posted by 104839sobe104839 at 12:34 PM
0 comments
Quest's claim no. 1: The 1938 World Almanac gave the worldwide jewish population at 15,588,259. In 1945, the New York times newspaper claimed that the Worldwide Jewish population was at 15,600,218 blah blah. The point? Unless the Jewish reproduction rate was extremely high, six-five million Jews could not have been killed.
However, while searching through the aforementioned tome looking to see how Rudolf dealt with demographics, that weakest of revisionist gambits, I came across a howler so egregious that it warrants highlighting.However, Rudolf unsprprisingly but embarassingly used one of these same types of sources just 10 pages before:
First the wisdom of the Young Jedi, a point so eminently sensible I had to pinch myself to remember who it was whose book I was reading:You have to be very careful when you do that. Encyclopedias and other such works cannot really be called reliable sources in the strict scientific sense of the word…That also goes for items from newspapers or magazines. After all, journalists have never been famous for a penetrating knowledge of the topics they discuss.”
- Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust, pp.44-45
And then the unwisdom of the same Young Jedi:So a newspaper and the World Almanac can hardly be used to "prove" anything regarding demographics. Holocaust historians like Raul Hilberg, Martin Gilbert, etc, have estimates broken down by country and are based on a variety of sources.Precisely. The actual figure could have been much higher. For example, a British- American committee of investigation into the problem of the Jewish situation in Europe announced at a press conference in February 1946, according to United Press, that there were still 800,000 Jews in post-war Poland who all sought to emigrate.
Note 55: Keesings Archiv der Gegenwart, vol. 16/17, Rheinisch-westfälischesVerlagskontor, Essen 1948, p. 651,Item B of Feb. 15, 1946
- Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust, p.35
Quest's claim no. 2: The plaque at Auschwitz, until the "mid 80's" (actually 1990) claimed that four million had died at Auschwitz. They still parroted the six million number. The new plaque claimed that 1.5 had been killed. But the six million number stayed the same. Explain.
Quest's claim no. 3: Most Holocaust historians agree that the mass murder of Jews started in 1942 and ended in 1945. This would mean that 2 million would have to have been killed in concentration camps. When you break that down, 5, 556 would have needed to be killed daily. Now that is if they were killing every minute of the day, every hour of the day, i.e., nonstop. That itself seems a little odd. But the question is, how were the bodies taken care of? Those ovens, I'm being generous when I say that maybe you can strack 3 people on top of each other and burn them. But at that rate, it would take forever to burn those bodies, only three at a time. Then there's the theory that they dug holes and cremated the bodies there, the witnesses stated that the bodies just turned to ash. No way, the body is what, 75% water? They don't burn that quickly. Somebody who works in a crematorium can tell you that it takes a long time to burn ONE body, let alone 5,576 daily.
Most Holocaust historians agree that the mass murder of Jews started in 1942 and ended in 1945.
This would mean that 2 million would have to have been killed in concentration camps.
When you break that down, 5, 556 would have needed to be killed daily. Now that is if they were killing every minute of the day, every hour of the day, i.e., nonstop. That itself seems a little odd.
But the question is, how were the bodies taken care of? Those ovens, I'm being generous when I say that maybe you can strack 3 people on top of each other and burn them. But at that rate, it would take forever to burn those bodies, only three at a time.
Then there's the theory that they dug holes and cremated the bodies there, the witnesses stated that the bodies just turned to ash.
No way,
the body is what, 75% water?
They don't burn that quickly.
Somebody who works in a crematorium can tell you that it takes a long time to burn ONE body
, let alone 5,576 daily.
posted by 104839sobe104839 at 9:20 PM
0 comments
posted by 104839sobe104839 at 9:17 PM
0 comments
Holocaust deniers have, until very recently, focused almost exclusively on the Auschwitz death camp. Their main argument about Auschwitz concerns body disposal. As Professor John C. Zimmerman noted, Holocaust deniers are forced to make a case about ovens because they cannot seriously explain what happened to the millions of missing Jews.
Some attempts have been tried to explain away the demographics of the Holocaust, probably the most "famous" of which was Walter Sanning's The Dissolution of European Jewry.
However, as Professor Zimmerman proved in his recommended book about Holocaust denial, this attempt by Sanning to prove that 5-6 million Jews were never in the German sphere of influence by 1941 fails.
Deniers have never been able to explain the missing Jews. Just one example is the Dutch Jews from Holland. 100,000+ Dutch Jews with their unique-sounding language, supposedly being resettled into Eastern Europe, yet we have no evidence for this. This is the kind of facts which deniers can't really handle, so they then tried to disprove the mass murder at Auschwitz, as previously stated.
Not long ago, however, deniers started to shift their focus from Auschwitz to the Aktion Reinhard camps of Bełżec, Sobibór, and Treblinka.
Arnulf Neumaier was probably one of the first deniers to publish a major article on the Reinhard camps. Holocaust deniers Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf have even made books on Belzec and Treblinka and Holocaust deniers John Ball, Friedrich Paul Berg and Germar "many names" Rudolf have also made arguments concerning the Reinhard camps. A lot of Rudolf and other deniers' arguments on the Reinhard camps are reproduced in Mattogno and Graf's book about Treblinka, so, by dealing with the arguments in Mattogno's book, we are also dealing with the arguments of other deniers.
This article examines some of the denier arguments on these camps. The author currently does not have the vast amounts of time or energy required to write an article examining ALL the denial arguments on the Reinhard camps; however, we will examine lots of the major denial arguments on the Reinhard camps which include arguments on toxicology, cremation, the gassing facilities, efficiency, air-photo interpretation, and burial space, amongst other topics.
Enjoy.
Producer gas and the Diesel Issue
The first denial arguments on the Reinhard camps which we will explore and examine are arguments on the diesel issue (see below) and Producer gas (see below). These denial arguments are applied on all three Aktion Reinhard camps.
1.1 The Irrelevancy of the Diesel Issue
For much time, it was thought that the exhaust of diesel engines was the method of extermination in the Reinhard extermination camps. And, indeed, witnesses attested to this—we will see more about them later.
Diesel exhaust is known to have a high oxygen content and a low carbon monoxide content. Deniers have pointed out this fact and have stated that, then, the mass murder as claimed could not have happened.
The denier who is known for this style of argumentation is American engineer Friedrich Paul Berg. He wrote:
Even among the most ardent proponents of the WMD theories about SADDAM HUSSEIN, or even among the Israelis, or the most extreme neo-conservatives—no one has ever suggested that the exhaust of Iraq's many hundreds of thousands of diesel trucks or diesel tanks might have been used for mass murder. If they had, they would have been laughed at–and rightly so. And yet just such an insane theory is still at the very heart of the Holocaust legend. Two million of the alleged three million Nazi gassings of Jews were supposedly committed with diesel exhaust. The fact that most people do not even know of the importance of diesels to the “Holocaust” suggests that the hoaxers themselves know just how thoroughly stupid the diesel claims truly are–otherwise, they would have certainly made much more of that part of the story. Nonetheless, when one reads the works of the Jewish holocaust “scholars” (HILBERG and GILBERT, for example) it is clearly spelled out that two million Jews, as well as countless non-Jews (no one really cares how many) were all supposedly murdered by the Nazis with diesel exhaust in gas chambers or gas vans–whereas only about a million were supposedly murdered with Zyklon-B and cyanide.
(ignoring the unsubstantiated claim that "no one really cares how many" non-Jews died in the Holocaust:) But what if diesel engines most likely weren't used, but gasoline engines were used? That is the thesis.
There is evidence which indicates to the use of gasoline engines. Let us take a brief examination of the diesel issue.
For Belzec, some witnesses told of the engine type.
Kurt Gerstein told of diesel engines in the Bełżec gas chambers.
But, according to Gerstein's own testimony, Gerstein did not see the engine himself, so his statement cannot be used to prove that diesel engines were used in the Belzec gas chambers.
Deniers have responded to this by saying that diesel engines emit a unique sound, and Gerstein, being a mining engineer, would have easily been able to tell the difference in noise between a diesel engine and a gasoline engine. This is true; however, right by the gassing engines in the Reinhard camps, there were other engines that were used for power-generation purposes, so how would Gerstein have known which of the engines to attribute the noise to?
Professor Wilhelm Pfannenstiel visited Bełżec with Gerstein and also told of a diesel engine in the Belzec gas chambers to the godfather of "revisionism", Paul Rassinier (there must be some other conspiracy theory "explaining" how the godfather of denial tortured an eyewitness to get a confession to gassings). Rassinier paraphrases what Pfannenstiel told him:
My interlocutor told me that, upon being informed of the expected train, he decided to stay. Accompanied by Wirth and his S.S. aide, he again visited the little house that had been fixed up for exterminations, and he described it to me. It had a raised ground floor, and a hallway with three small rooms on each side, which he did not measure, but which he thought had an area of surely less than 5 x 5 meters, perhaps 4 x 5 maximum, and all of them were rectangular, not square. At the end of the hall was the room where the Diesel motor was located in the center on a cement base and a little below floor level. I asked about this motor and how it was connected up to exhaust outlets in each of the six rooms. It was a truck motor, about 1.50 meters long, a little less than 1 meter wide, and a good meter in height, including the concrete base. Its power he did not know; perhaps it had 200 horsepower, he said. I pointed out to him that it was said to have been a marine engine, and, therefore, it must have been much bigger if it had been built for a ship. "Surely not," he said. "it was a truck motor, at least its dimensions led me to visualize it on a truck." He remembered the number of cylinders, six in one row. As for the connection with the exhaust pipes, in order to proceed faster, he made a drawing for me, which showed that the motor exhaust was introduced into each room by means of a pipe that was connected to an outlet in the floor.
However, when one keeps in mind that Pfannenstiel was an outsider and was a hygienist, not a technician, one could suppose that he got the engine type wrong.
SS Oberscharführer Karl Alfred Schluch testified that he wasn't sure about the engine type:
For the gassings an engine was started up. I cannot give a more detailed description of the engine, because I never saw it. I am not a specialist, but I would say that, judging from the sound, it was a medium-size diesel engine.
This description partly speaks for itself. Of course, diesel engines do emit a distinct sound, as noted above, but, in the same room were the gassing engines were, there were other engines which operated for power-generation purposes. It is possible that Schluch attributed the sound of one of the power-generation diesels to the gassing engine and thus thought that the gassing engine was a diesel engine.
Heinrich Gley testified also that he was not sure of the engine type:
After the doors of the gas chambers had been closed, a large engine –I don’t know whether it was a diesel or an Otto [gasoline] engine – was started up by a mechanic from the Hiwi [auxiliaries] section. The exhaust fumes of this engine were fed into the chambers and caused the death of the Jews.
Kazimierz Czerniak helped install the engine at Bełżec. He told of a gasoline engine of 200 or more Horsepower.
Rudolf Reder, Belzec survivor, also testified of gasoline engines, but me may not qualify as a good witness on the engine issue if what he is quoted as saying as written in Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno's book is correct.
So, we have six Bełżec witnesses who give us a bit of an insight into the death engine in Belzec; two of which weren't directly connected to the gassing engine and stated that they didn't know; two of which were not only not directly connected to the death engine but were outsiders and stated that the gassing engine(s) was a diesel; one which wasn't directly connected to the gassing engine and stated petrol but gave a problematic description; and two of which were directly connected to the gassing engine and stated gasoline.
Note how the witnesses who serviced or installed the engines stated gasoline.
In any case, this isn't exactly iron-clad evidence for the gassing engine being a diesel in Bełżec.
For Sobibór, we have the testimony of SS Scharführer Erich Fuchs (who, by the way, was a skilled motor mechanic), who personally installed the gassing engine there. Fuchs is quoted as follows by Yitzhak Arad:
We unloaded the motor. It was a heavy Russian benzine engine, at least 200 horsepower. We installed the engine on a concrete foundation and set up the connection between the exhaust and the tube.
According to German historian Peter Witte, in the Sobibór trial in the 1960's in Hagen, SS Oberscharführer Erich Bauer, SS Scharführer Erich Fuchs, and SS Oberscharführer Franz Hödl all stated that the gassing engines were gasoline engines:
In this case even three former Gasmeister (“Gasmasters” / Erich Bauer, Erich Fuchs, and Franz Hödl), who must have really have known the facts, since they all killed with the same motor, confirmed in court that it was definitely a petrol motor. Bauer and Fuchs, having been professional motor mechanics, simply quarrelled during the trial about whether it was a Renault motor or a heavy Russian tank motor (probably a tank motor or a tractor motor) having at least 200 PS. They also disputed whether the method of ignition was a starter or an impact magnet, which diesel motors obviously do not have, being self-igniting...
For Treblinka we have some witnesses who testified of the gassing engines being diesels. These witnesses include Eliyahu Rosenberg, the Ukrainian guards blahblah Malagon and blahblah Leleko. These witnesses all testified of diesel engines being used for gassings in Treblinka; however, none of these witnesses were directly connected with the gassing engines.
Oscar Strawczinski, who also was not directly connected to the gassing engines, vaguely wrote of "fumes from burnt gasoline forced in (the gas chambers):
The victim[s] come into Camp 2 already naked and shorn, and are immediately squeezed into the cubicles. There is no more division: men, women and children are all pressed together in the small cubicles so tightly that this alone would be enough to suffocate them. The doors are hermetically sealed, the motors start to work. The air from inside is sucked out and fumes from burnt gasoline forced in. The cries from inside can be heard for about ten minutes and then it becomes silent.
This shows that, since witnesses who were directly connected to the gassing engines told of gasoline engines used for gassings, and witnesses not connected to the gassing engines testified of diesel engines being used for gassings, the witnesses who were not directly connected to the gassing engines were probably making speculations.
Sergey Romanov summarizes:
As a general rule, the people who did not operate or install the engine could have been mistaken about the type of engine. [emphasis in the original quote]
Fredrich Paul Berg, the guru of the diesel mantra, is aware that there is evidence indicating to the irrelevancy of the diesel issue, yet on his website, he does not mention one bit of this evidence. Thus Berg is essentially creating an intentional deception.
What of the courts which mentioned diesels being used for gassings in the Reinhard camps? That some courts did this is not of significance. Indeed, deniers have yet to explain why the West German courts should have paid great detail to the exact, specific details of the murder weapon.
Historians have also claimed that diesels were used for gassings. Again, there is no reason why they should have put great focus on the type of engine. If a historian likely saw two or three testimonies that stated diesel, (s)he likely wrote that diesel engines were used; this does not indicate sloppy scholarship.
Does the fact that the witnesses got the engine type wrong or that they got something wrong in their account discredit them as a whole? No. Doing so would be like "throwing the baby in the water", so to say. Contrary to the "revisionist" notion that if an eyewitness makes some erroneous recalls that then they are discredited (this is known as the logical fallacy Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus), the credibility of an eyewitness is decided on a point-by-point basis, taking into account what position a certain eyewitness was in to know certain details.
"But wait: If the main toxic component of gasoline exhaust is Carbon Monoxide (CO), and CO victims usually have a red discoloration, how come witnesses recall the bodies as being blue?"
Actually, research and studies have shown blue discoloration to be more common than red discoloration, however, what is most likely is no discoloration.
Then of course, comes the "revisionist" argument that the "holohoaxers" just now "changed the story" since deniers have found a "problem" in it. It is true that denier arguments on diesel exhaust has prompted Holocaust historians and independent researchers to look more carefully at the evidence regarding the details of the gassing engines. Of course, this does not equate to somebody "changing" the "story". REAL revisions to any Historical event is essential, and indeed, new facts about the Holocaust are still being found today, 60 years after it happened.
So, to summarize:
Witnesses who were not directly connected to the gassing engines would, logically speaking, have been mistaken;
There were other engines in the same room were the gassing engines were for power-generation purposes; the sound of these engines were probably mistakenly attributed to the gassing engine;
There is no reason why Historians or courts should pay great detail to the specific technical details of the murder weapon;
The fact that a witness got the engine type wrong or got another detail wrong does not discredit them as a whole; this is decided on a point-by-point basis;
Victims of CO poisoning are not exclusively red;
It is true that denier arguments on diesel exhaust has prompted Holocaust historians and independent researchers to look more carefully at the evidence regarding the details of the gassing engines; however, this does not mean that anybody is changing a "story" whenever deniers find a "problem".
1.2 Producer gas: "Superb" and "readily available"?
Fritz Berg describes producer gas:
As today's fuel prices rise, can anyone imagine using poison gas to drive their car or truck? Well, in World War 2 the Germans did precisely that–and so did the people of many other countries, even long after the war.
Wartime German-occupied Europe was desperately short of liquid fuels which had to be conserved for combat vehicles. To deal with this genuine fuel crisis, most civilian vehicles used neither gasoline nor diesel fuel; they used a substance called producer gas instead. The producer gas was made in generators mounted on the vehicles themselves, generally near the rear. Solid materials such as wood, coke, or coal were burned in the generators with a restricted supply of air to yield the producer gas, called Holzgas (wood-gas literally) in German.This gas was then drawn into modified diesel or gasoline (spark ignition) type engines at the fronts of the vehicles by engine vacuum. The principal ingredient of the gas was carbon monoxide, 18% to 35%, which burned extremely well–but, it was also extremely toxic. The usefulness of the producer gas as a fuel increased with the concnetration of CO–which also increased the toxicity. That gas would have been ideal for mass murder if the Nazis had ever intended to gas anyone. No doubt, the gas could have simply been called poison gas, which it certainly was, but that would have caused panic among the general public. Nonetheless, everyone involved with its use, either directly or indirectly, had to know for their own survival and safety that it was extremely poisonous .
The most shocking feature of this technology was that it was used throughout German-occupied Europe to drive more than 500,000 motor vehicles. It was practically everywhere. Every auto or truck repair shop anywhere in German-occupied Europe repaired or worked on these poison gas generating vehicles at some time or other. In addition, all drivers of these vehicles were specially licensed and only after rigorous training with a heavy emphasis on safety. They were all required by law to know that this fuel contained as much as 35% carbon monoxide and that already as little as 0.1% carbon monoxide was enough to kill –albeit only in about ten hours. They all, including loading and supervisory personnel, needed to know this for their own safety and that of the people around them–and even keep written reminders (the Safety Guidelines) in the glove compartments of all of these vehicles. And yet, nowhere have any Nazis ever been even accused of employing this superb and readily available, deadly gas to kill even one person. How ironic to say the least.
This is how producer gas is described in Friedrich Berg's website. So, there is this deadly technology in Europe during the time of the extermination of European Jewry, which is much, much deadlier than diesel exhaust, yet it has never been implicated in the gassing claims!
Unfortunately for Berg and other deniers, it's not that simple. Before we delve into the technical details, let's look at this type of argument in general.
The producer gas argument is a "coulda woulda shoulda" argument, as it is known to the antirevisionists (note the missing hyphen). "Revisionists" like to call this argument "probability" (whether this argument really deserves to be called "credibility" will be left as an exercise to the reader)
This argument works in the following way: Because the Nazis could have done something one way; this means they should have done it this way; which means they would have done it this way.
A witness testifies to engine exhaust being used to kill. This person is lying. How do we know this person is lying? Because there were better ways of killing the victims, and this was easily available to the perpetrators, so since they didn't use this, we know that claims about engine exhaust are lying.
Yes, this is what "revisionists" expect us to believe. The paraphrase above is not distorting what "revisionists" contend. One may look at the writings of Fritz Berg, guru of the diesel and producer gas mantra, to assure oneself.
There are several logical problems with this type of argument.
The fact that something could have been done a better way doesn't mean that the evidence leading to the conclusion that it was done this way is contradicted, even when this better way was accessible to the perpetrators;
While producer gas may have been preferable for Fritz Berg and other deniers/engineers, this does not mean that this was the method preferred by the designers of the extermination method in the Reinhard camps;
Whether the Nazis used the best method or not is irrelevant, since, needless to say, what they used sufficed;
This argument assumes that the designers would have been interested in the best technical method of extermination. Evidence shows this not to be the case.
Deniers have also failed at explaining why mass murder by ways that are not the best cannot be done, even when the perpetrators had access to this better way.
There are other problems besides the logical problems involved with the "coulda woulda shoulda" argument as well.
A big part of the producer gas argument rests on the assumption that the executors were literally surrounded by deadly producer gas, as Berg wrote:
The most shocking feature of this technology was that it was used throughout German-occupied Europe to drive more than 500,000 motor vehicles. It was practically everywhere.
The German-occupied areas encompassed a large area of land. The Reinhard camps were situated in the Generalgouvernment. It would seem so that the whole of German-occupied Europe is too big to claim that the generators were "practically everywhere". Maybe Mr. Berg would like to sum up for us how many generators were in the Generalgouvernment before we jump to conclusions.
Friedrich Berg wrote the following as well:
As an alternative which they were required, by law, to know was extremely deadly, the Germans had producer gas generators--18% to 35% CO--on hundreds of thousands of trucks. Those generators were extremely dangerous--everyone had to know that because gas leaks were not only toxic but also highly explosive! When the engines were shutoff, the generators would keep on generating until the internal fire could be extinguished. [emphasis not in the original] Can anyone really believe the Germans would have used Diesel exhaust as a source of CO, when they had 18% to 35% CO? These were essentially the same people who built the first jet and rocket-propelled fighter airplanes, the first ballistic missiles, who also invented the gasoline engine, Diesel engine and even the automobile. I can't really believe that Mullins can be that stupid--but, then again, perhaps he is? (Berg, Diesel A,B,C's)
(ignoring the fact that the Germans who invented the diesel engine, the gasoline engines, and the automobile were not the same men who built the gas chambers in the Reinhard camps...) So these producer gas generators leaked highly flammable, and potentially explosive gas, and kept on leaking gas after the engine was shut off. This is corroborated by other sources.
Doesn't sound too safe, does it?
To turn the tables on deniers, would the mechanics like Lorenz Hackenholt (in charge of the gas chambers in Belzec) want flammable leaks of producer gas from their producer gas generators? This would be a hazard to any Ukrainian guard smoking near the gas chambers (and there are people who smoke at gas stations, by the way).
Could this problem be remedied by diluting the Producer gas with oxygen until the concentration of CO in producer gas is less than 12%, its flammable concentration? Most certainly; however, after it is diluted below 12%, the CO content would not be much higher than the CO content in gasoline engine exhaust, up to 7% CO, and thus producer gas would not be immensely superior to gasoline exhaust.
Roberto Muehlenkamp makes one final point:
However, even if the method actually chosen – engine exhaust – had not been the most advantageous, the probability of the SS not having chosen the most advantageous method for whatever reason would still be much greater than the probability of a number of witnesses independent of each other having been completely wrong about the method they described, not to mention the probability of hundreds of thousands of people deported to each of these camps not having been murdered there.
Mattogno et al have made arguments against the gassing facilities in the Reinhard camps. These include arguments about the exhaust buildup in the chambers, the disagreements between witnesses on the characteristics of the gassing facilities, and more. As deniers tend to focus more on Treblinka than Sobibór or Bełżec, most of the arguments here are for Treblinka. Only a cursory examination reveals that, once again, denier claims don't hold up to close scrutiny.
2.1 "Problems" with the Treblinka Gas Chambers
Denier Carlo Mattogno wrote:
According to the official historiography, the gas chambers possessed no opening for the removal of the gas. As we have seen in Section 2, the Soviet Investigating Judge Jurowski inserted an opening for gas outflow in the ceiling in both of his drawings of the gas chambers of Treblinka. In 1947, Elias Rosenberg stated for the record:[387]
"A small window, sealed air-tight, was fitted to the ceiling, which could not be opened and through which the man who regulated the gas supply was able to observe."
This small window, therefore, had nothing to do with any system for gas removal. But such a window, or, to be more exact, such an opening for the purging of the air-gas mixture would have been absolutely indispensable for a mass killing by the use of the exhaust gases of a powerful engine. Graduate engineer Arnulf Neumaier emphasizes that diesel engines emit their combustion gases with a pressure of 0.5 atmospheres (which corresponds to 500 g/cm2), and explains:[388]
"[...] this means that there would have been a force equivalent to the weight of 5 metric tons pushing outward against each square meter of surface area."
In the first installation, such a pressure would have exerted a force corresponding to the weight of 80 metric tons upon the ceiling of each chamber, of 52 metric tons on each of the walls, of 8.1 metric tons upon the entrance door and of 22.5 metric tons upon the door serving for the removal of the bodies. If the masonry of the walls withstood this powerful pressure, then the engine, approaching a state of equilibrium between the pressure of the interior of the chambers and the pressure of the engine exhaust gases, would have broken down.
When would this equilibrium be reached? The gas pressure in a hermetically sealed container or room doubles if the amount of gas in it is doubled (provided the temperature is constant).
A diesel engine works like a compressor. Under the parameters of the data given previously, an engine of 38,860 cubic centimeters (38.86 liters) at 2,000 RPM emits 38.86 m3 of gas per minute with an outlet pressure of 0.5 atmospheres.
The effective air volume amounts to (26.5×3=) 79.5 m3 in the first and (34×10=) 340 m3 in the second installation. Under these conditions, a pressure of 0.5 atmospheres would be attained if a volume of exhaust gas had been blown into the rooms, which corresponded to half of their effective volume, therefore (79.5÷2=) 39.75 m3 in the first and (340÷2 =) 170 m3 in the second installation. This would have taken (38.25÷38.86=) less than a minute in the first installation, but (170÷38.86=) a little more than four minutes in the second.
If the alleged gas chambers were actually hermetically sealed, the gassing procedure under the circumstances described by the witnesses would therefore have come to a standstill through breakdown of the engine after scarcely a minute in the first facility, and after a little over four minutes in the second facility, if the walls of the building had not already collapsed before that. But probably the doors would simply not have withstood the pressure and would have been pushed off their hinges.
The problem with this argument is that, since, as we have seen, the gassing engines were gasoline engines, and Mattogno's argument is based on the outward pressure exerted from the exhaust from a diesel engine, his argument cannot be applied to gasoline exhaust.
Holocaust denier Arnulf Neumaier wrote:
How would a homicidal gassing process even be possible if, for example, the ten gas chambers of Death House 2 were simultaneously filled with 6,000 people, as the Black Book reports? The hallway leading to the gas chambers was allegedly 5 ft. wide. This is just wide enough to allow two people to enter it side by side. So if the victims-to-be are lined up outside the Death House, two abreast and each 2 ft. behind the person before them, we end up with a line-up almost 11/4 mile long. Entering the Death House, filing into the gas chambers and crowding them closely with victims will allow a marching speed of the line-up of, perhaps, 11/4 mile per hour if the victims behave with great discipline and cooperation. The absurdity of the conditions required for this best-case scenario shows that one hour certainly would not have sufficed to crowd the 6,000 people forcibly into the chambers. This means that the victims in the chamber that was filled first would have already been locked up in their air-tight room for an hour or more before the gassing even began; for to assume that the gassing began as soon as the first chamber was filled contradicts eyewitness testimony, for example the claim that Ivan the Terrible not only drove the victims into the chambers but also operated the Diesel unit. He could not have done both at once. This further indicates that the victims locked up in the chamber that was filled first had less than 16 m3 oxygen available to them.
Neumaier's above-quoted test contains many errors, the first one being that 6,000 victims were gassed at once. The source of this was the Black Book of Polish Jewry, written WHILE exterminations at Treblinka were occurring. The Black Book is obviously an outdated and incorrect source. So why then, does Neumaier, with all of the more accurate numbers from more recent studies, choose the most outdated ones, and try to "disprove" those ones? This is just like the mass-production-of-human-soap rumor that deniers keep on talking about; everybody has moved on, and it has been long acknowledged that that rumor was incorrect.
But then that's why it's denial, not revisionism.
Second of all, not that it matters, since 6,000 victims weren't gassed at once, but where did Neumaier get the notion that the victims were neatly lined up with 2 FEET (!) of space in between each other?
Were does Neumaier explain to us were he got his "11/4 mile long" number from? And 11/4 miles an hour? We're not talking about a group of senile women walking into a dormroom; we're talking about victims being whipped and beaten into gas chambers. Neumaier can't show any evidence for his numbers; indeed, if he did, it would only further show that Mr. Neumaier is simply making claims based on faith.
Thus it is quite ironic when Neumaier writes that "The absurdity of the conditions required for this best-case scenario shows that one hour certainly would not have sufficed to crowd the 6,000 people forcibly into the chambers", considering the absurdity of his numbers.
Neumaier goes on:
Any serious plan to commit mass murder by means of exhaust gas would thus not only have provided for a different (non-Diesel) kind of engine, it would also have had to provide for back-up facilities.
Well, as we have already seen, the gassing engine was probably a gasoline engine. Why committing mass murder with exhaust gas requires a back-up plan Neumaier does not explain.
Mattogno wrote in regard to the amount of gas chambers in the new gassing facility in Treblinka:
In Chapter III we cited the witness testimony of Abe Kon, according to whom the second killing facility contained 12 gas chambers. The Soviet report concerning Treblinka of August 24, 1944, in which 12 gas chambers are correspondingly mentioned, is based upon this testimony.[298] As already seen, the current official version speaks of 10 chambers. The witnesses Willi Metz and Otto Horn, who had worked in 'Camp II', declared that the installation had 6 gas chambers.[299] Jankiel Wiernik wrote that at his arrival in Treblinka there had been three gas chambers and that two more were added during his stay in the camp even before the construction of the second extermination facility,[300] so that there had been 15 and not 13 gas chambers in total.
The judgment of the Court of Assizes at Düsseldorf:
The witnesses also differed with one another regarding the exact number of gas chambers in the new building. From the very outset, all the defendants agreed that there had been six chambers, while all the Jewish witnesses stated that there had been ten. (page 301, Donat)
So maybe there were six, maybe there were ten. It's not like the numbers given are "all over the place", so to speak. Of course there are going to be discrepancies.
Mattogno goes on, regarding the dimensions of the gas chambers in Treblinka.
According to the witnesses cited by W. Grossmann, the gas chambers in the second facility measured 7 m × 8 m,[301] according to the witnesses questioned by Łukaszkiewicz, 7 m × 7 m,[302] , according to the witness Abe Kon, 6 m × 6 m,[303] and according to the version accepted today, 8 m × 4 m. The maximum capacity of these chambers varies between 600 (Abe Kon) and 1,000 to 1,200 (Jankiel Wiernik).[304] Lastly, Elias Rosenberg claims that the second killing facility was not constructed between August and October 1942, but rather in March of 1943.[305]
The insinuation being that the witnesses are not in agreement about the dimensions of the gas chambers.
Well, human memory is not perfect. Put 12 people in a room for some time, take them out, ask them the dimensions of the room, and they each will say something different, usually with common thread. Is that common thread in the testimonies of the dimensions of the Treblinka gas chambers? Yes.
Re-read part of the above cited text, with the author's emphasis this time:
According to the witnesses cited by W. Grossmann, the gas chambers in the second facility measured 7 m × 8 m,[301] according to the witnesses questioned by Łukaszkiewicz, 7 m × 7 m,[302] , according to the witness Abe Kon, 6 m × 6 m,[303] and according to the version accepted today, 8 m × 4 m.
Note how three of the dimensions given (6 m × 6 m, 7 m × 8 m and 7 m × 7 m) do not vary too much. Two of them (7 m × 8 m and 7 m × 7 m) both give 7 meters as a dimension, and the only difference between those measurements is one "8" instead of a "7". The third measurement (6 m × 6 m) given again is not at great variance with the last two measurements (7 m × 8 m and 7 m × 7 m).
The last measurement (8 m × 4 m) only varies more than the other three measurements in that the other measurements do not give a 4 meters as a dimension; the other dimension given is "8", which is a common thread in other dimensions given.
Another argument Mattogno made regarding Treblinka was that the victims in the gas chambers would have suffocated before dying from CO poisoning:
According to the witnesses, the victims are supposed to have died from the gas after approximately 30 to 40 minutes, but death from asphyxiation would have already occurred after about 20 or 30 minutes. What good purpose, therefore, was served by the construction of diesel gas chambers?
As we have already seen, the gas chambers most certainly operated with the exhaust of gasoline engines, not diesels.
However, the time of death is uncertain. According to Yankel Wiernik, for example, the victims in the first gas chambers died in roughly 25 minutes. Mattogno needs to cite what all the witnesses said about the time of death before declaring that "According to the witnesses, the victims are supposed to have died from the gas after approximately 30 to 40 minutes...".
3.1 Burial Space
Mattogno writes regarding the burial space:
According to official historiography, about 860,000 of the 870,000 Treblinka victims were buried before their cremation.[389]
On the basis of his investigations of the mass graves of Hamburg (Anglo-American terror-bombardment of July 1943), Katyn (Soviet mass murder of Polish officers, 1940) and Bergen-Belsen (mass dying from typhus in spring 1945), John Ball came to the conclusion that one could assume a maximum of six bodies per cubic meter in a mass grave.[390] This number seems quite high if one keeps in mind that in Treblinka I, the work camp, the Soviets found 105 bodies in a grave with an effective volume of 75 m3 - therefore 1.4 bodies per cubic meter, and that the medical expert Piotrowski, in his first calculation of the content of the mass graves, set a figure of six bodies per 2 cubic meters, thus 3 bodies per cubic meter, half the density proposed by Ball.[391] However, in order to take into account the hypothetical existence of children as comprising one-third of the victims, we assume a density of a maximum of 8 bodies per cubic meter.
First of all, why does Mattogno use the 870,000 number? It is true that historians, including Yitzhak Arad have used this number, but the most recent numbers lead up to a rough total of 800,000.
Second of all, the amount of bodies able to fit per cubic meter in different places, at different times, with different methods and different goals in mind, is irrelevant. The bodies buried in Hamburg, Katyn, Belsen and Treblinka I were likewise thrown into the pits, without being arranged in a space-saving manner. Treblinka I was a work camp were forced laborers were working; the victims buried there were mostly able-bodied men. Thus, we see that this is an apples and oranges comparison. And this bad comparison, amazingly, is how John Ball, Carlo Mattgono, Arnulf Neumaier, and other "revisionists" use to determine the density of corpses in the graves.
This alone is enough to debunk the burial space argument if it uses the corpse densities Mattogno et al used. But let us go on, to further provide an example of what the arguments of "revisionism" amount to.
Mattogno writes:
But according to the witness E. Rosenberg, who is the sole person to give 'exact' details, the mass graves measured 120 m × 15 m × 6 m,[393] which, if one assumes a top layer of 0.5 m, gives an effective volume of (120×15×5.5=) 9,900 m3. Consequently, each grave could contain (9,900×8=) 79,200 bodies, which agrees almost exactly with the comment above of the Düsseldorf Court.
In accordance with this, if 860,000 bodies were really buried in Treblinka before their cremation, there must have been (860,000÷79,200=) 11 graves of this size, the total surface area of which amounted to (120 × 15 × 11 =) 19,800 m2...
According to the plan of Treblinka produced at the Düsseldorf trial of 1964-1965, the mass graves were located without exception inside of 'Camp II,' where there were, besides, the following facilities: the old gassing installation, the new gassing installation, the two cremation grates and the barracks for the Jewish Sonderkommandos. But, as pointed out in Chapter II, the whole of 'Camp II' had an area, which was far less than the theoretical area of the graves, that is, 14,000 m2.
'Camp II' had the shape of an irregular quadrilateral; its sides measured 188, 110, 174, and 52 meters. It therefore could theoretically accommodate merely three graves of the dimensions given above. Due to the presence of the five facilities mentioned, however, of which three (the two cremation grates and the new gassing installation) were allegedly lined up with one another on an east-west axis, 'Camp II' could barely enclose a single one such mass grave for 79,200 bodies. Where, then, were the remaining 780,800 bodies buried?
Ignoring the mistakes that Mattogno makes, we cite Roberto Muehlenkamp, who has already dealt with the burial space issue:
So it seems more appropriate, in order to determine the size of the graves area and the presumable size of the graves, to rely on the only measurements by a land surveyor that, to my knowledge, have so far been carried out in regard to Treblinka. These were mentioned by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland in their 1946 report on Treblinka. In the English translation of this report , the following is stated:The evidence on which this account relies is in the first place the testimony of 13 Jews, former prisoners at Treblinka, who succeeded in escaping during the armed revolt of August 2, 1943. Their names are: Jankiel Wiernik, Henryk Poswolski, Abe Kon, Aron Czechowicz, Oskar Strawczynski, Samuel Reisman, Aleksander Kudlik, Hejnoch Brener, Starisław Kon, Eugeniusz Turowski, Henryk Reichman, Szyja Warszawsski, and Leon Finkelsztejn.
Additiond facts concerning particularly the number of railway transports, is to be found in the evivdence of 11 Polish railway workers.
The railway records at Treblinka station have a1so been consulted, as well as documents and coins dug out during the levelling of the surface; and the results of legal and medical inquiries, as well was the sworn evidence of a land surveyor, were used by the prosecutors.
[…]
There are also other traces. For example, in the north-eastern part, over a surface covering about 2 ha. (5 acres),
p.97
there are large quantities of ashes mixed with sand, among which are numerous human bones, often with the remains of decomposing tissues.
As a result of an examination made by an expert it was found that ashes were the remains of burnt human bones. The examination of numerous human skulls found in the camp has shown that they bear no traces of external injuries. Within a radius of several hundred yards from the camp site an unpleasant smell of burnt ash and decay is noticeable, growing stronger as one approaches.
If we assume that the area covered with "large quantities of ashes mixed with sand, among which are numerous human bones" was the area of the mass graves, which seems a reasonable thing to do, then the size of this area was 2 ha or 20,000 square meters. If on this area there were ten graves with the measurements 50 x 25 x 10 meters, or a smaller number of larger graves covering an equivalent area, there were still 7,500 square meters left to enable movement in between the graves. Assuming 9 meters depth available for burial, as the video’s creator does, this would mean that 12,500 x 9 = 112,500 cubic meters of grave space were available, and assuming an average density of 8 corpses per cubic meter – which considering Alex Bay's calculations and Provan’s experiment seems a rather conservative estimate – this space would be enough to bury 112,500 x 8 = 900,000 corpses. This order of magnitude is in line with the statements of defendant Franz Suchomel at the first Treblinka trial, who is referred to in the judgment as having recalled that, according to his comrade Pötzinger, one alone of the mass graves opened in the spring of 1943 had about 80,000 dead bodies in it. It is also in line with the documentary and demographic evidence to the deportations to Treblinka, which includes but is not limited to the report sent by SS-Sturmbannführer Höfle in Lublin on 11 January 1943 to Obersturmbannführer Heim in Krakow, according to which 713,555 people had been delivered at Treblinka on 31.12.1942 already.
Rosenberg was not the only one to give details; Yankel Wiernik and Abraham Krzepicki both gave measurements. According to Krzepicki, the graves were "60 or 70 meters long" (Donat, 92), and according to Wiernik, the graves measured 50 x 25 x 10 meters.
It should be remembered that these figures are estimates.
3.2 The Supposed Problem of the Excavated Earth
When the mass graves in Treblinka where dug, the Earth that had previously been in the ditches would have taken up an enormous amount of space, according to Mattogno:
In excavating a pit or a grave, the extract has a volume which is normally around 10 to 25% greater than the volume of the excavated pit itself.[394] From each of the 11 mass graves of Treblinka, (120×15×6=) 1,088 cubic meters of earth would have been excavated, thus in all (10,800×11=) 118,800 cubic meters. If we set the minimum of 10 % for the additional volume of the extracted earth, then the latter would have had a volume of (118,800×1.1=) approx. 130,700 cubic meters. For purposes of illustration, let it be said that this enormous quantity of earth would have been able to cover the entire surface area of the Treblinka II camp with a layer nearly one meter high! If this mass were arranged in the form of a pile 6 m high, with sides each having an angle of 30 degrees and a width of 10 m, then its length would have amounted to (130,700÷30@) 4.4 kilometers, covering some 44,000 m2! If one should construct such a pile of soil next to each grave, then this would be some 390 m long each!
According to Abraham Krzepicki, the dirt was loaded into wagons and dumped on the side. (Donat, 86). Of course, this doesn't mean that this was the only way of taking care of the sand was to dump it on the side. The sand may have been transported out of the camp.
3.3 Water Infestation?
Another issue briefly touched upon by Mattogno is that the water in the well in the middle of the extermination area in Treblinka:
The pollution of water, air, and soil by decomposing corpses had been proven scientifically a long time before the 1940s. Studies performed in the nineteenth century had shown that the ground water in the vicinity of cemeteries was often so severely contaminated that the water in the wells was putrid, murky, and permeated by organic substances. In 1878, F. Selmi, Professor of Pharmaceutical and Toxicological Chemistry at the University of Bologna, discovered that in addition to ammonia, sulphuric acid, carbonic acid, and gaseous hydrocarbons, a toxic alkaloid is also generated through the decomposition of corpses, which he named 'ptomaine.' At about the same time, other scientists proved that cadavers develop yet another volatile toxic substance, 'sepsin.' Moreover, it had already long been experimentally proven that many pathogenic microorganisms in the soil - the cause of typhus fever being among them - are very capable of resisting atmospheric effects.[396] In Treblinka, according to S. Rajzman, typhus fever constituted "the main plague."[397]
The water supply of the camp was secured by wells. On the plan of Treblinka drawn by Moszek Laks and Maniek Płatkiewicz,[398] four wells can be recognized, one for the German guard unit, one for the Ukrainian guard unit, one for the Jewish prisoners, and a fourth, which was surely located in 'Camp II.' There can therefore be no doubt that hundreds of thousands of bodies allegedly buried in 'Camp II' would have completely poisoned the ground water, which supplied the wells. Yet not a single witness mentions a thing about this critical problem.
It is easy to look at the fact that water wells have been contaminated in the past and that there was an enormous amount of bodies buried in camp II and then conclude "the well must have been infected".
Unfortunately it is not this simple. Mattogno has not looked into any important factors, including the depth of the well, the permeability of the bedrock and subsoil, the prisoner's susceptibility to toxins, the underground aqua flow, etc. These are very prominent factors which Mattogno completely ignores.
But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the well was infected. Why is the witnesses' not mentioning this of grave significance? Why would the courts be interested in knowing such details?
Labels: Holocaust denial Adolf Hitler Belzec Sobibor Treblinka Carlo Mattogno Germar Rudolf Arnulf Neumaier
posted by 104839sobe104839 at 10:27 PM
3 comments
Zahn (6 days ago)Who's hair is it? Does it have a stamp in the hair that is microscopic? The credibility of it being Jewish hair is zilch, little Jew. It most likely is a German persons hair, claimed to be a Jews hair.Zahn (6 days ago)It seems to me you're bothered by DenierBuds solid substance, and why you're bothered is that people are going to realize that the holocaust is a stratagem for thieving money for Israel. Eh? You Jewish thieves are caught at your game. DenierBud reveals it.
floghammer (3 weeks ago)Common knowledge or not, urine does have a high sodium content and would not quench thirst effectively, although water concentration in urine varies considerably. However, Sharing urine would quickly render the urine useless at quenching thirst. Dehydration must be severe before people resort to drinking urine. If Jews drank urine it is because they like it.
sobe104839 (3 weeks ago)The Jews in the Warschau transports in 1942 were severely dehydrated. And so what is urine has a high sodium content (btw, here I wasn't implying that sodum content doesn't matter)? Again, was this really "common knowledge"? See comment below-->(Reply) (Remove) (Block User) (Spam)sobe104839 (3 weeks ago)"If Jews drank urine it is because they like it."
Thanks for emptying your mind of its miserable and pathetic contents and showing what you crave in your spare time.
emgnerd (3 weeks ago)It's typical of you Jews to accuse someone of something that somebody is accusing you of. It's the oldest Jewry trick in the book. Just copy your opponent's moves like a monkey.
sobe104839 (3 weeks ago)Don't call me a Jew, first and last warning, idiot. I am not a Jew.
emgnerd (3 weeks ago)now you're just plain outright lying. Good job with the insults though, Jew. You're really fooling me.
sobe104839 (3 weeks ago)Oh, yes, you can obviously determine my religion through short comments I leave at a website. What comes next, telepathy? Fascist.emgnerd (3 weeks ago)My comment had nothing to do with your religious alignment.
But of course because you're Jewish you're trying to pin it on me, hoping that no one else will read your earlier comments.
posted by 104839sobe104839 at 6:27 PM
0 comments
