Mauthausen arguments

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Tommo
Member
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:45 pm

Mauthausen arguments

Postby Tommo » 5 months 20 hours ago (Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:33 am)

Hello...

I am currently engaged in an online (facebook) argument which was a whitewash victory for revisionism until I was stumped by a man who'd been to Mathausen and taken photographs.

His evidence was shoddy, but because my retort could only be just as circumstantial, it leaves readers in doubt.

Specifically he posted pics of the inside of the supposed "gas chamber" showing 2 doors of the metal reinforced kind and peep hole.

He posted the "autopsy table" which he claimed was used to experiment on gas victims.

Is there any way to provably smash this crap with anything harder than analogous rhetoric?

Also, I am led to believe that MAthausen is an "officially conceded" camp, now not alleged to serve an extermination purpose (according the Hunt and others). However internet sources certainly seem like this is not the case.

What is the evidence that this camps has been conceded? How has this gas chamber been proven to be fraudulent?

And CAN I link anything to show such a circumstance??

Thank you.

There is just nothing from revisionism ON Mathausen to my surprise.


What are you angry about? By proving the gas chambers a lie, I just knocked off half the holocaust and SAVED 3 million Jew's for you!

I just saved more Jew's than Oskar Schindler allegedly ever did! :lol:

avatar
Pia Kahn
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby Pia Kahn » 5 months 17 hours ago (Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:50 am)

Check out the newest edition HF the Leuchter Reports. It has vor a part dealing with Mauthausen.

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/16-tlr.pdf

This book also Deals with Mauthausen:

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/25-itgc.pdf

avatar
EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby EtienneSC » 5 months 15 hours ago (Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:55 am)

Tommo wrote:There is just nothing from revisionism on Ma[u]thausen to my surprise.

Yes there is:
https://codoh.com/search/?q=Mauthausen&sorting=relevance
Sorry to point it out, but perhaps you just mis-spelled the name when you searched, as you do in your post.
Tommo wrote:Also, I am led to believe that MAthausen is an "officially conceded" camp, now not alleged to serve an extermination purpose (according the Hunt and others). However internet sources certainly seem like this is not the case.

What is the evidence that this camps has been conceded? How has this gas chamber been proven to be fraudulent?

Here is a source from Rassinier's text in the above search results:
the Institute for Contemporary History (Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte) of Muenchen, a democratic institute, of course, was obliged on 19 August 1962 to state officially that "there were no gas chambers in any of the concentration camps in the territory called by the Nazis 'Greater Germany,' "none in Dachau, none in Bergen Belsen, Mauthausen, Ravensbrück, etc.

Here is a version of Walter Lüftl's report (which has since been disputed, of course):
In March 1992, a prominent Austrian engineer made headlines when a report he had written about alleged German wartime gas chambers was made public. Walter Lüftl concluded in his controversial report, "Holocaust: Belief and Facts," that the well-known stories of mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers at the wartime camps of Auschwitz and Mauthausen are impossible for technical reasons and because they are incompatible with observable laws of nature.
Source: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_luftl.html

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 5 months 14 hours ago (Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:07 am)

EtienneSC wrote:Here is a source from Rassinier's text in the above search results:
the Institute for Contemporary History (Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte) of Muenchen, a democratic institute, of course, was obliged on 19 August 1962 to state officially that "there were no gas chambers in any of the concentration camps in the territory called by the Nazis 'Greater Germany,' "none in Dachau, none in Bergen Belsen, Mauthausen, Ravensbrück, etc.


Can you prove the IfZ really said that, perhaps Rassinier cited a source for it elsewhere you can rely on?

It appears as if Rassinier simply muddled the date, the purpose, and the contents of the IfZ/Broszat's famous letter in Die Zeit, which was published two years earlier [26.08.60] and only states there was no gas chamber in Belsen nor Buchenwald, and the one at Dachau was never completed; the letter makes no reference to the gas chambers/homicidal gassings at other concentration camps in the Reich, i.e. Mauthausen, Neuengamme, Ravensbrueck, and Sachsenhausen. Finally the Die Zeit letter was written in response to the furore provoked by Lord Russell of Liverpool's 20.07.60 article in The Telegraph in which he advised that a NATO general [Martin Unrein] told him the Dachau gas chamber was just a shower and the crematory ovens of Barrack X were built after the war.

And—before some bright spark things of appealing to them—writing in 1962, Rassinier was obviously not referring to Wiesenthal's letters to either Books and Bookmen [April 1975] nor the Stars and Stripes [24.01.93] about there having been "no extermination camps on German soil".
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

avatar
Rogal Dorn
Member
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby Rogal Dorn » 5 months 11 hours ago (Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:02 am)

Concerning the gas chamber doors of Mauthausen:

Ask your friend to look at his photos again.

Do these doors look like they can actually close?

Yes, they have a latch, but notice how even if you bring the handle outside to the horizontal "closed" position,

Image

the latch inside does NOT extend past the actual door itself!!!!!

Image Image

Therefore it does not shut!

Therefore, it cannot possibly be the original gas chamber door, but rather a shoddy replica.

If you friend disagrees, tell him to visit the museum again, and ask the staff the exact same question, and ask them to demonstrate the closing mechanism.

Also, give our best regards to your friend and tell him to be safe, as questions like that can potentially be a crime in Austria.


That being said, the doors do open outward, so we can avoid the problem of having to push em open against the dead piling up against the door inside.

Out of the Mauthausen-Gusen complex' official 100,000+ death toll, only some 3,000 are said to have been gassed in that tiny gas chamber, and I am not sure whether this figure also includes victims of the camp's gas van, or whether it is just the chamber victims.

Nevertheless, it is a very low number regarding homicidal gassing, hence this camp often goes under the radar compared to the ones in Poland. Extermination camp = main purpose is killing (shortly upon arrival). That is the definition. A camp with a working homicidal gas chamber doesnt automatically become an extermination camp, as thats not the definition.

The Zyklon is said to have been introduced into the chamber via gaseous form through the piping and shower heads (therefore the only camp where the "gas came out of the shower" story is still adhered to); the canister of zyklon pellets was put on top of a heated brick and its fumes fed into the piping from a nearby control room.


EtienneSC wrote:
Here is a source from Rassinier's text in the above search results:

the Institute for Contemporary History (Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte) of Muenchen, a democratic institute, of course, was obliged on 19 August 1962 to state officially that "there were no gas chambers in any of the concentration camps in the territory called by the Nazis 'Greater Germany,' "none in Dachau, none in Bergen Belsen, Mauthausen, Ravensbrück, etc.


Rassinier wasnt a very thorough revisionist, then. Unless you have a DIRECT source of the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte's original statement?

Because as far as I remember, the source goes back to Martin Broszat having said the following:

Die Massenvernichtung der Juden durch Vergasung begann 1941/1942 und fand ausschließlich an einigen wenigen hierfür ausgewählten und mit Hilfe entsprechender technischer Einrichtungen versehenen Stellen, vor allem im besetzten polnischen Gebiet (aber nirgends im Altreich) statt: in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor am Bug, in Treblinka, Chelmno und Belzec. Dort, aber nicht in Bergen Belsen, Dachau oder Buchenwald wurden jene als Brausebäder oder Desinfektionsräume getarnten Massenvernichtungsanlagen errichtet, von denen in Ihrem Artikel die Rede ist. Diese notwendige Differenzierung ändert gewiß keinen Deut an der verbrecherischen Qualität der Einrichtung der Konzentrationslager."


which translates to:

"The mass extermination of Jews by gassing began in 1941/1942 and only at a few camps provided with the appropriate technical equipment for this purpose, particularly in the occupied Polish territory (but nowhere in the Old Reich): in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor on the Bug [river], in Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec. There, but not in Bergen Belsen, Dachau or Buchenwald were those installations of mass exterminations installed, disguised as showers or disinfection rooms, of which there is talk in your article. This necessary differentiation changes certainly not one bit in the criminal quality of the establishment of concentration camps ."

So what Martin Broszat said in this quote, is that the mass extermination of Jews by gassing was carried out especially (vor allem) in Polish territory and nowhere in the Altreich*, in a few camps equipped for this. And he said installations of mass exterminations were not installed in Belsen, Dachau, or Buchenwald.

He did not say there were no homicidal gassings in the Altreich (consider the Aktion T4 euthanasia program; victims werent jews), or that there were no homicidal gas chambers here either. He said there was no program of mass extermination of JEWS via homicidal gassings in the Altreich.

*definition: those territories that were part of Nazi Germany before 1938, therefore not including Austria or the Sudetenland

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2697
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby Hektor » 5 months 8 hours ago (Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:31 pm)

Rogal Dorn wrote:Concerning the gas chamber doors of Mauthausen:

Ask your friend to look at his photos again.

Do these doors look like they can actually close?

Yes, they have a latch, but notice how even if you bring the handle outside to the horizontal "closed" position,

Image

the latch inside does NOT extend past the actual door itself!!!!!

Image Image

Therefore it does not shut!

Therefore, it cannot possibly be the original gas chamber door, but rather a shoddy replica.

If you friend disagrees, tell him to visit the museum again, and ask the staff the exact same question, and ask them to demonstrate the closing mechanism.

Also, give our best regards to your friend and tell him to be safe, as questions like that can potentially be a crime in Austria.


That being said, the doors do open outward, so we can avoid the problem of having to push em open against the dead piling up against the door inside.
Out of the Mauthausen-Gusen complex' official 100,000+ death toll, only some 3,000 are said to have been gassed in that tiny gas chamber, and I am not sure whether this figure also includes victims of the camp's gas van, or whether it is just the chamber victims.

Nevertheless, it is a very low number regarding homicidal gassing, hence this camp often goes under the radar compared to the ones in Poland. Extermination camp = main purpose is killing (shortly upon arrival). That is the definition. A camp with a working homicidal gas chamber doesnt automatically become an extermination camp, as thats not the definition.

The Zyklon is said to have been introduced into the chamber via gaseous form through the piping and shower heads (therefore the only camp where the "gas came out of the shower" story is still adhered to); the canister of zyklon pellets was put on top of a heated brick and its fumes fed into the piping from a nearby control room.


Good argument with the door, but there is more with the Mauthausen "gas chamber" (camp's name isn't Mathausen).
For example this "Kuehlkoerper" close to the top of the room.
Image
This makes neither sense in terms of a gas chamber (were you actually need heat), nor a shower room (were heat is desirable as well).

Rogal Dorn wrote:
EtienneSC wrote:
Here is a source from Rassinier's text in the above search results:

the Institute for Contemporary History (Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte) of Muenchen, a democratic institute, of course, was obliged on 19 August 1962 to state officially that "there were no gas chambers in any of the concentration camps in the territory called by the Nazis 'Greater Germany,' "none in Dachau, none in Bergen Belsen, Mauthausen, Ravensbrück, etc.


Rassinier wasnt a very thorough revisionist, then. Unless you have a DIRECT source of the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte's original statement?

Because as far as I remember, the source goes back to Martin Broszat having said the following:

Die Massenvernichtung der Juden durch Vergasung begann 1941/1942 und fand ausschließlich an einigen wenigen hierfür ausgewählten und mit Hilfe entsprechender technischer Einrichtungen versehenen Stellen, vor allem im besetzten polnischen Gebiet (aber nirgends im Altreich) statt: in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor am Bug, in Treblinka, Chelmno und Belzec. Dort, aber nicht in Bergen Belsen, Dachau oder Buchenwald wurden jene als Brausebäder oder Desinfektionsräume getarnten Massenvernichtungsanlagen errichtet, von denen in Ihrem Artikel die Rede ist. Diese notwendige Differenzierung ändert gewiß keinen Deut an der verbrecherischen Qualität der Einrichtung der Konzentrationslager."


which translates to:

"The mass extermination of Jews by gassing began in 1941/1942 and only at a few camps provided with the appropriate technical equipment for this purpose, particularly in the occupied Polish territory (but nowhere in the Old Reich): in Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Sobibor on the Bug [river], in Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec. There, but not in Bergen Belsen, Dachau or Buchenwald were those installations of mass exterminations installed, disguised as showers or disinfection rooms, of which there is talk in your article. This necessary differentiation changes certainly not one bit in the criminal quality of the establishment of concentration camps ."

So what Martin Broszat said in this quote, is that the mass extermination of Jews by gassing was carried out especially (vor allem) in Polish territory and nowhere in the Altreich*, in a few camps equipped for this. And he said installations of mass exterminations were not installed in Belsen, Dachau, or Buchenwald.

He did not say there were no homicidal gassings in the Altreich (consider the Aktion T4 euthanasia program; victims werent jews), or that there were no homicidal gas chambers here either. He said there was no program of mass extermination of JEWS via homicidal gassings in the Altreich.

*definition: those territories that were part of Nazi Germany before 1938, therefore not including Austria or the Sudetenland


Broszat explicitly mentions Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen Belsen as not having operational gas chambers for homicidal purposes. That doesn't cover Mauthausen or Sachsenhausen.

You can't exclude the existence of homicidal gas chambers btw. just as you can't exclude the existence of UFOs or mythical beasts. It's just that the proof for their existence is insufficient and linked to propaganda and rumors. Burden of proof is on those perpetuating the claims, which they commonly turn around and then harass those that investigate it coming to contrary conclusions.

Best is to ask for a proof positive on operational homicidal gas chambers. That needs to stick up to scrutiny and critique. If it doesn't, it has to be dismissed by any rational person. Also point out the psychological warfare origins of the homicidal gas chamber and extermination claims.

avatar
EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby EtienneSC » 5 months 8 hours ago (Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:25 pm)

TheBlackRabbitofInlé wrote:
EtienneSC wrote:Here is a source from Rassinier's text in the above search results:
the Institute for Contemporary History (Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte) of Muenchen, a democratic institute, of course, was obliged on 19 August 1962 to state officially that "there were no gas chambers in any of the concentration camps in the territory called by the Nazis 'Greater Germany,' "none in Dachau, none in Bergen Belsen, Mauthausen, Ravensbrück, etc.


Can you prove the IfZ really said that, perhaps Rassinier cited a source for it elsewhere you can rely on?

No, I have no other proof. Rassinier cites the same day of the year as the German publication (19 August, as against 26 August for the American version, per the IHR source I gave) but two years too late. The similar content of the material in direct quotation marks suggests that he was confused. The nirgends in Altreich ("nowhere in the Old Reich") in Broszat's letter:
http://www.ihr.org/images/jhr/v13/jhr-13-3-broszat-l.jpg
becomes "Greater Germany" (which includes Austria) in the text the IHR quotes from Rassinier. However, the "Old Reich" excludes Austria and hence Mauthausen which is in Austria. Broszat does not mention Mauthausen in his list of five camps where he thinks the gassing occurred, but then he doesn't mention Maijdanek either. Rassinier seems to have slipped up in other words.

I have found in the past that Rassinier sometimes makes very specific statements with no footnote to back them up. This happens in his book The Real Eichmann Trial for example.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9047
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby Hannover » 5 months 5 hours ago (Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:40 pm)

Jewish 'holocaust' historian Olga Wormser-Migot ("Le Système concentrationnaire nazi", Le problème des chambres à gaz) dismisses Mauthausen & Ravensbruck 'gas chambers':
"...the declarations on the gaz chamber at Ravensbrück place the beginning of its existence in Febr. 1945, date of the arrival of those evacuated from Auschwitz, the date when the Ravensbrück detainees discovered the existence of gaz chambers at Auschwitz."

on Oranienburg and Mauthausen:

"These assertions seem to be of a mythical order."
(p. 541, footnote n. 2)

- Hannover

All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators.

by Judge E. L. van Roden, "American Atrocities in Germany", The Progressive. February 1949, p. 21f.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
Tommo
Member
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:45 pm

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby Tommo » 5 months 1 hour ago (Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:13 pm)

Thank you for your help guys, that was very helpful. And fast!

One thing which seems not quite true is that all the Western liberated camps are "officially conceded" as is plugged into Eric's and others video's and some revisionist texts. Because that isn't exactly true is it. USHMM and Yad Vashem don't concede it, Mauthausen still maintains it on their tour and hence it's still promoted for example, even if it is ludicrous and the concessional evidence we do have are disputed or not sound.
What are you angry about? By proving the gas chambers a lie, I just knocked off half the holocaust and SAVED 3 million Jew's for you!

I just saved more Jew's than Oskar Schindler allegedly ever did! :lol:

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby hermod » 4 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:55 am)

TheBlackRabbitofInlé wrote:It appears as if Rassinier simply muddled the date, the purpose, and the contents of the IfZ/Broszat's famous letter in Die Zeit, which was published two years earlier [26.08.60] and only states there was no gas chamber in Belsen nor Buchenwald, and the one at Dachau was never completed; the letter makes no reference to the gas chambers/homicidal gassings at other concentration camps in the Reich, i.e. Mauthausen, Neuengamme, Ravensbrueck, and Sachsenhausen.


Broszat's "[homicidal gassings] nowhere in the Old Reich" (nirgends im Altreich) was of course a concession that nobody was gassed in Neuengamme, Ravensbrück and Sachsenhausen either, even though the latter were not mentioned by name. An indirect reference, but a reference nevertheless. Unnecessary statement regarding Mauthausen, but still a big concession about a number of other camps.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Mathausen arguments

Postby hermod » 4 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:08 am)

Tommo wrote:Thank you for your help guys, that was very helpful. And fast!

One thing which seems not quite true is that all the Western liberated camps are "officially conceded" as is plugged into Eric's and others video's and some revisionist texts. Because that isn't exactly true is it. USHMM and Yad Vashem don't concede it, Mauthausen still maintains it on their tour and hence it's still promoted for example, even if it is ludicrous and the concessional evidence we do have are disputed or not sound.


Most Western liberated camps were more quietly dropped than officially conceded. Easier to backpedal that way. Note that Broszat's concession regarding Dachau didn't prevent Holohoaxsters from "resurrecting" the defunct Dachau homicidal gassings for damage control purposes.



viewtopic.php?t=8634

"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9047
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby Hannover » 4 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:13 am)

'Wiesenthal Re-Confirms: ‘No Extermination Camps on German Soil’
https://codoh.com/library/document/2416/
excerpt:
In a letter published in a January issue of The Stars and Stripes, a newspaper for US military service personnel, Simon Wiesenthal re-confirmed, in passing, that “there were no extermination camps on German soil” during the Second World War. He made the identical statement in a letter published in the April 1975 issue of the British periodical Books and Bookmen.

- Hannover

Let's actually recall what the impossible storyline says. It says that 6,000,000 Jews, AND 5,000,000 others were murdered in the same ways in very centralized sites where enormous mass graves are alleged, the precise locations are supposedly none.
However, not a single one of these alleged enormous mass graves has been excavated, it's contents verified and shown. Why? Because they do not exist.
Imagine. In what other mass murder cases where human remains supposedly exist in locations supposedly known, go without being excavated, identified, and shown? None. And we're talking about an alleged 11,000,000 people.
Recall 900,000 Jews supposedly buried at Treblinka, 250,000 supposedly buried at Sobibor, 34,000 Jews supposedly buried at Babi Yar, on & on. But yet we see not a single excavation of the allegedly known sites.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby hermod » 4 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:31 am)

The sight of all the rusty iron in the Mauthausen shower room / 'gas chamber' (doors, pipes, shower heads) makes me wonder if we shouldn't be able to see Prussian blue everywhere in the event of past gassings with hydrogen cyanide in there. Or at least some cyanide residues inside the pipes and shower heads through which hydrogen cyanide was allegedly pumped into that room. Seems a minimum.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 4 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:57 pm)

hermod wrote:
TheBlackRabbitofInlé wrote:It appears as if Rassinier simply muddled the date, the purpose, and the contents of the IfZ/Broszat's famous letter in Die Zeit, which was published two years earlier [26.08.60] and only states there was no gas chamber in Belsen nor Buchenwald, and the one at Dachau was never completed; the letter makes no reference to the gas chambers/homicidal gassings at other concentration camps in the Reich, i.e. Mauthausen, Neuengamme, Ravensbrueck, and Sachsenhausen.


Broszat's "[homicidal gassings] nowhere in the Old Reich" (nirgends im Altreich) was of course a concession that nobody was gassed in Neuengamme, Ravensbrück and Sachsenhausen either, even though the latter were not mentioned by name. An indirect reference, but a reference nevertheless. Unnecessary statement regarding Mauthausen, but still a big concession about a number of other camps.


He was crystal clear about what camps he was referring to:

Broszat wrote:Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed.


In the late-1970s Broszat told Gita Sereny about how "Neo-Nazi and far-right publications" had misrepresented his letter in Die Zeit, and explicitly mentioned the gas chambers in Mauthausen and Sachsenhausen:

Gita Sereny wrote:The second reason why we must come to grips with both the substance and detail of the neo-Nazi claims is that sometimes mistakes have been made, have been given immense publicity, and become part of genocide lore. At the risk of offence, we must correct and explain these mistakes, in order that they cannot be exploited again.

The likes of Verral and Butz have shown a considerable talent for mixing truth with lies, by repetitive injecting of some truth into all lies, and lies into the truth. They make astute use of human errors (and of latent prejudice). So, they have succeeded to some extent in exploiting a terrible and astonishing fact, which is that after thirty-five years and billions of words, confusion still abounds on the subject of Hitler's murder of the Jews. [...]

The current argument with Mr Verral, for example, deals with one main element in this confusion. He makes much of what he calls the 'admission' by the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich that `no such things (as gas chambers) existed in... Belsen, Buchenwald and Dachau... etc., etc.'.

This so-called 'admission' stems from a letter which the historian Martin Broszat, now director of the institute, addressed in 1962 to the weekly Die Zeit. Professor Broszat remembers the letter well — 'How could I forget it? Neo-Nazi and far-right publications have used it out of context ever since...'

The letter was written in yet another attempt — many have been made, by many people — to set the record straight. What Broszat was trying to do, he explains

was to hammer home, once more, the persistently ignored or denied difference between concentration and extermination camps; the fundamental distinction between the methodical mass murder of millions of Jews in the extermination camps in occupied Poland on the one hand, and on the other the individual disposals of concentration-camp inmates in Germany — not necessarily, or even primarily Jews — who were no longer useful as workers.

Most of the concentration camps in Germany-proper had no gas chambers. Dachau had one which was never used. `Mauthausen, Natzweiler, had one. Sachsenhausen, too, I think', says Broszat. `They used them towards the end, to replace the shootings and injections of small groups of prisoners, which had become so demoralizing for the staff.'


- "Men Who Whitewash Hitler" [1979] by Gita Sereny cf. Gita Sereny, The German Trauma: Experiences and Reflections 1938-2000, London, 2000, pp.136-137.


Carlo Mattogno has stated that some revisionists have misrepresented Broszat's letter, whilst confirming your view of it is wrong:

[Barbara] Distel then writes about Martin Broszat's much-cited letter to the editor of the German weekly Die Zeit, published on 19 August 1960 under the tittle "No gassing at Dachau" ("Keine Vergasung in Dachau") and adds that "the revisionists" (it would have been better to say "some revisionists") had distorted its contents and had claimed falsely that Martin Broszat had con-tested in a general way the existence of gas chambers on the territory of the Altreich, i.e. Germany in the borders of 1937 (which, in fact, he did not do).

p. 224: http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=26
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9047
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Mauthausen arguments

Postby Hannover » 4 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:27 pm)

I repeat:
Hannover wrote:'Wiesenthal Re-Confirms: ‘No Extermination Camps on German Soil’
https://codoh.com/library/document/2416/
excerpt:
In a letter published in a January issue of The Stars and Stripes, a newspaper for US military service personnel, Simon Wiesenthal re-confirmed, in passing, that “there were no extermination camps on German soil” during the Second World War. He made the identical statement in a letter published in the April 1975 issue of the British periodical Books and Bookmen.

Now if The Rabbit has any proof of gassings 'on German soil', then I challenge him to present it.

I'll not hold my breath since The Rabbit also believes in such impossible activities at Polish labor camps and has failed miserably to present any proof when challenged on those.

I doesn't get an easier than challenging True Believers for proof.

- Hannover

Let's actually recall what the impossible storyline says. It says that 6,000,000 Jews, AND 5,000,000 others were murdered in the same ways in very centralized sites where enormous mass graves are alleged, the precise locations are supposedly none.
However, not a single one of these alleged enormous mass graves has been excavated, it's contents verified and shown. Why? Because they do not exist.
Imagine. In what other mass murder cases where human remains supposedly exist in locations supposedly known, go without being excavated, identified, and shown? None. And we're talking about an alleged 11,000,000 people.
Recall 900,000 Jews supposedly buried at Treblinka, 250,000 supposedly buried at Sobibor, 34,000 Jews supposedly buried at Babi Yar, on & on. But yet we see not a single excavation of the allegedly known sites.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests