Cliffs Notes Version of Gas Chamber Claims (stories)

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
AngelofDeath
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 10:03 pm

Cliffs Notes Version of Gas Chamber Claims (stories)

Postby AngelofDeath » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Aug 12, 2003 8:58 am)

Could anyone give me a summary of the first gas chamber claims (or simply all alleged gassing claims), and how have such claims evolved/changed over time?

If so, what was the first alleged method(s) used to gas prisoners? Also, how has the gassing rate (number of people killed by the hour/day) changed over time.

For example, did the accusers always claim that HCN was heated, or did they recently include this as part of the Nazi gassing routine? Did they originally claim that gas came out of shower heads, or were the showers always claimed to be used to "moisten" the prisoners so that HCN would work more efficiently? Etc, etc....

Thanks

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Aug 12, 2003 4:15 pm)

I am not an expert by any means on the Industry. But I know the the Zyklon induction chambers are fairly new to the scene. I have watched the 'World at War' tapes from the early eighties and the interviews on them were taken around the early seventies. If you watch and listen to them, you would think they were talking of a different topic! It resembles nothing to the current version of events.

Go here to read what Boch says on the interviews. This is exactly what he says on the tapes because I wrote it down while watching it.

See how un-refined and crude the methods are compared to the modern, ever evolving version!

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... 23d63e67af

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Aug 12, 2003 4:53 pm)

The allegation of the first gassing in Auschwitz I is (D. Czech, Kalendarium) that 600 Russian POW’s and 250 sick inmates of the camp hospital were gassed on September 3, 1941 inside a basement cell of Block 11. After the prisoners were inside, the air vents were covered with dirt, Zyklon B was poured into the room (probably through the door) and the door was closed.

For details you may want to see:
“The First Gassing at Auschwitz: Genesis of a Myth” by Carlo Mattogno
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/9/2/ ... 3-222.html

:D
fge

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm)

Zyklon B was poured into the room (probably through the door) and the door was closed.


How did they "pour" pellets through a door ?

It seems they must have grabbed a couple of handful's, and threw them into the room, then closed the door. When the gassing was over the Germans had to go in, and crawl around on their hands and knees picking up all the little pellets that had been crushed by the victims feet.

Or did they open a little vent in the door and pour them through the hole so they landed in a little pile, no more than an two inches on the other side of the door. I take it the door was hermetically sealed and not that crap with two inch gaps at the bottom and keyholes that they show on the industry sites.

Like these ones:

Image

Image

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Aug 12, 2003 6:34 pm)

Incredible that glass never got smashed in those doors, don't you think Sergey?

Why do you think the gas never came out through the two inch gap at the bottom of these flimsy Panel and ledger doors (One of the weakest doors there is, Don't even have braces) ?

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Aug 12, 2003 7:29 pm)

Sergey,

There are no links permitted to RODOH at this Forum. Those at that sleaze site are known to slander various members here by posting alleged addresses, alleged phone numbers, and false names that they want associated with RevForum members.

RODOH permits such sick behavior, it is not tolerated here.

RODOH is a desperate sewer of a site; we at the RevForum prefer to elevate the level of debate by eliminating such sad tactics.

State your point in this thread without the link.

Moderator
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Aug 12, 2003 9:07 pm)

Mattogno compares in his article the testimonies of Josef Vacek, Rudolf Höß, Zenon Rozanski, and Wojciech Barcz. Furthermore the witness Smole.
And he checked the report of inquiry by the Polish Commission of Investigation on German crimes at Auschwitz, as well as Czech’s “Kalendarium”.

He compares the date of the first gassing, the Location of the gassing, the duration of the gassing, the victims of the gassing, the selection of the sick inmates for gassing and the evacuation of the gassed cadavers.

Everybody seems to have a different opinion on everything. What a mess.

Mattogno:
“There exist neither eye-witness testimony nor documents on the actual gassing process. The description furnished by the Polish Investigation Commission is therefore false, for this reason alone. The Commission's description is also contradicted on a point by witness Barcz, who affirms that the Zyklon B was thrown into the cells of the Bunker, not from the door, but from the small windows. Finally, the description is technically absurd.”

He continues:
“[An] anonymous "Polish Major" is the author of one of the reports on Auschwitz published in November 1944 by the War Refugee Board. In his detailed report about the facts of 1941, while devoting a special paragraph to the Bunker of Block 11, he completely ignored the matter of the first gassing. [32] It was moreover ignored both by the witness Stanislaw Jankowski in his deposition of 13 April 1945 [33] and by the Soviet Commission of Investigation in its report of May 7. [34] As late as the end of 1947, one of the more informed witnesses, Kazimierz Smolen, did not say anything about it.”

And concludes
“By then the myth had been concocted and was ready to be served to the Exterminationist historians, who are easily satisfied and favorably disposed to swallow, in an uncritical way, all that is offered them in the Kalendarium of Auschwitz, which is celebrated as the quintessence of factuality on that concentration camp!”

And finally:
“The first gassing is therefore not history, but myth. This myth was shaped by the Polish war propaganda in October 1941.”

The Russian POW’s, the officers and commissars, died in a horrible way as described by Mattogno. But they were not gassed.

:)
fge

SergeyRomanov
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:38 pm

Postby SergeyRomanov » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:21 am)

Censor wrote:
State your point in this thread without the link.


No problem!

In his article Mattogno tries to show that the first gassing story is based on eyewitness accounts that severely contradict each other. I'd like to offer some thoughts on the topic.

First we should note Mattogno's most serious blunder: it is his use of "secondary" sources to find discrepancies between them and eyewitness accounts. We cannot know if the mistakes in "Polish Fortnightly Review" or the report of Central Commission for investigation of German Crimes in Poland stem from eyewitnesses' accounts or authors' incompetence. So I will just ignore such contradictions. They refute nothing.

His next blunder is the assertion about the supposed contradiction between Höß and eyewitnesses about the date of the first gassing. Mattogno writes:

Lastly, the testimony of Rudolf Höß implies that the first gassing did not take place before the end of November of 1941. In effect, at the end of November, when the conference was held in Eichmann's office in Berlin, he had not yet been successful in finding "suitable gas." Only after this conference did the Lagerführer Fritzsch, on his own initiative, carry out the first gassing. It wasn't until Eichmann's later visit to Auschwitz that Höß reported to him on the experiment, and the two decided to use the Zyklon B for the projected mass slaughter.

Therefore, the date of the first gassing is absolutely indeterminate and fluctuates over a span of six months between July and December of 1941.


And these are Höß' own words:

At the end of November, a meeting of the entire Jewish affairs section was held in Eichmann's office in Berlin, at which I had been invited to participate. There Eichmann's representatives from individual countries discussed the current status of the various operations and the difficulties being encountered, such as housing for the prisoners, the allocation of transports and trains, the determination of dates, etc.
When we were to begin operations was not communicated to me, nor had Eichmann yet found the appropriate gas.

In the fall of 1941, through a secret order issued to all prisoner of war camps, the Gestapo separated all the Russian politruks, the commissars and certain other political functionaries, and sent them to the nearest concentration camp to be liquidated. Small transports of these people continually arrived at Auschwitz, then were shot in the gravel quarry near the Monopol building, or in the courtyard of Block 11.

Due to an official absence of mine, my deputy Hauptsturmführer Fritzsch, on his own initiative, used the gas in order to kill these prisoners of war; he filled the underground cells full of Russians, and, protected with gas masks, ordered the Cyclon B gas to enter the cells, which caused the immediate death of the victims. The Cyclon B gas was currently being used in Auschwitz by the firm Tesch & Stabenow for disinfection, and therefore the administration kept enough on hand. At the beginning, this poisonous gas, a prussic acid compound, was used only by Tesch & Stabenow technicians, and with strict precautions, but later, certain personnel attached to the sanitary services were instructed in its use by the same firm, so it was they who used the gas for disinfection purposes.

On the next visit of Eichmann, I mentioned to him the use of Cyclon B and we decided that it would be the gas that we would use in the imminent mass slaughter.

The killing of the Russian prisoners of war with Cyclon B, which I have already mentioned, continued, but no longer in Block 11 because, after the gassing, the entire building required aeration for at least two full days. The mortuary chamber of the crematorium next to the hospital was used as a gas chamber soon as the doors were made gas-tight, and a number of openings were made on the roof to allow the gas in.


Where Mattogno sees contradiction I see only a literary device: Höß says that at the end of November he met with Eichmann who hadn't yet decided which gas to use. Then Höß quickly jumps a few months earlier and recalls the gassing story to let the reader know the origin of the idea of using Zyklon-B, and then returns to Eichmann. "Next visit" is next not in relation to the November visit, but to some earlier one (perhaps even one mentioned by Höß himself: "Soon Eichmann came to see me at Auschwitz..."). At most, this might be a bad use of language.

Still, even with this in mind, there seem to be lots of contradictions in eyewitness accounts, some serious, some not.

But one cannot fail to see that most of them have their origin in Zenon Rozanski's account. Rozanski says that witness were gassed in corridors ("The door [of Bunker] is open and this very moment I feel my hair standing straight up. About three feet away from me there are men on top of each other [...] They fill the entire hallway of the Bunker."), that bodies were removed by workers (not by hospital attendants), that the removal started in the morning, that "[w]e counted 1,473 Russian uniforms and more than 190 camp uniforms", etc.

All this is in contradiction to other witnesses' laconic statements. Also note the appearance of Dr. Entress (let's assume that info provided by Mattogno about this good Dr. is correct).

More than that, Rozanski's account is almost certainly embellished - note all those small details like the phrases, etc. which, normally, wouldn't be remembered.

I see the following options in regard to Rozanski account:

1) He lies (that what "revisionists" would choose).

2) He is not an eyewitness but uses what I would call "Vrba method" - weaving other prisoners' stories into his own. Whether this is lying or not I cannot say, although I think it is not. It is unfortunate that some people use this practice, however.

3) He has a very bad memory. Not very probable option since his account is most detailed and was written in 1948 or earlier.

4) He did not describe THE first gassing. Sure, he says that "[a]t Auschwitz this was the first time that gas was used to liquidate prisoners". But how would he know? Don't forget what Höß said:

When I returned, Fritzsch related to me what he had done, and the gas was utilized also for the subsequent convoys of prisoners. The gassing took place within the detention cells of Block 11. I myself, protecting my face with a gas mask, observed the killing. Death would take place in the overloaded cells, immediately after the emission of the gas. A brief scream, soon suffocating, and everything was finished.


Now, anybody can choose the option he likes. My choice is obviously 4 (and the second one is 2).

But either we dismiss Rozanski's account entirely, or just note that it is not an account of the first gassing, we certainly get rid of a lot of contradictions.

Without Rozanski's account we have the following picture:

1) In the beginning of September

2) more than 500 Soviets and more than 190 sick prisoners

3) were gassed in the underground cells of Bunker 11.

4) Hospital attendants were called to evacuate bodies

5) in the middle of the night.

The duration of evacuation is not known for certain.

There seems to be a very serious contradiction concerning the disposal of bodies.

Vacek says:

I was called, along with 30 hospital attendants, and for 3 nights we transported the bodies to the crematoriums.


And Barcz says:

Three days later, we hospital attendants received, in the middle of the night, the order to go to Block 11. There, we evacuated the bodies from the cells of the Bunker. [...] We hospital attendants had to place the bodies on trucks, by which they were removed outside the camp, and then buried. Those of us involved in this work were absolutely convinced that we would be massacred right next to the ditches or would be killed later as witnesses to the secret, as was normally the case at Auschwitz.


But there's a neat hypothesis that might not only explain the difference but also help us to get rid of another contradiction.

Note that Vacek says that prisoners had to evacuate bodies to crematorium(s?) for three nights. And Barcz says that they received order in the middle of the night three days later. So now we have this picture:

1) For three nights the group of hospital attendants (+Vacek, -Barcz) evacuates bodies to crematorium(s?).

2) After that something happens (Krema fails, bodies decay rapidly and are in need of burial, etc.) and

3) the hospital attendants (-Vacek, +Barcz) begin to evacuate bodies outside the camp for burial.

Seems quite plausible to me.

Then we have Smolen's testimony, which contradicts all other accounts.

Smolen says that the first transports arrived only in October. I wonder if Smolen is still alive to clear up this discrepancy for us. Mattogno writes:

Smolen was deported to Auschwitz on July 6, 1940 (am 6 Juli 1940) and in July 1941 was employed as "recorder" (Schreiber) at the "Political Section" (Politische Abteilung) which is near the Gestapo office of the camp. In this position he was one of the better informed prisoners as to what was happening at Auschwitz.


I, contrary to Mattogno, think that it would be more probable for Smolen to make such errors in his testimony.

Remember that he was doing all this paperwork - you know, hundreds and thousands of numbers, all those dates, etc. - so it is he who would be more readily confused than simple folks who worked elsewhere.

So it is pretty much clear that in the beginning of September 1941 hundreds of prisoners were gassed in Auschwitz for the first time, right? Wrong. We still have Michal Kula's account. I cite Van Pelt's report:

On 11 June Sehn interviewed the 32-year old former inmate Michael Kula. The Roman Catholic Kula, a mechanic by training and before his incarceration in Auschwitz a resident of the neighbouring town of Trzebinia, had been brought to the camp on 15 August 1940. In his testimony he gave an account how, exactly at the even of the first anniversary of his arrival, the Germans had initiated experiments to gas 250 inmates with Zyklon B in the basement of Block 11. He had been able to witness some of it, because he had the afternoon off on the 15th of August, in honour of the Feast of Assumption. The killing had taken two days, and only on the night of the 16th did the nurses of the lazaret retrieve the corpses to take them out of the camp. Kula had been able to witness this from a window of the dental station in Block 21. Right in front of Kula's observation point a cart loaded with corpses broke down, and many fell on the ground. "I saw then that they were greenish. The nurses told me that the corpses were cracked, and the skin came off. In many cases they had bitten fingers and necks.


If we are to take eyewitnesses seriously, we cannot just dismiss Kula's date as an error. Not only he supplies the exact date, but he gives a reason why he memorized it: it was the first anniversary of his arrival.

Also note the differences between the "standard version" and his story: the number of victims and the way the bodies were disposed of (taken out of the camp).

We cannot dismiss Kula, but his account cannot be merged with those of Vacek and Barcz. That means, IMHO, that what Kula described might be THE first gassing, and accounts of Vacek and Barcz describe second, or third or n-th gassing.

If this is so, I wonder if this opens way for all sorts of other problems. E.g. if we suppose that those 250 people were Soviets, then Kula's account wouldn't contradict that of Höß (although the latter says about the "fall of 1941" but that is close enough). But were there any Soviets in the camp on August 15th?

If they were not Soviets, why didn't Höß (and others) tell about this really first gassing? Questions, questions...

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:03 am)

You gotta love it, Sergey uses such explanations as:

So I will just ignore such contradictions.

Where Mattogno sees contradiction I see only a literary device:

At most, this might be a bad use of language.

2) He is not an eyewitness but uses what I would call "Vrba method" - weaving other prisoners' stories into his own. Whether this is lying or not I cannot say, although I think it is not. It is unfortunate that some people use this practice, however.

3) He has a very bad memory. Not very probable option since his account is most detailed and was written in 1948 or earlier.

4) He did not describe THE first gassing. Sure, he says that "[a]t Auschwitz this was the first time that gas was used to liquidate prisoners". But how would he know?
Still, even with this in mind, there seem to be lots of contradictions in eyewitness accounts, some serious, some not

Then we have Smolen's testimony, which contradicts all other accounts.
...
Smolen says that the first transports arrived only in October.

I wonder if Smolen is still alive to clear up this discrepancy for us.

I, contrary to Mattogno, think that it would be more probable for Smolen to make such errors in his testimony.

Remember that he was doing all this paperwork - you know, hundreds and thousands of numbers, all those dates, etc. - so it is he who would be more readily confused than simple folks who worked elsewhere.

We cannot dismiss Kula, but his account cannot be merged with those of Vacek and Barcz.

...then Kula's account wouldn't contradict that of Höß (although the latter says about the "fall of 1941" but that is close enough).



Talk about spin! Yikes! Johnny Cochran are your reading this? :roll:

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
AngelofDeath
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 10:03 pm

Postby AngelofDeath » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:20 am)

Sailor wrote:The allegation of the first gassing in Auschwitz I is (D. Czech, Kalendarium) that 600 Russian POW’s and 250 sick inmates of the camp hospital were gassed on September 3, 1941 inside a basement cell of Block 11. After the prisoners were inside, the air vents were covered with dirt, Zyklon B was poured into the room (probably through the door) and the door was closed.

For details you may want to see:
“The First Gassing at Auschwitz: Genesis of a Myth” by Carlo Mattogno
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/9/2/ ... 3-222.html

:D
fge


When did Hoax Inc incorporate the heating of HCN into the gassing method?

EX: "After showering, victims were led to the gas chamber. Zyklon B gas pellets were dropped through holes in the ceiling while hot air was pumped in through holes in the wall. The blue stains are residue of the Zyklon B. "

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/res ... R/Majd.htm

SergeyRomanov
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:38 pm

Postby SergeyRomanov » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 10:27 am)

Hannover wrote:You gotta love it, Sergey uses such explanations as:
[skip]
Talk about spin! Yikes! Johnny Cochran are your reading this? :roll:


I just have shown that there are plausible explanations where Mattogno sees contradictions. In fact, that just refutes most of Mattogno's article, whether you like it or not :twisted:

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:48 am)

Sergay says:
I just have shown that there are plausible explanations where Mattogno sees contradictions.


The operative word here is 'plausible'. Sorry mate, but what's 'plausible' to some is obviously tortured spin doctoring to others. Let our readers judge.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

SergeyRomanov
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:38 pm

Postby SergeyRomanov » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 12:12 pm)

Hannover wrote:Sergay says:
I just have shown that there are plausible explanations where Mattogno sees contradictions.


The operative word here is 'plausible'. Sorry mate, but what's 'plausible' to some is obviously tortured spin doctoring to others. Let our readers judge.


Well, either show that they're implausible, or don't reply at all. It's easy.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 1:14 pm)

Simple, they're implausible because there is no evidence to sustain your strained conjecture and the excuses you gave are not what the text states. Also, I notice you ignore the specific examples I gave.

- H.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

SergeyRomanov
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 1:38 pm

Postby SergeyRomanov » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:20 pm)

Simple, they're implausible because there is no evidence to sustain your strained conjecture and the excuses you gave are not what the text states. Also, I notice you ignore the specific examples I gave.


You just quoted some of my words without any evidence, reasons or justifications. We are not dealing with one hypothesis here, there are many, so it's up to you to quote all the hypotheses you don't like and give your reasons for each.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 6 guests