Why was the Auschwitz swimming pool never removed?

Original post by Viceroy

Maybe because the bodies were burned after they were gassed. Maybe because the Nazis were despicable and tried to cover up the atrocities they committed. Maybe because they incinerated people in crematoria. Maybe because they systematically shot men, women, children, babies, elderly, handicapped in droves.

And way to quote *Arno* Mayer (not Adorno Mayer), a favorite text of Holocaust deniers. The paragraph you were quoting from talks about the systematic destruction of evidence of the camps and gas chambers more specifically by members of the SS to cover their tracks. You were quoting out of context. And your "Dr Larson" information is coming from the Institute for Historical Review, which is a Holocaust denial/hate group (http://www.ihr.org/main/about.shtml).

You've basically abandoned logic and evidence and resorted to name-calling. I appreciate that this is essentially a sacred subject, so challenging aspects of it is likely to provoke outrage. I understand that.

Nonetheless, the evidence is there and needs to be addressed.

As you acknowledge, there were outbreaks of typhus. This is confirmed by the British Intelligence intercepts and medical reports noted above. People who died in the camps were cremated - that would also be logical in terms of preventing the spread of disease.

Again, I'm not sure why the Germans would openly admit there were hangings and shootings, but not mention gas if that was part of the plan.

Also, whether people died of disease or gas, the German regime ultimately bears responsibility.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 42

Original post by Chi019

...

I am not abandoning logic: you are citing hate groups and Holocaust deniers (and acting like one). Obviously there was illness during the war that affected people in camps, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of murders that occurred. The Nazis denied and tried to cover up the vast majority of what they did. That is not hard to understand. You are denying the legitimacy of the suffering and deaths of millions of people, and the ramifications of the Nazis' crimes on people who are still alive now, the family members of those killed (like me).

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 43

Original post by Rosasaurr

Are you SERIOUSLY implying the holocaust didn't happen? .

My understanding is that revisionists argue that there were millions of deaths, but the evidence suggests this was largely due to typhus outbreaks, as well as hangings & shootings. This view has some support given pathologist Dr Charles Larson who performed autopsies after the war finished found no evidence of people dying from gas. Similarly, the British Intelligence intercepts (edited by FH Hinsley) found the Germans discussing the typhus outbreaks, plus hangings & shootings. There was no reference to gas. The existence of zyklon in the camps is easily explained for de-lousing to combat the spread of typhus.

The other thing that I find disturbing is the evidence of widespread torture of German witnesses, as reported by Judge Edward L. van Roden.* Similarly, according to Ken Jones, a private of the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery, stationed with Hoess:**

"He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks... We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance. "

* Judge Edward L. van Roden, "American Atrocities in Germany," Progressive (February 1949)
** Ken Jones, Wrexham Leader. October 17, 1986

Reply 44

Original post by Viceroy

I am not abandoning logic: you are citing hate groups and Holocaust deniers (and acting like one). Obviously there was illness during the war that affected people in camps, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of murders that occurred. The Nazis denied and tried to cover up the vast majority of what they did. That is not hard to understand. You are denying the legitimacy of the suffering and deaths of millions of people, and the ramifications of the Nazis' crimes on people who are still alive now, the family members of those killed (like me).

I'm sorry to read that you lost family members. As I said above, ultimately the Nazi regime bears responsibility for the deaths of people in camps.

In relation to citing deniers, this is a bit circular. If I cite Dr Charles Larson, or the British Intelligence records edited by FH Hinsley, or others who are mentioned by IHR, of course these sources are central to the deniers/revisionist case. Nonetheless, the pathology evidence doesn't change. The British Intelligence evidence doesn't change. The Red Cross evidence doesn't change. The reports suggesting it's implausible that the facilities at these camps could have been used to such effect is still there. The evidence that witnesses were tortured is still there.

Anyway, I'm off for a while. I'll have a look at the book you referred to above.

Reply 45

You're giving no information about the "reports" you're citing, but I would wager that they are probably published by hate groups (like the IHR, which you have continuously quoted and referenced).

Here's what you're doing:

1) I checked your sources. You are quoting (almost verbatim) or paraphrasing from hate groups and Holocaust denial groups, such as the Institute for Historical Review, which has been described by the Anti-Defamation League as "a leading voice in the international movement to deny the Holocaust and vindicate Hitler and the Nazi regime" that had its last meeting in conjunction with neo-Nazis. You have acknowledged this. Therefore, you know that the information you are purporting to be "evidence" is being misconstrued and skewed to support the agendas of these Holocaust deniers and cannot qualify as anywhere near objective, and the arguments that this "evidence" is meant to support cannot qualify as legitimate because of its proven distortions and subjectivity. The ADL (link above) describes the IHR's work as "nothing but a masquerade of scholarship."

2) You are willfully and knowingly quoting out of context. You dropped that Meyer quote when I proved that you took it out of context. The context was information that you claim not to know (i.e. that the Nazis destroyed evidence of gas chambers, documents outlining their plans/crimes, etc.) or claim to be confused by (i.e. how it is that we know that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz that were used to murder people). Consequently, since you drew your quotations from this context, you must know the context you drew from, and are denying it to fit your purposes.

Here's my conclusion: you have been rehashing your fallacious arguments and quotations from Holocaust denial groups/individuals, willfully ignoring the fact that the Nazis demolished evidence of so many of their crimes. While you have not categorically denied being a Holocaust denier, you clearly fit the bill as you are (a) both openly and surreptitiously citing "evidence" from hate groups and (b) intentionally taking others' arguments out of context in the very same manner and towards the same purposes as these hate groups. Therefore, you are clearly purporting the argument of a Holocaust denier and are not, as you seem to claim, simply "confused" by "evidence" (of these hate groups' design).

Truly done engaging with you. Stop quoting me, I won't respond. And don't even think about "apologizing" to people like me or others on here for the impact the Holocaust had on our families. Your words are empty.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 46

Original post by HCubed

And if you have a grandfather, that as a freshly qualified medic was one of the first to enter another famous camp, and who was so traumatized by what he found that day he never spoke of it to his family, and in fact became a very changed man. Would that be enough for me to know you're full of it - or did he miss the leisure facilities when he was sifting bodies for someone to help?

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow? What exactly that I've set out above do you think is inaccurate?

- that typhus outbreaks were rampant?

- that the pathologist Dr Charles Larson found no evidence anyone died from gas when performing autopsies after the war?

- that zyklon-B was used for de-lousing?

- that British Intelligence (British Intelligence in the Second World War, edited by F. H. Hinsley) intercepted Nazi communications referring to deaths in the camps due to typhus, shootings & hangings?

- That witnesses, including the likes of Rudolph Hoess were tortured?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 47

ageshallnot

21

The problem with Larson's evidence is that he never visited a camp at which gas was used as a means of mass killing. He was restricted to those in the US-controlled sector and the main extermination camps were in the Soviet area. Therefore his evidence is largely irrelevant.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 48

The Right

Original post by Adil96m

Why is it that people can never question the holocaust, everything that we are told about should be questioned including the holocaust. When someone has a different perspective/view on the holocaust you all just get butthurt for whatever reason.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Because majority of the time it gets questioned is during or after Israel commit a so called "offensive". And majority of the time it is questioned by muslims whether on TV debates (big questions, question time), on muslim owned websites (I checked and its rife), on TSR or in reality. The fact is the whole basis of such a question/investigation stems from hatred of the jews. So from there all conclusions are flawed or bias. This is why they pick random, neutral independent candidates for a jury to avoid these flaws. It is clear muslims hate and will always hate jews so they have no right to ask the question as from the beginning they want the answer to be "the Holocaust was fake". You need to have an open mind before you investigate it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 49

Original post by HairyCanary

Swimming pool + millions of murdered Jews = Jews not actually murdered.

Logic. :rolleyes:

On a more serious note: if you honestly think a hole in the ground full of water can discredit the holocaust............. wow.

It'd be like saying the Yazidis and Kurds murdered in Iraq weren't actually murdered because oh **** there was a swimming pool nearby. HELLO MAKES NO SENSE.

As noted above, the swimming pool is a red-herring. The more substantive case against the claim of gassing comes from the British Intelligence reports (F.H. Hinsley) and pathology evidence that the deaths were from typhus, plus shooting & hangings.

Another question is raised by the International Red Cross Report published in 1948. This describes routine inspection-visits that its doctors made through the war years to the Polish labour-camps. Their report never hints at any gas-chamber, nor any mass-cremations.

There are other things that seem to contradict the idea of deliberate extermination.

For example, a brutal commander, Karl Koch ran Buchenwald from 1937 until early 1942. He stole from inmates and he then had killed to cover up his thefts. He was charged by an SS court with murder and corruption, found guilty and executed.

SS indictment brief against Karl Koch, 11 April 1944. Document NO-2360.

Another bizarre finding is the U.S. Army intelligence document of 24 April 1945 entitled Buchenwald: A Preliminary Report. This was released in 1972 and noted that much of camp administration at Buchenwald was turned over to the inmates:

The trusties had wide powers over their fellow inmates. At first they were drawn almost exclusively from the German criminals. This period lasted until 1942. But gradually the Communists began to gain control of this organization. They were the oldest residents, with records of 10-12 years in the concentration camps ... They clung together with remarkable tenacity, whereas the criminal elements were simply out for their own individual welfare and had little group cohesiveness. The Communists maintained excellent discipline and received a certain amount of direction from outside the camp. They had brains and technical qualifications for running the various industries established at the camp.

In relation to the deaths from disease outbreaks, there is apparently this directive from the SS camp administration dated Dec. 28, 1942, to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. This provides:

“camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps.”

“The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp commandants … The camp doctors are to see to it that the working conditions at the various labor places are improved as much as possible.”

Nuremberg document PS-2171, Annex 2; NC&A red series, Vol. 4, pp. 833-834.

Also Richard Gluecks, sent a circular letter to each camp commandant dated January 20, 1943. In it he ordered:

"As I have already pointed out, every means must be used to lower the death rate in the camp."

Nuremberg document NO-1523; NMT green series, Vol. 5, pp. 372-373

Also, in 1943, the SS arrested Buchenwald Commandant Karl Koch for mistreating and executing prisoners. He was found guilty by SS Judge Konrad Morgan and was executed for his crimes. If there were an extermination policy in force, would they bother trying and executing Commandant Koch?

Reply 50

Original post by The Right

Mate there is nothing you can do to convince otherwise. This question is only being asked because of the recent or ongoing events in Gaza and the west bank. It all stems from hatred of the jews. I too had family who saw the sick camps. People were half dead, malnourished, as if their soul was destroyed.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Which no one denies. As noted above, that is also consistent with the revisionist claim that there were outbreaks of typhus in the camps and as resources ran out there was starvation - both amongst civilians and obviously those in camps. As noted earlier, Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard University School of Public Health, who was with US forces in Germany in 1945 reported:

The outbreaks in concentration camps and prisons made up the great bulk of typhus infection encountered in Germany…Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an astounding sight, a mixture of humanity travelling this way and that, homeless, often hungry and carrying typhus with them ...

Germany was in chaos. The destruction of whole cities and the path left by advancing armies produced a disruption of living conditions contributing to the spread of the disease. Sanitation was low grade, public utilities were seriously disrupted, food supply and food distribution was poor, housing was inadequate and order and discipline were everywhere lacking. Still more important, a shifting of populations was occurring such as few countries and few times have experienced.

John E. Gordon, "Louse-Borne Typhus Fever in the European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army, 1945," in Forest Ray Moulton, editor, Rickettsial Diseases of Man (Washington, DC: American Academy for the Advancement of Science, 1948), pp. 16-27.

Similarly, Dr. Russell Barton, a medical student in 1945, who volunteered to care for the diseased survivors, testified under sworn oath in a Toronto in 1985 that "Thousands of prisoners who died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II weren't deliberately starved to death but died from a rash of diseases."*

* "Disease killed Nazis' prisoners, MD says," Toronto Star, Feb. 8, 1985, p. A2.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 51

username1258156

Original post by Chi019

As noted above, the swimming pool is a red-herring. The more substantive case against the claim of gassing comes from the British Intelligence reports (F.H. Hinsley) and pathology evidence that the deaths were from typhus, plus shooting & hangings.

Another question is raised by the International Red Cross Report published in 1948. This describes routine inspection-visits that its doctors made through the war years to the Polish labour-camps. Their report never hints at any gas-chamber, nor any mass-cremations.

There are other things that seem to contradict the idea of deliberate extermination.

For example, a brutal commander, Karl Koch ran Buchenwald from 1937 until early 1942. He stole from inmates and he then had killed to cover up his thefts. He was charged by an SS court with murder and corruption, found guilty and executed.

SS indictment brief against Karl Koch, 11 April 1944. Document NO-2360.

Another bizarre finding is the U.S. Army intelligence document of 24 April 1945 entitled Buchenwald: A Preliminary Report. This was released in 1972 and noted that much of camp administration at Buchenwald was turned over to the inmates:

In relation to the deaths from disease outbreaks, there is apparently this directive from the SS camp administration dated Dec. 28, 1942, to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. This provides:

Nuremberg document PS-2171, Annex 2; NC&A red series, Vol. 4, pp. 833-834.

Also Richard Gluecks, sent a circular letter to each camp commandant dated January 20, 1943. In it he ordered:

Nuremberg document NO-1523; NMT green series, Vol. 5, pp. 372-373

Also, in 1943, the SS arrested Buchenwald Commandant Karl Koch for mistreating and executing prisoners. He was found guilty by SS Judge Konrad Morgan and was executed for his crimes. If there were an extermination policy in force, would they bother trying and executing Commandant Koch?

Oh please........
Has it ever occurred to you that the SS may have tried to cover things up? Do things to create a facade?

Having family killed in the camps as well as getting to know many German people who are now elderly, their accounts match up. Even had an ex SS working for the UK side of my family and they say the same. This bull you reference doesn't.

It is easy to take things out of context or manipulate things.

Reply 52

Original post by HairyCanary

Oh please........
Has it ever occurred to you that the SS may have tried to cover things up? Do things to create a facade?

Having family killed in the camps as well as getting to know many German people who are now elderly, their accounts match up. Even had an ex SS working for the UK side of my family and they say the same. This bull you reference doesn't.

It is easy to take things out of context or manipulate things.

That's true, but I don't see why they'd admit to shootings and hangings (British Intelligence intercepts - FH Hinsley) but not the gassings.

Also, if you're talking about eyewitness testimony originally there was eyewitness evidence of systematic gas chamber use in Germany. That was part of the Nuremberg trials. Then in the mid 1970's Simon Wiesenthal wrote that there were no extermination camps on German soil. It seems quite unreliable.

Reply 53

HCubed

13

Original post by Chi019

That's true, but I don't see why they'd admit to shootings and hangings (British Intelligence intercepts - FH Hinsley) but not the gassings.

Also, if you're talking about eyewitness testimony originally there was eyewitness evidence of systematic gas chamber use in Germany. That was part of the Nuremberg trials. Then in the mid 1970's Simon Wiesenthal wrote that there were no extermination camps on German soil. It seems quite unreliable.

So if one person says something, it invalidates all physical evidence? I can see why you have such difficulty with logic.

I wonder if gassing people on an industrial scale was denied because, you know, it was quite a naughty thing to do? Whereas common or garden war crimes like shooting and starving prisoners, well that happens all the time, hardly worth denying.

Incidentally - I know you know it's all BS but HD's have to play the game and pretend this tosh is convincing. But do we really have to go over all this?

Reply 54

Though I've discredited poster Chi09's evidence before (see post 52 on page 3), I'll have a go at the rest of his evidence now.

Red Cross Report of 1948--He is taking information out of historical context. More information on what the Red Cross knew during the war can be found here in a NY Times report.

FH Hinsely--He is taking these reports out of context once again. I do not feel comfortable posting the links to the websites I think he's looking at because they are super creepy, but this report falls into the same category as the Red Cross reports.

Wiesenthal's 1975 statement about "no extermination camps in Germany"--Another favorite quote from the IHR. The gist is of what he meant was that extermination camps did not exist within the modern boundaries of Germany; there were camps in parts of the country that belonged to it pre-war, but not now. That's it.

It's making my stomach turn just tracking down this garbage.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 55

Original post by Viceroy

I am not abandoning logic: you are citing hate groups and Holocaust deniers (and acting like one). Obviously there was illness during the war that affected people in camps, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of murders that occurred. The Nazis denied and tried to cover up the vast majority of what they did. That is not hard to understand. You are denying the legitimacy of the suffering and deaths of millions of people, and the ramifications of the Nazis' crimes on people who are still alive now, the family members of those killed (like me).

Have you ever heard of a closed system?

If you label, scapegoat, ostracise and fire all of the people with one point of view ( that the Holocaust is a lie), then you are only left with one point of view regardless of whether it is true or false.

You are just reinforcing the closed loos system, nothing more. You are providing evidence of one reason why the theory of the reason that the Holocaust theory needs to be questioned.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 56

Original post by HCubed

And if you have a grandfather, that as a freshly qualified medic was one of the first to enter another famous camp, and who was so traumatized by what he found that day he never spoke of it to his family, and in fact became a very changed man. Would that be enough for me to know you're full of it - or did he miss the leisure facilities when he was sifting bodies for someone to help?

British soldiers traumatised by finding civilian bodies in German camps is proof of civilian deaths only. It is not proof of murder and not proof of a gas chamber weapon.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 57

Original post by HairyCanary

Or being a douchebag.

I think you fail to appreciate that there are many people who have looked at the evidence in depth and genuinely come to the conclusion that the Holocaust story is a myth or an exaggeration of about 20 to 30 times in scale and massively in scope.

I don't think you understand that many of these people don't have any agenda or wish to promote hate.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 58

Original post by ageshallnot

The problem with Larson's evidence is that he never visited a camp at which gas was used as a means of mass killing. He was restricted to those in the US-controlled sector and the main extermination camps were in the Soviet area. Therefore his evidence is largely irrelevant.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Your suggestion is a bit like saying water flows through holes. The Holocaust tale is woven around all of the factors that don't agree with it:

- Dr. Larson found no gas deaths - well the gas deaths must have been in the camps he didn't visit.

- Red Cross reports don't agree - well the Red Cross were only shown "show camps" or they are "Holocaust deniers"

- There are no orders and no documentation - well it was too secret

- there was a post office in Auschwitz for the inmates to use (how could a top secret facility work if people are allowed to send out communications?) - well it was operation mail, preprepared post cards .

- what about the non pre prepared postcards, the letters, - "There's no point arguing with a Holocaust denier, whatever you say you can't convince them."

Do you see how it goes?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 59