DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Berg

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
blake121666
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:04 pm

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby blake121666 » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:18 am)

I thought the debate was very confused and would surely confuse someone not particularly knowledgeable with the issues. Roberto actually had a few "wins" in my opinion:

1. Fritz peppered ad hominems throughout his arguments ("people such as Roberto should think how I think" - and things like that).
2. Making an argument such as "Germans would have used producer gas and not engine exhaust or Zyklon-B" isn't particularly convincing w/o some fleshing out of the position - which wasn't satisfactorily done by Fritz. Although Fritz did make a good point about the slow-release properties of Zyklon-B; which I'd think that even someone very green to the issue might investigate this claim and its implications.
3. Roberto gave more of a holistic type argument (albeit from either a delusional or mendacious perspective since his arguments are false on a thin investigation).

Here are suggestions for Fritz of what I think would make a more compelling position from him. I'm thinking of reaching people who only have a thin knowledge of the Holocaust.

1. Start off by defining the Holocaust: what it is and what it isn't and what you deny and don't deny.
2. Go over the audio of the debate and try to come up with the most succinct and straight-forward way to refute every one of Roberto's falsities. For instance, Roberto made claims that the AR camps could plausibly have stored 100s of thousands of bodies. Succinctly state the AR camp narrative (it's prima facie absurd as alleged w/o even having to analyse much).
3. Flesh out the red corpse issue you're so fond of. It's a good argument but I think it probably goes over the head of a green listener.
4. Don't be so adamant about your pet "producer gas" argument. You weren't as bad with this as you usually are. The main issue here is that the claimed gassing operations are foolishly inappropriate, not that you can think up a better way (although a quick mention of your producer gas wouldn't be bad). Zyklon-B is inappropriate because it needs to be heated and continues outgassing for many hours. Maybe even try to come up with a succinct summary of the prussian blue issues w.r.t. this. Engine exhaust is inappropriate because you don't need a whole complicated engine to produce CO which is trivially easy to do w/o an engine. No eyewitness mentioned red corpses (and in fact blue corpses were claimed) when the corpses would have been red had people died from CO. Roberto would trot out his mendacious make-it-up-as-you-go-along crap which you could use to make him look very bad on cross-examination.

I also would have liked more of a dialogue format to the debate rather than set speechifying. Rebuttals of points as they are made (in a civil way of course) would have been nice. W/o handling things this way I'm afraid that the debate was a confused jumbled mess.

User avatar
Steven Willow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:50 pm

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Steven Willow » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:10 am)

blake121666 wrote:I thought the debate was very confused and would surely confuse someone not particularly knowledgeable with the issues. Roberto actually had a few "wins" in my opinion:

1. Fritz peppered ad hominems throughout his arguments ("people such as Roberto should think how I think" - and things like that).
2. Making an argument such as "Germans would have used producer gas and not engine exhaust or Zyklon-B" isn't particularly convincing w/o some fleshing out of the position - which wasn't satisfactorily done by Fritz. Although Fritz did make a good point about the slow-release properties of Zyklon-B; which I'd think that even someone very green to the issue might investigate this claim and its implications.
3. Roberto gave more of a holistic type argument (albeit from either a delusional or mendacious perspective since his arguments are false on a thin investigation).

Here are suggestions for Fritz of what I think would make a more compelling position from him. I'm thinking of reaching people who only have a thin knowledge of the Holocaust.

1. Start off by defining the Holocaust: what it is and what it isn't and what you deny and don't deny.
2. Go over the audio of the debate and try to come up with the most succinct and straight-forward way to refute every one of Roberto's falsities. For instance, Roberto made claims that the AR camps could plausibly have stored 100s of thousands of bodies. Succinctly state the AR camp narrative (it's prima facie absurd as alleged w/o even having to analyse much).
3. Flesh out the red corpse issue you're so fond of. It's a good argument but I think it probably goes over the head of a green listener.
4. Don't be so adamant about your pet "producer gas" argument. You weren't as bad with this as you usually are. The main issue here is that the claimed gassing operations are foolishly inappropriate, not that you can think up a better way (although a quick mention of your producer gas wouldn't be bad). Zyklon-B is inappropriate because it needs to be heated and continues outgassing for many hours. Maybe even try to come up with a succinct summary of the prussian blue issues w.r.t. this. Engine exhaust is inappropriate because you don't need a whole complicated engine to produce CO which is trivially easy to do w/o an engine. No eyewitness mentioned red corpses (and in fact blue corpses were claimed) when the corpses would have been red had people died from CO. Roberto would trot out his mendacious make-it-up-as-you-go-along crap which you could use to make him look very bad on cross-examination.

I also would have liked more of a dialogue format to the debate rather than set speechifying. Rebuttals of points as they are made (in a civil way of course) would have been nice. W/o handling things this way I'm afraid that the debate was a confused jumbled mess.


I agree with Blake121666 somewhat about bringing a broader view of the Holohoax than just "producer gas." For example, when Roberto Muehlenkamp went on and on about how cold war enemies like the US and Soviets would not have cooperated to create a hoax during the 60s, when West German courts were conducting their investigations, Mr Berg might have revealed exactly how the Hoax was carried out and detailed the forging of documents and the torturing of witnesses. He could have used this theme to show exactly how West German courts brutalised Kurt Franz and Franz Stangl to get them to testify about gassings that never happened. I think that these West German confessions are puzzling to the general public who are not aware that West Germany was under Zionist control. Some people even believed that these West German courts were leniant and that former Nazis spewed out testimony about gas chambers without even being pressured, so Mr Berg could have educated the public in this regard.

With that said, I totally disagree with Blake121666 about the unimportance of "producer gas." Mr Berg is the formost expert in the world on what types of fuel the Germans would not use for gas chambers. He made it clear that petrol was essential to the war effort and kept German soldiers warm and healthy during those horrible Russian winters, which producer gas would not have done.
Producer gas, Mr Berg proved, would have killed more jews in a shorter time span and would have not detracted from war aims. So why would so called genocidal Nazis have used ridiculous Diesel, or strategically crucial petrol? The answer, Mr Berg clearly presented. They would have used producer gas which was cheap and available. The fact that no eyewitnesses even mentioned producer gas one time is absolute proof that the Holocaust was a Hoax. No one else has argued this like Mr Berg, and we all owe him thanks for a job well done.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:09 pm)

The actual radio debate between myself and Roberto Muehlenkamp is over. Now, the "debate over the debate" can begin. I appreciate everyone's comments here--complimentary and critical.

Although I had been debating Mr. Muehlenkamp on the internet many times over the last ten years, I was stunned by his gross ignorance as to just how desperate Germany was for liquid fuels for motor vehicles. In fact, Muehlenkamp insisted several times during the debate that in 1942 there was no shortage at all. WOW! Muehlenkamp was also totally unaware of the fact that Germany had made 85% of its liquid fuels synthetically from coal--and at enormous expense. He seemed quite certain that I had simply made up that fact and challenged me to cite the source. The source for the "85%" number is:

U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Oil Division Final Report, War Department, Washington, D.C., 1947, p. 1.

A link with the entire text of the important essay within the above reference is: http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/ussbsgensum.html . The first paragraph alone should convince almost anyone that Germany's fuel situation was truly deperate. The essay is entitled "An Empire built on Coal, Air and Water." That same section became the title for one of the subsections of my 2003 essay: "Diesel Gas Chambers: Ideal for Torture--Absurd for Murder." http://www.nazigassings.com/dieselgaschamberc.html

From "An Empire built on Coal, Air and Water," we have the following description of Germany's dilemma after a brief description of the situation at the beginning of the war:
Germany never recovered from this precarious position, and throughout the war her oil stocks, particularly critical items like aviation and motor gasolines, were so tight that her whole military effort would have collapsed like a pricked balloon in three or four months had her oil supply been dried up.

The most foolish error made by Muehlenkamp was his insistence that the bright cherry RED coloring of the corpses from carbon monoxide poisoning could only be recognized by "trained medical doctors." Rubbish! The color is dramatic and can e-a-s-i-l-y be recognized by anyone who is not color blind. The evaluation of the color is another matter. An ordinary person might erroneously think a victim had spent too much time lying naked on a beach along the Vistula River—but they certainly would not have had any difficulty seeing the RED color. The absence of any mention or hint of such a dramatic feature regarding all supposed CO victims, hundreds of thousands supposedly, clearly shows that ALL of the “eyewitnesses” to alleged CO gassings at ARC camps simply lied. It is that simple! They lied about the most visually stunning feature which is used universally, especially by doctors and medical examiners, to instantly distinguish cyanide and CO-caused fatalities from nearly all other causes. The “eyewitness” testimony used to frame and execute countless Germans, even all of Germany in a sense, was m-a-n-u-f-a-c-t-u-r-e-d and rather clumsily by ignorant prosecutors in Poland and elsewhere. In other words, the mass-murder-by-gasoline-exhaust-theory is no more credible than the much older, but now abandoned, claim that diesel engines were used as the source of carbon monoxide for mass murder.

Image
Does anyone really need a "trained medical doctor" to see the color in the image above?

The abandonment of the old diesel gas chamber theory, embraced by all holocaust scholars until about ten years ago, is of enormous significance. It means that for more than fifty years, minimum, the holocaust scholars did not even know what the most important murder weapon was for “the most thoroughly documented event in the entire history of the world.” It is equivalent to a new Warren Commission admitting that one of the bullets which killed JFK hit the president's skull from the front as the Zapruder film shows—and blew out the back top of the president's skull. In other words, that the huge wound at the back of JFK's skull was an exit wound. That's why it was so huge. Jackie is clearly seen lunging to the back of the car trying to catch the skull fragment flying to the back of the car. Muehlenkamp might say: “OK, so the older Warren Commission got the direction wrong for one of the bullets—big deal!” It is a big deal! What it means is that JFK was murdered by two shooters and that there was, indeed, an elaborate conspiracy which murdered JFK—and then covered it up successfully afterward. Yes, children—hoaxes do occur especially when the stakes are high enough and when the hoaxers are as powerful as the victors were after WW2.

In general, Muehlenkamp's enthusiastic and unashamed reliance on courtroom testimony is reminiscent of the mindset used to convict witches and heretics just a few centuries ago. After all, why would anyone lie under oath, ever? The judges and prosecutors in the witchcraft trials were well-meaning credible people who tried, I am sure, to evaluate “eyewitness” testimony fairly as some of the courtroom transcripts seem to show—but they wore blinders to sustain their delusional, false reality. Today, with DNA evidence in the USA, more and more death row inmates are being set free and many convictions based on eyewitness testimony are being totally overturned. No doubt, it is hard to even imagine that anyone, especially if they are Jewish or Polish, would ever commit perjury—but, competent trial attorneys do know that it happens all the time, every day, everywhere—and that the liars generally get away with it. If one wants to find real devils, people like Muehlenkamp need only look at themselves in the mirror.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:40 pm, edited 9 times in total.
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1619
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Moderator » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:53 pm)

As a moderator I usually try to stay out of opinionated specifics, but the hell with it. We owe a debt of gratitude to legendary Revisionist Fritz Berg for taking apart the likes of Muehlenkanp, piece by piece.

Thank you Mr. Berg. Your work will not be forgotten, but remembered and revered.
M1.
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 6 years 10 months ago (Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:37 pm)

Thank you, moderator, for those extremely kind words.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby neugierig » 6 years 9 months ago (Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:16 pm)

I finally had a chance to listen to most of the debate. Having debated Roberto Muehlenkamp for some ten years, I know that he has his stuff down pat. He also has a special talent to obfuscate, to present material as fact when in reality it is only his interpretation, faulty more often than not. Here is just one example: R.M. stated that investigations had taken place, referring to the Lukaszkiewicz (L) Treblinka investigations. He then claimed that L had found a ‘grave’, not so. Here is what L reported:

“The largest of the craters produced by explosions (numerous fragments attest to the fact that these explosions were set off by bombs), which is at maximum 6 meters deep and has a diameter of about 25 meters – its walls give recognizable evidence of the presence of a large quantity of ashes as well as human remains – was further excavated in order to discover the depth of the pit in this part of the camp…”

Aside from the bomb crater issue, this clearly says that they had just ‘further excavated’ a bomb crater. L later, in his final report submitted at the IMT as USSR-344 (and strangely never used), wrote: “During the work on the terrain, I found no mass graves,…”, which R.M. interprets as meaning ‘full’ graves, one of his favorite ruses. And also, L never tells us where this bomb crater was located.

Having said that, I did not like the format, issues were left hanging. “The Holocaust” is just too big a subject; it has to be discussed in parts.

Mr. Berg did a commendable job, but I have to wonder if this turned any True Believers into doubters.

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3277
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Hektor » 6 years 9 months ago (Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:13 am)

neugierig wrote:I finally had a chance to listen to most of the debate. Having debated Roberto Muehlenkamp for some ten years, I know that he has his stuff down pat. He also has a special talent to obfuscate, to present material as fact when in reality it is only his interpretation, faulty more often than not. Here is just one example: R.M. stated that investigations had taken place, referring to the Lukaszkiewicz (L) Treblinka investigations. He then claimed that L had found a ‘grave’, not so. Here is what L reported:
....

Just listening to this at the moment. He comes over relatively calm and well-prepared. This will make him convincing to many people. That he's bending facts in his direction does however require some analysis. Basically he's stating some facts and then spins the whole story in the desired holocaustic direction. Take dig up corpses. Sure there will be some. But what does that proof? Some people died during the war. It doesn't prove mass extermination of Jews. Basically it corobates the Revisionist case.

As for Mr. Berg. I think that the personal attacks are sometimes going a bit to far. And Roberto tries to thrive on this. But isn't the whole Holocaust claim a personal attack against Germans?

All in all I think points will be scored with an open-minded audience that is new to the subject.

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby ginger » 6 years 9 months ago (Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:01 pm)

This was an interesting debate. Frederich Berg is much more interesting to listen to and made good points. Some of Roberto's points gave me pause - like being able to detect mass graves with core samples, radar and aerial photos. Of course I know nothing about these techniques.

I have read David Cole's discussion of Zyklon B and he seemed to say that the pellets needed to be heated in order to give off deadly gas. Roberto said Zyklon B would kill in minutes but I missed Mr. Berg's opinion on how deadly Zyklon B is.

Mr. Berg said he had experience working with weapons of mass destruction, even gas. I would value his opinion on the deadliness of Zyklon B. Did anyone catch what he said on the subject of Zyklon B?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9710
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Hannover » 6 years 9 months ago (Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:13 pm)

Ginger:
Some of Roberto's points gave me pause - like being able to detect mass graves with core samples, radar and aerial photos. Of course I know nothing about these techniques.
I have read David Cole's discussion of Zyklon B and he seemed to say that the pellets needed to be heated in order to give off deadly gas. Roberto said Zyklon B would kill in minutes ...

Roberto lied through his teeth. There has been no detection of mass graves with core samples, radar, and aerial photos. The 'studies; he takes these lies from have been utterly demolished. Ginger, you really need to read these threads, all of them. Invest a little time and don't rely on soundbytes.

'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

and then:
'Mass Graves claimed to be found at Treblinka'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6804&p=49215

'Belzec: a fraudulent excavation'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30&p=37585

'Kola's Belzec report and photographs [?] of core samples.'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4154&p=26799

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

Pa Gromheizer
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:24 pm

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Pa Gromheizer » 6 years 9 months ago (Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:38 pm)

The participants were asked whether they were Jewish. Mr. Berg said no. Roberto replied he was German. This does not compute.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Thank you

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 6 years 9 months ago (Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:51 pm)

Most of the answers to Ginger's questions about Zyklon-B can be found in my essay: "Zyklon-B and the German Delousing Chambers" http://www.nazigassings.com/zyklondelousing.html

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby ginger » 6 years 9 months ago (Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:15 pm)

To Frederich Paul Berg

I read your article on Zyklon B and the delousing chambers. Your article was easy to understand and very persuasive. Thank you for directing me to the link.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 6 years 9 months ago (Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:14 pm)

Muehlenkamp's claim that Zyklon-B could be used to kill people quickly is NOT false--but, the method needed to accomplish that is extremely unlikely and even absurd. The method was first suggested to my knowledge by Sergey Romanov. The method relies on dumping many times more Zyklon-B into the chamber than would be needed to kill any group of victims if the Zyklon-B were used efficiently or conservatively. Where a can of Zyklon-B containing 500 grams of hydrogen cyanide would kill everything in a particular chamber over a 24-hour period, dumping 10,000 grams into the same room might kill everything in the chamber in fifteen minutes--using only that portion of the introduced 10,000 gram Zyklon-B that outgassed in the first fifteen minutes.

After the victims were all dead after about fifteen minutes, the excess Zyklon-B (and there would be lots of it) would continue to "out-gas" for many hours and impose an enormous risk to whoever was sent in to remove the bodies. Even with exhaust fans running, the excess Zyklon-B would still continue to release cyanide gas. Somehow, one might be able to gather all of the left-over Zyklon-B granules from the floor or baskets (from between the bodies as well?) and put it all into sealed containers. That p-a-r-t-i-a-l-l-y used Zyklon-B would be essentially worthless since one could not be sure how much cyanide it still contained--and therefore, the reasonable thing to do would be to dispose of it somehow.

But why bother with such absurdities when the logical method, used by the Germans in hundreds of standard DEGESCH disinfection chambers including several at the Birkenau delousing stations, was to simply blow warm air (about 90 degrees Fahrenheit) through the granules and into the homicidal gas chamber. Since those homicidal gas chambers had mechanical ventilation with supply and return ductwork, it would have been so easy to simply put Zyklon-B granules into baskets placed into the ductwork. As warmed air was forced through the baskets, it would drive out the cyanide gas from the granules and disperse it quickly to all parts of the gas chamber. Any intended level of cyanide in the gas chamber could then be achieved quickly without any waste at all.

The problem for the holocaust hoax, however, is that the so-called "eyewitnesses" have firmly embraced other scenarios. Those other scenarios are totally bizarre and simply cannot be reconciled with the simple and "standard DEGESCH" method I have outlined above. The fans were supposedly turned on ONLY a-f-t-e-r the victims were all dead. That is what the "eyewitnesses" have said again and again--and now the "holocaust scholars" are stuck with that. Supposedly, the Zyklon-B granules were literally dumped on the heads of the intended victims through holes in the ceiling of the gas chamber, or into mesh lined or perforated columns through the same holes. Within those columns, the Zyklon-B granules would have simply been sitting at the bottom w-i-t-h-o-u-t any air passing through them at all. They would have been outgassing extremely slowly merely by evaporation out of the granules. A more thoroughly stupid, and unlikely, and inefficient method is hard to imagine. Even with ten times more than the amounts of Zyklon-B needed for efficient gassing, the absurdity of the method suggested by Romanov and Muehlenkamp would have been obvious to anyone with slightest experience with Zyklon-B and the DEGESCH technology. Would someone else, someone totally unfamilair with DEGESCH methods and without any common sense, have managed to impose such a thoroughly stupid method for cyanide gassings? I think not.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3277
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Hektor » 6 years 9 months ago (Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:45 am)

Alternatively one could heat up the zyklon B to enhance evaporation and then inject it into the room, while at the same time making sure that it distributes quickly in the room internally. Some model like this was used for the delousing chambers I think.

But why use Zyklon B anyway? If it had to be HCN on a large scale, why not have the liquid sealed in a container and then release it with a quick evaporation. I'd estimate that canned Zyklon B wasn't actually cheap to provide.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: DEBATE between Roberto Muehlenkamp and Friedrich Paul Be

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 9 months ago (Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:06 am)

Hektor wrote:But why use Zyklon B anyway? If it had to be HCN on a large scale, why not have the liquid sealed in a container and then release it with a quick evaporation. I'd estimate that canned Zyklon B wasn't actually cheap to provide.


You are forgetting that the official line is that it was left to local commanders to improvise their own method of implementation, using whatever was to hand. Presumably to explain the lack of any documentary trail.

At one of the AR camps, I forget which, they were lucky enough to have a Soviet (diesel) submarine engine handy. (Eichmann trial footage used in One Third of the Holocaust.)


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest