Concentration camps
- Thread starter pred
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
P
peaps2
Joe-90 wipes the floor with the immigrant zealots.
I rest my case.
Sponsored Links
P
peaps2
4. If Dachau was in Germany and even Simon Wiesenthal says that it was not an extermination camp, why do thousands of veterans in America say that it was an extermination camp?
The IHR says:
Because after the Allies captured Dachau, thousands of G.I.s were led through Dachau and shown buildings alleged to be gas chambers, and because the mass-media widely, but falsely, stated that Dachau was a "gassing" camp.
Nizkor replies:
In the sense that tens of thousands of people were starved to death and sporadically killed in it, yes, Dachau was a death camp. The term "extermination camp" should probably not be applied to Dachau, because that is generally taken to mean one of the large camps in occupied Poland where mass gassings were performed (see question 3).
What is not in question is that the gas chamber did exist. The Allies captured the memo sent from Dr. Sigmund Rascher at Dachau to Himmler, which read (see Kogon et al., Nazi Mass Murder, 1993, p. 202):
As you know, the same facilities [gas chambers] have been built at the Dachau concentration camp as at Linz [Hartheim]. Whereas the "invalid transports" end up in certain chambers anyway, I ask whether we cannot test some of our various combat gases on specific persons who are involved in the action. Up till now there have only been animal tests or accounts of accidental deaths in the manufacture of these gases. Because of this paragraph, I have sent this letter marked "Secret."
An American reporter made a movie showing the gas chamber very soon after the camp's capture, showing how it was labelled "Brausebad" ("showers") despite having no shower facilities.
The question of whether the gas chamber can be proved to have been used has not been definitively answered. Some historians say that there is no question: it was never used. Some say that the question is still open. It comes down to two testimonies: that of a British officer named Payne-Best who says he heard Dr. Rascher speak of gassings, and that of Dr. Franz Blaha, who testified under oath to experimental gassings. For more information, see Kogon et al., op. cit., pp. 202-204, and Blaha's testimony in Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1947, vol. V, pp. 167-199. Dr. Charles Larson, a forensics expert, also examined gassing victims at the camp, saying "only relatively few of the inmates I personally examined at Dachau were murdered in this manner."
Holocaust-deniers, of course, only present the point of view which says that it was never used. They often quote from a 1960 letter written by the director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History), in Munich (see Die Zeit, August 19, 1960, p. 16):
No Gassing in Dachau
Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed.
The letter of course confirms that mass gassing did take place in the larger camps. Holocaust-deniers don't like to mention that part. They also don't like to mention that, since 1960, the Institut has performed more research and has come to a new conclusion. They now say:
...a gas chamber was established [in Dachau] in which...a few experimental gassings were undertaken, as more recent research has confirmed.
Finally, the "mass media," for the most part, states the facts: that Dachau was used for gassing on a very small scale. Whether the term "gassing camp" is appropriate would probably depend on context. If the IHR can present a cite in which a newspaper or magazine has printed an inaccuracy, let them do so. It won't be the first time, nor the last, that something was erroneously printed. If Holocaust-deniers think errors in newspapers help prove that the Holocaust did not occur, they are obviously deluded.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar04.html
P
peaps2
5. Auschwitz was in Poland, not Germany. Is there any proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz?
The IHR says:
No. A reward of $50,000 was offered for such proof, the money being held in trust by a bank, but no one came up with any credible evidence. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was extensively modified after the war and a mortuary was reconstructed to look like a large "gas chamber." It is now a big tourist attraction for the Communist Polish government.
The IHR says (revised):
No. Auschwitz, captured by the Soviets, was modified after the war, and a room was reconstructed to look like a large "gas chamber." After America's leading expert on gas chamber construction and design, Fred Leuchter, examined this and other alleged Auschwitz gassing facilities, he stated that it was an "absurdity" to claim that they were, or could have been, used for executions.
Nizkor replies:
Regarding the $50,000 reward offer: it was paid, to the last cent (actually $90,000), to Mel Mermelstein, an Auschwitz survivor who took the IHR to court. Here is the statement made by the judge:
The Honorable Thomas T. Johnson, on October 9, 1981, took judicial notice as follows:
Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944
and
It just simply is a fact that falls within the definition of Evidence Code Section 452(h). It is not reasonably subject to dispute. And it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact.
The IHR complains that they were not given a chance to dispute this fact, but then the American court system is not meant to be a place for people to try to prove crackpot theories. No "credible evidence" was produced because there was no call for it -- a courtroom is not the place to rehash the work of historians over the last half-century.
Besides, "credible evidence" means only what Holocaust-deniers want it to mean. Michael Shermer, in an open letter, has offered to take the IHR up on a similar offer, but only if they precisely define ahead of time what they will accept as evidence. He has received no reply. (In fact, to date, his letter has not even been printed.)
After this trial, both Mermelstein and the IHR sued each other for libel, but both decided not to go to court. The Holocaust deniers claim this is a "stunning victory" which "nullifies the result of the first trial." Nonsense: the two were unrelated, and the second trial would have had nothing to do with the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
As with most legal proceedings, the details get quite complicated. Great detail, including copies of several official documents, is available in the FTP archives.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar05.html
I
imamartian
'm not on either side on this... but just quoting other websites is so very far away from proving an argument !!!
Try reading then.
I
imamartian
Lol... Joe90 could create a website called "the world according to Joe" if i quoted that on here, would that make it true?
nah!! don't think so !!
P
peaps2
What better people to answer the 66 questions joe poses than the very people discussing the issue?
These questions joe is putting and the quoting of Mark Weber have already been answered by people far knowledgeable than I.
What's wrong with posting links to the very historians joe speaks..?
In the world that anti Semitic bigot lives, everything he says is true.
Lol... Joe90 could create a website called "the world according to Joe" if i quoted that on here, would that make it true?
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
I've got Simon Wiesenthal the Nazi hunter himself on my side.
Why are you arguing against the greatest Jew since Jesus?
Why don't you accept that there were no death camps in Germany?
All modern day historians accept it - why can't you?
Every holocaust authority accepts it - why can't you.
The reason? Your brains have been hardwired since birth. You cannot accept it - you just can't.
Just like the ROM memory on your computer can't be erased - neither can yours over the 'six million'.
It's alright guys - we realise why you are why you are.
IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT.
Why are you arguing against the greatest Jew since Jesus?
Why don't you accept that there were no death camps in Germany?
All modern day historians accept it - why can't you?
Every holocaust authority accepts it - why can't you.
The reason? Your brains have been hardwired since birth. You cannot accept it - you just can't.
Just like the ROM memory on your computer can't be erased - neither can yours over the 'six million'.
It's alright guys - we realise why you are why you are.
IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT.
P
peaps2
3. Did Simon Wiesenthal once state in writing that "there were no extermination camps on German soil"?
The IHR says (original):
Yes. In Books and Bookmen, April, 1975 issue. He claims the "gassings" of the Jews took place in Poland.
The IHR says (revised):
Yes. The famous "Nazi hunter" wrote this in Stars and Stripes, Jan. 24, 1993. He also claimed that "gassings" of Jews took place only in Poland.
Nizkor replies:
Wiesenthal's 1975 letter to the editor said:
Because there were no extermination camps on German soil the Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not happen [...]
How ironic that he was not only correct, but that those very words were later misused in the manner he described.
Both answers are correct in themselves: Wiesenthal did indeed indicate in 1975 and in 1993 that there were no extermination camps in what is now Germany. Innocuous as the change seems, it does lead the reader to assume that the most recent statement is some kind of admission that the Holocaust was much more limited than has been maintained and that the truth is finally coming out. Statements like Wiesenthal's are in fact the basis upon which deniers claim that their pressure is forcing the truth out of reluctant historians.
The truth is that historians, and others like Wiesenthal, have attempted repeatedly over the years to dispel several myths about the Holocaust: the mass production of soap made from human fat is a good example.
Another misconception which they have tried to dispel is that the bulk of the extermination of the Jews took place within Germany itself -- or, more properly, within the "Altreich," the prewar boundaries of Germany. While there were indeed gas chambers and homicidal gassings in the Altreich, they were on a much smaller scale than the gassings in the camps in Nazi-occupied Poland, such as Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Kulmhof/Chelmno, Maidanek/Majdanek, and Auschwitz-Birkenau. About three million people, almost exclusively Jews, were gassed to death in those camps. Camp gassings in the Altreich probably claimed the lives of only a few thousand people, almost certainly under ten thousand. Aside from "small-scale" gassing in places like Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Neuengamme, and Ravensbrück, it was largely confined tothe "euthanasia" program, which did claim the lives of over a hundred thousand people, mostly non-Jews.
The Nazis had at least two good reasons for building the death camps outside of Germany. First, they were easier to conceal from the German people. Given the chaotic wartime conditions in the territory surrounding the Altreich, they were easier to conceal in general.
Second, the vast majority of murdered Jews came from conquered territory to the east and south -- why go to extra trouble to ship them back into Germany? (See the statistics at the end of question 1.)
What is not given any recognition by the deniers is that the latest "admission" by Wiesenthal is exactly what respectable historians have been saying for the past 45 years, starting perhaps with the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History in 1950. This selectivity amounts to nothing less than lying by omission and innuendo
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html#qar03
waiting for a response.... and waiting......
The IHR says (original):
Yes. In Books and Bookmen, April, 1975 issue. He claims the "gassings" of the Jews took place in Poland.
The IHR says (revised):
Yes. The famous "Nazi hunter" wrote this in Stars and Stripes, Jan. 24, 1993. He also claimed that "gassings" of Jews took place only in Poland.
Nizkor replies:
Wiesenthal's 1975 letter to the editor said:
Because there were no extermination camps on German soil the Neo-Nazis are using this as proof that these crimes did not happen [...]
How ironic that he was not only correct, but that those very words were later misused in the manner he described.
Both answers are correct in themselves: Wiesenthal did indeed indicate in 1975 and in 1993 that there were no extermination camps in what is now Germany. Innocuous as the change seems, it does lead the reader to assume that the most recent statement is some kind of admission that the Holocaust was much more limited than has been maintained and that the truth is finally coming out. Statements like Wiesenthal's are in fact the basis upon which deniers claim that their pressure is forcing the truth out of reluctant historians.
The truth is that historians, and others like Wiesenthal, have attempted repeatedly over the years to dispel several myths about the Holocaust: the mass production of soap made from human fat is a good example.
Another misconception which they have tried to dispel is that the bulk of the extermination of the Jews took place within Germany itself -- or, more properly, within the "Altreich," the prewar boundaries of Germany. While there were indeed gas chambers and homicidal gassings in the Altreich, they were on a much smaller scale than the gassings in the camps in Nazi-occupied Poland, such as Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Kulmhof/Chelmno, Maidanek/Majdanek, and Auschwitz-Birkenau. About three million people, almost exclusively Jews, were gassed to death in those camps. Camp gassings in the Altreich probably claimed the lives of only a few thousand people, almost certainly under ten thousand. Aside from "small-scale" gassing in places like Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Neuengamme, and Ravensbrück, it was largely confined tothe "euthanasia" program, which did claim the lives of over a hundred thousand people, mostly non-Jews.
The Nazis had at least two good reasons for building the death camps outside of Germany. First, they were easier to conceal from the German people. Given the chaotic wartime conditions in the territory surrounding the Altreich, they were easier to conceal in general.
Second, the vast majority of murdered Jews came from conquered territory to the east and south -- why go to extra trouble to ship them back into Germany? (See the statistics at the end of question 1.)
What is not given any recognition by the deniers is that the latest "admission" by Wiesenthal is exactly what respectable historians have been saying for the past 45 years, starting perhaps with the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary History in 1950. This selectivity amounts to nothing less than lying by omission and innuendo
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial1.html#qar03
waiting for a response.... and waiting......
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
What a complete charade.
SW was the darling of the pro holocaust movement until he admitted the truth.
That Dachau and Bergen and Belsen and Buchenwald and all the other so called 'death camps' on German soil were a complete fabrication. Total lies.
All of the propaganda videos were a sham. All the eye witness reports were lies.
Then of course - he was a 'bad man' so they started to discredit him
Funny they only did so AFTER the event and not BEFORE.
What a sad and vile bunch you really are.
SW was the darling of the pro holocaust movement until he admitted the truth.
That Dachau and Bergen and Belsen and Buchenwald and all the other so called 'death camps' on German soil were a complete fabrication. Total lies.
All of the propaganda videos were a sham. All the eye witness reports were lies.
Then of course - he was a 'bad man' so they started to discredit him
Funny they only did so AFTER the event and not BEFORE.
What a sad and vile bunch you really are.
- Status
Sponsored Links