators, he focuses on the documents generated by the Nazis themselves.
The Destruction of the European Jews, 3 Volume Set (Third Edition)
Product Description
The Destruction of the European Jews is widely considered the landmark study of the Holocaust. First published in 1961, Raul Hilberg’s comprehensive account of how Germany annihilated the Jewish community of Europe spurred discussion, galvanized further research, and shaped the entire field of Holocaust studies.
This revised and expanded edition of Hilberg’s classic work extends the scope of his study and includes 80,000 words of new material, particularly from recently opened archives in eastern Europe, added over a lifetime of research.
It is the definitive work of a scholar who has devoted more than fifty years to exploring and analyzing the realities of the Holocaust.
Spanning the twelve-year period of anti-Jewish actions from 1933 to 1945, Hilberg’s study encompasses Germany and all the territories under German rule or influence. Its principal focus is on the large number of perpetrators—civil servants, military personnel, Nazi party functionaries, SS men, and representatives of private enterprises—in the machinery of death.
About the Author
Raul Hilberg is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Vermont. He has written numerous other books too.
Hardcover: 1388 pages
Publisher: Yale University Press; 3 edition (March 15, 2003)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0300095570
ISBN-13: 978-0300095579
Product Dimensions: 10.6 x 6.5 x 4.2 inches
Paul you are also calling Norman Finkelstein a liar?
He is exposing the Jews who are using the “holocaust” to extort money from wherever they can get it. They have made an industry of it.
You might also want to look at this one.
How much Us $$$$ to Israel?
And are you in favor of this?
Or do you think that this money could have been better spent here at home?
Who is more important to you; US Citizens or Israeli Jews?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8A6oXdjkhY&feature=related
How about Ernst Zundel
Shame on Germany for their detested Holocaust Lobby Protection
Paragraph imprisoning revisionist researchers for “thought crimes” ! -
Weg mit dem verabscheuten deutschen Gesetz zum Schutz der
Holocaust-Lobby - mißbraucht zur Inhaftierung von Revisionisten
wegen “Gedankenverbrechen” !-
http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/zundel.html
Robert Faurisson
Robert Faurisson, 60, suffered broken jaw and ribs and severe head injuries in the attack by three Jewish thugs while walking his dog in Vichy, Sep 17, 1989
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Faurisson/
Paul, do you think people should go to jail for questioning the “holocaust” event?
People deny Jesus all the time. In the last 100 years anyway, none of them have been treated so badly as these people have been.
Why do you suppose that is?
So, just who are the haters here? The researchers seeking the Truth, or those who do not want investigations at all?
The Jews stand to gain if there are no investigations, don’t they?
They stand to lose a lot if Their Story is revealed as Falsse, don’t they?
If you really want the truth read both sides of the story.
From Deborah Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory regarding just some of the evidence that proves that the Nazis used gas chambers to exterminate millions:
Extracted from pages 225-229 from the paperback version:
Holocaust deniers, lead by Robert Faurisson, repeatedly call for “one proof...one single proof” of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.
They dismiss the reliability of all human testimony (unless it agrees with them), whether it came from the SS, surviving inmates, or Sonderkommando members. They do so despite the fact that regarding the general details of gassings, the testimony of all the parties tends to corroborate each other.
Jean-Claude Pressac’s monumental study is, in essence, a response to this demand. Pressac’s sensitivity to Faurisson’s demand for documents may be rooted in the fact that Pressac almost was lured into denial and it was his own archival investigation which proved to him that Faurisson was consciously ignoring unequivocal evidence of homicidal gas chambers.
Since the publication of his book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (1989), he has spent time in former Soviet archives and has uncovered additional documents that demonstrate the absolute falsehood of the deniers’ claims that there is no material or documentary proof of the gas chambers.
Some examples that include work orders, supply requisitions, time sheets, engineering instructions, invoices, completion reprots, including much documentation from Topf and Sons, the company contracted to design and install the execution gas chambers. Topf and Sons documentation includes their own reports, that of their subcontractors, and civilian employees submitted to the SS. They generally make it appear as if they were building morgues. But they slipped up often enough to provide us with detailed documentation of the construction and installation of the gas chambers:
1. An inventory of equipment installed in Crematorium III called for the installation of one gas door and fourteen showers. These two items were absolutely incompatible one with the other. A gas-tight door could only be used for a gas chamber. Why would a room that functioned as a shower room need a gas-tight door?
2. Pressac calculated the area covered by a single shower head. He used the genuine shower installations in the reception building as a guideline. On the basis of this calculation, Crematorium III, which had a floor space of 210 square meters, should had had at least 115 shower heads, not fourteen.
3. On the inventory drawings, the water pipes are not connected to the showers themselves.
4. On February 13, 1943, an order was placed by the Waffen-SS and Police Central Construction Management for twelve gasdichten Turen (gas-tight doors) for Crematoria !V and V. According to the files in the Auschwitz Museum the work on this order was completed on the 25th of February. On February 28th, according to the daily time sheets submitted by the civilian contractors, the gastight shutters were fitted (Gasdichtefenster versetzten) and installed.
A time sheet of March 2, 1943, submitted by the same firm for work conducted on Crematorium IV, contained the following entry: “concrete floor in gas chamber.” The information on this work order and these two time sheets, when analyzed as a whole, indicate that on March 2, 1943, civilian employees of a German firm officially designated a room in Crematorium IV as a “gas chamber.” It made absolute sense for them to do so because two days earlier they had installed “gastight shutters” in the same room.
I would like to have answers to a few questions from Ture Believers.
If indeed the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews:
1. Why did they build camps with housing for them?
Wouldn’t a lot of them just freeze to death without housing?
2 Why did they feed them?
For folks who were hell-bent on killing Jews wouldn’t it have been a simple matter to just
let them starve to death. Those who didn’t freeze would starve.
Simple, & efficient.
3. Considering the above solution, Why would they go to the expense of using valuable resources to build gas chambers?
4. Why would they go to the expense of building crematories?
Do you have any idea of how much fuel those crematories would have to use to burn up 6 million bodies, and how long it would take?
Alternatively to the above, wouldn’t it have been simple, easy and efficient to go to the countryside and dig several large pits, surround them with a fence and barbed wire, post a few guards and then run those railroad cars to the area; unload the passengers into the pits and just leave them.
When they are alll dead bring in the dozers and cover them up.
So tell me why all the extravegant measures, buildings, heat, food. clothing etc.?
You do realize that Germany at the time was fighting a big war on Two Fronts don’t you?
So why exactly would they go to all this trouble to kill Jews?
5. In a letter of January 29, 1943, SS Captain Bischoff, head of the Auschwitz Waffen-SS and Police Central Construction Management, wrote to an SS major general in Berlin regarding the progress of work on Creamtorium II. In his letter he referred to Vergasungskeller (gassing cellar). Arthur Butz and Faurisson tried to reinterpret the term Vergasung. Butz’s explanation was that it meant gas generation. Faurisson argued that it meant carburetion and the Vergasungskeller designated the room in the basement “where the ‘gaseous’ mixture to fuel the crematorium furnace was prepared. There are fundamental problems with this explanation. Not ony is there a significant amount of documentation which refers to gassing, but, more importantly, the cremation furnaces were coke fired and did not use gas generation.
6. A telegram of February 26, 1943, sent by an SS second lieutenant to one of the firms involved in the construction of the gas chambers, requested the immediate dispatch of “ten gas detectors.” The detectors were to be used to check the efficiency of the ventilation system in the gas chamber.
7. In a book containing the record of work carried out by the metal workshops for the construction and the maintenance of Birkenau Crematorium II, there is an order dated March 5, 1943, requesting the making of “one handle for a gas[tight] door.”
8. In a letter of March 6, 1943, a civilian employee working on the construction of Crematorium II referred to modifying the air extraction system of “Auskleidekeller [undressing cellar] II.” A normal morgue would have no use for such a facility. During March 1943 there were at least four additional references to Auskleidekeller. It is telling that civilians who, according to the deniers, had been brought to Birkenau in January 1943 to work on “underground morgues” repeatedly referred not to morgues but to ventilation of the “undressing cellars.”
9. In the same letter of March 6, 1943, the employee asked about the possibility of preheating the areas that would be used as the gas chamber. But a morgue should not be preheated. It must be kept cool. However, if the room were to function as a gas chamber, then the warmer temperature the faster the Zyklon-B pellet would vaporize.
10. A letter dated March 31, 1943, signed by SS Major Bischoff, contained a reference to an order of March 6, 1943, for a “gas[tight] door” for Crematorium II. It was to be fitted with a rubberized sealing strip and a peephole for inspection. Why would amorgue or a disinfection chamber need a peephole? There were also references in the Crematorium III work orders for gastight doors and for iron bars and fittings for gastight doors.
The deniers, still clinging to their “morgue” theory, claimed that morgues needed gastight doors to prevent odors and infectious germs from spreading. They also claimed the doors were necessary because morgues were disinfected with Zyklon-B. This contradicts basica science since Zyklon-B is an insecticide and not a disinfectant. This argument still does not answer why fourteen shower heads, none of which were connected to a plumbing system, were necessary for a morgue.
11. The inventory of Crematorium II, prepared when the civil firm had completed the conversions on it, contained references to it being fitted with a Gastur and a Gasdichtetur (gastight door).
12. A letter of March 31, 1943, regarding Crematorium III spoke of it having an Gastur, a gas door. Denies argue that this could mean many things. But the inventory attached to the handover documents for the crematorium makes short shrift of this argument. The list states that it has a Gasdichetur, a “gastight door.” One could possibly argue about the meaning of Gastur, but not a gastight door.
13. The deniers assert that Birkenau was designed to serve as a quarantine and hospital camp, not a death camp. They based their argument on architectural drawings of April 1943, which contained plans for a barracks for sick prisoners, a prisoner’s hospital, and a quarantine section. Why would the Nazis build a health camp but a few hundred yards from gas chambers where people were being annihilated on a massive scale, they ask. All this, they assert, indicates that Birkenau was not built as a place of homicide and annihilation.
But there exists another official drawing of an overall plan of Birkenau, completed approximately a year later. The first set of plans, completed in April 1943, described a camp that would house 16,000 prisoners. The drawings a year later show a camp that housed 60,000 prisoners and contained less than half the planned barracks from the preceding year’s plans. The existing barracks housed four times as many people as indicated by the original drawings. Any suggestion of this being a place of healing is contradicted by these conditions.
14. These references to gas chambers and this plan of the camp constitute the kind of proof the deniers claim to be seeking. There is, of course, a myriad of additional documentation regarding deportations, murders, supplies of Zyklon-B, and other aspects of the Final Solution.
