From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Dec 18 09:40:22 PST 1995 Article: 16577 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!van-bc!fonorola!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Auschwitz, a secret? Date: 18 Dec 1995 09:58:31 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 81 Message-ID: <4b3e07$e2g@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne6.vir.com I saw recently a post from Mark Van Alstine who was quoting Y. Edeken about this topic. As I caught it from the university newsgroup I can't quote it, but I'll talk about it (It is not available from my usual provider). My argument was that almost nothing related to the gas chamber story appeared in the propaganda organized by Chaim Weizman and his friends before the mid 1944 for the case of Auschwitz. I also said that the summer propaganda (1944) was drop quickly and that the use of Auschwitz in the propaganda reappeared really with much more emphasis in november 1944. The 'almost nothing' here mean that the 2 propaganda stories that I know were not even about jews but about polish childrens and russian POWS. I'm unsure but I think there's one story about the use of lethal gas in Auschwitz against jews but this wasn't in the polish fighting review. And even then, I'm unsure if I remember well and if I didn't dream about it, if there's really a single story about mass gasing of jews there before the mid 1944. But there was a large amount of propaganda about mass electrocutions, and other fishy stories wich were drop after the war, plus the usual statements about liquidation with gas in Belzec, Treblinka. This was my point and the reply of Y. Edeken and Mark was that I was wrong because...explicit references on gas chambers in Auschwitz were done at the summer of 1944! There's more: even if I said that the uncredible story turning around the WRB report (november 44) had many problems because W. Laqueurt in 'The terrible secret' said himself that hundreds of liberations and escapes happened before 1944 (page 168-169), even if the other points that I mentionned show that it wasn't necessery that such an evasion occured to get the whole world learning about mass gasing tardivelly (november 1944), the reply was that I was wrong because an escape occured in november 1944! Here we seems to touch an interesting point for wich the holocaust promoters seems to have no response to give. On the other hand it was told that frequent request to the allied were done to bombard the gas chamber in the summer of 1944. I know. I don't remember wich reference was given but I'd like to have the book title if it contain the letters wich were sent to american autorities. When I learned for the first time about that in 'the hoax' I though that an explanation was that Weizman and Morgenthau were engaged in a propaganda for a while and that, naturally, they were able to see that they had a bit more chance to be believe by US government if they think at least to request this bombardment. The US authorities didn't believe them despite that. My impression was due to the fact that I was already fully convince that the gas chamber story was a hoax (I don't know how many hundreds of revisionnist arguments I had read before to fall on that story) but this explanation didn't satisfy me totally. On the other hand, I've retry recently to imagine the picture and it doesn't sound as strange as it was the first time. The request for the bombardment of gas chambers was a continuation of a long propaganda, it was just another aspect of it. "Chaim Weizmann had proposed such measures in the summer of 1944 (somewhat half-heartedly, it appears). The strong impression gained is that the British and Americans, while pretending to consider Weizmann's proposal seriously, were just engaged in verbal games." I don't know what Butz was refering to when he said 'half-heartedly', if some revisionnist have the response I'd be interest. On the other hand I'd be interest to have the title of the book wich was given by M V Alstine to see the context surrounding this exchange, I'm unsure if it contain interesting details but the data wich was in the posting that I saw at Montreal University wasn't new to me. If one can give it again, this message was never receive by my usual provider. PS: I have some problems with some messages wich are loss, if I count my bbs connection I have try 3 providers and it seems that internet connections are not always reliable, I'm wrong? Do you have such problems elsewhere? I'm unsure if it's a common practice to send a duplicate in email but it seems that if 5 or 10% of the messages are lost, this is a good way to avoid such problems. J. McCarthy and U. Roessler seems to use this practice with me, but I'm unsure if the last one has the same problem on his side. From email@example.com Tue Dec 19 08:01:51 PST 1995 Article: 16696 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!istar.net!fonorola!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Auschwitz, a secret? Date: 19 Dec 1995 03:42:05 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 257 Message-ID: <4b5cad$t62@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne5.vir.com Ulrich Roessler (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote >Newsgroups: alt.revisionism >Subject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret? >Date: 18 Dec 1995 20:00:24 GMT >Organization: Lichtenbergs Buckel, Goettingen >Lines: 125 >Message-ID: <email@example.com> >References: <4aqp9u$pik@Vir.com> I'll quote some of your statements in disorder but not all, I think that those who want more details will be able to read your letter in alt.revisionism. I'll try to extract the basic statements plus some minor considerations. It's certainly the first serious attempt from somebody here to reply on a rationnal bases to my statements rather than a misrepresentation of it (despite a minor point). So I think I could resume your argumentation by that: >That the Polish underground and hence the Polish government in exile >had far better information about the destruction centers Belzec, Sobibor, >Treblinka isn't surprising given the fact that Auschwitz was in the part of >Eastern Upper Silesia, annexed to the Reich, where Polish population >was largely swept out and expulsed to the Government General. In Laqueurt book there's many contrary statements. He not just talk about hundreds of civilians who were working there (germans and poles) but he also said around page 25 that everybody 'knew' about the mass gasing there, polish farmers mainly. All the polish population around was suppose to be aware, but it is _his_ postwar statement, probably base on an inquery among polish population there and post war trials. But here, when we read the text, the main reason for wich it is said that they 'knew' is the stench around the camp. After the war, a great publicity was made around Hoess affidavit to say that the constant stench around the camp was a proove of mass extermination, and some polish farmers were brough as eye witness, or let say nose witness to testify about that. They didn't knew anything in connection with a mass liquidation during the war since this information didn't reach western countries at the moment, but the large publicity surrounding crematorias and the post war propaganda was suffisant to give them the 'correct' interpretation to use _after the war_. On the other hand, on account of the furor of phony objections raised by various fanatics in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, cremation had been developed so that it was rather a 'clean' process. It is ridiculous to think that the cremation of 30 or 46 bodies at a time could compete with the emanation of an a large complex of syntetic rubber fabrication there. You have many crematories equipped with a couple of ovens in most of large agglomerations and there's no problem create by that. But everybody can guess that the emanations from a complex of raffineries can be smell miles and miles around. So here my first source to contradict this statement is the non revisionist author Laqueurt. I can bring others if you want. >So in the region of Auschwitz, the possibilities and strength of the >Polish underground were weaker than in Government General. The Poles had >been the most important source of information about the situation in >occupied Eastern Europe. Apparently via Polish sources the Vatican had It is partly true only. It was impossible for the germans to avoid some contacts between the inmates and the local population. Many polish were, indeed, members of the resistance and some inmates had conversation with local populations when they were bring out of Auschwitz to execute misclellaneous labour tasks. Sometimes those civilians were hidding food and parcels somewhere before the inmates came to pick up those ones. Often, the SS in charge of the commandos were faking ignorance about those things in exchange of food or gifts. (J. Garlinski, Fighting Auschwitz, p 43-45). The contacts with the local population were develloped in such a way that letters and parcels could be send off the camp by the internal resistant ceils of Bikernau and Auschwitz on a regular basis. A group of the Cracovia resistance was regulary inform via letters. In this town were preserved 350 of those letters, 'a small fraction of a very much more important total' (H. Langbein, 'Hommes et femmes a Auschwitz', p.252). The was also an emettor receiver wich was in activity over 7 months in Auschwitz and due to its contacts, the direction of the Silesia local AK ceil (Armia Krajowa) was able to get the wavelenght for wich the contact was soon establish (J. Garlinski, Fighting Auschwitz p 126) I think Reitlinger did mention also this emettor. Jozef Garlinski, the autor of 'Fighting Auschwitz. The resistance movement in the concentration camp', London, Friedmann 1975, is not a revisionnist. I could continue with many other authors, but I think it's unecessary. >A few remarks about this: Auschwitz, was known as _death camp_ in 1943. >If memory serves right, the Jewish member of the Polish parliament in exile >in London, Zyjgelbom , received informations about this and published >them before he committed suicide in desperation. In the list of _death camps_ >the name of Auschwitz appears also. By then, more people had been murdered >in Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec than in Auschwitz. I'm unsure about your statement. Your memory is not probably deserving here since if we refer to the same document of the GPE, 'The massive extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland), publish in London in december 1942, this document do not contain the name of Auschwitz. It is true in the official story that by then, something like twice more people were allegedly killed in Treblinka (if memory deserve to, well...) but here there's a main difference between those camps: I gave a lot of informations about the open nature of Auschwitz, the fact that hundreds of civilians were working there, that an emttor was in activity, that the inmattes were frequently reshipped in annex camps or places were they were in contact with civilians, the fact that there was hundreds of liberations from this camp accordind to Laqueurt, and also many escapes. Another important thing is that due to its strategic importance with the Buma plants, Auschwitz was certanly in the collimator of the american intelligence services. Treblinka or Belzec were not strategically important. there was allegedly few escapes from there but the bulk is suppose to have happen in 1943. Treblinka was suround by farms, but the local population wasn't in contact with the inmates, inmates were not shipped around for works, I don;t know any reports about it, and there wasn't hundreds of civilians who were working there. The only thing wich couldn't be keepen secret in my mind is the giantistic bonfires of the mid 1943. But your GPE report was publish in december 1942, almost 9 month after the start of mass gasing in Auschwitz. So the claim that 2 or 3 times less jews were killed there is irrelevant to explain the absence of Auschwitz in the GPE report (if we talk about the same one): the transparence of the camp versus Belzec was a far more important factor. >Also, the Red Cross had some unclear informations about Auschwitz, >as you may see from J.-C. Favez' book about the Red Cross and the Holocaust - >they knew that Jews from Theresienstadt were deported to Auschwitz at times. >Hence, there was information about Auschwitz - but not very detailed. Did they talk about mass gasing of jews there in 1942,43 or the first period (at least) of 1944? no. >But this required the usual network of people in underground to collect >and corroborate informations, and to transport it OUTSIDE of the camps, >which was better in central Poland than around Auschwitz with its dense >network of SS-agencies, who'd been eager to Germanize the region. This is wrongo to. Auschwitz was mention several times in the Polish fighting review during WW II as I said. But there, the recriminations, fed by the the jews and polish ceils there were talking about privations, torture, typhus, kapos, but not mass gasing of jews. I dont thing that I have to believe every statements wich were done, since some of them could be exagerate for the sake of propaganda (since there was report about mass electrocution elsewhere, why not?) but I think that there was certainly a good bases of truth also, I never said that Bikernau was a paradise and the reports about it in the Polish fighting review described it as even worst than Auschwitz 1 (they had a link with jewish ceils there too). But it's a bit surprising that despite the P.F.R. gives a lot of details about the daily life of inmates, over 2 years 1/2 the only extensive reference about a gassing doesn't concern jews but a group of 1000 russian pows. So the polish resistance was aware about the liquidation of 1000 russian with zyclon B a day but not about the daily liquidation of 600, 800 or 1,000 jews each day over 2 years???? You can't say neither that they were just interest to talk about polish or russian victims since the polish resistance help to spread a lot of propaganda about Treblinka and Belzec. There's also a minor reference about an unconfirm report of the gassing of polish childrens, but it appear just one time over a couple of lines on thousands wich were written and this story seems to have been drop after the war. >The flow of information via Germany was by far less important. However, >as you surely know, C.J.Burckhardt, leading member of the International >Red Cross confirmed the news about the ongoing exterminations of the >Polish Jews already in 1942-43 - he had possibly informations from >German sources. He said that after the war I suppose? but anyway the facts are there: during the war, the quaisy totality of the red cross members inEurope did not take seriously the propaganda about mass extermination, even for Belzec and Treblinka, despite they were well informed. It is generally after the war, on the bases of the Nuremberg trial 'proofs' that the 'rumors' that they rejected became suddenly 'knowledge'. >But, he also wrote in a letter to his wife, that he had got informations >by an absolutely trustworthy source, that the SS had invented some >crematoria oven or furnace which could process one thousand human >beings in a day. From his letters, it is completely obvious, that >it was difficult to gather exact informations even for such an officer - >however, he HAD informations about the ongoing mass-destructions of the >Jews and about the means the SS used. You must be able to explain this. Hard since it's the first time that I'm earing about that story. As you can suspect, I dislike to attack a piece of 'evidence' when I dont know it perfectly despite I like to see you bringing new data. Well, a false letter, a false document? the less probable hypothesis. The first idea wich come to my mind is that he was simply one of those rare sensitive and potentially anti-nazi officers who were able to believe teh anti-nazi propaganda totally. Such propaganda was circulating often underground (via the german resistance), but I'm unsure if Hellmuth Count Moltke was a Wermach officer, with your text I'll assume it. A lot of catholic and conservative german officers were not liking nazism and, since you said that he was a member of a plot ( the july attempt agaisnt Hitler?) I can guess that he heard about such stories from anti-nazi elements that he believed immediatelly. He wasn't in Auschwitz. Your own words was that he eared about crematories and the relation to one thousand body at a day, not gas chambers in Auschwitz, a general and vague propaganda. >There are other bits and pieces of informations which do exist and >contradict your opinion about all this being mere propaganda inventions, >Germans in Kattowitz, the next bigger town near Auschwitz, knew quite >exactly what was going on in Auschwitz - e.g. I remember a small piece >of oral history about this (in W.Kempowski: _Haben Sie davon gewusst_). >Or R.Hilberg mentions a sort of diary by a Belgian member of the resistance _after the war_. And the argumemt still hold: why such a thing wasn't publicies in London if all the conditions were there? Why did the polish fighting review began to talk about mass gasing of jews in Auschwitz in 1945 only? How can it be credible, if we look at all the datas, the escapes, the liberations, that a double evasion was necessary at the end of the war only for the whole world to 'learn' about mass gasing there (the WRB report)? Isn't a bit absurd that the author were anonymous for 16 years while it was more credible to present them immediatelly? You said that I'm dishonest because I don't believe the 1944 propaganda. In the fact, the summer propaganda was quickly drop and reappear only in november 1944, in a huge level this time. And I gave the reason: if the US government had support the propaganda in the summer ( they did not endorse it seriously before the camp was evacuated), since, contrarely to the other camps, Auschwitz was visit daily by hundreds of civilians, the german government would have the obligation to respond to such an accusation and a neutral commision from Switzerland, or the red-cross, would quickly give a rebutal of that after a couple of visits there. Auschwitz wasn't an obscur facility like Belzec, it wasn't possible to claim 'well, they just did some camouflage with the gas chambers to fool the neutral representants'. So the US government endorse the propaganda just a bit before the evacuation of the camp. My main point is simple: there was much more reason for the knowledge of mass gasing there over 2 years 1/2 than for other camps, and it is unexplanable that this didn't appear in the propaganda. Auschwitz was, in the SS 'confessions', designed as the _central_ extermination camp, the number 1. But the WW II propagandist didn't use it, despite they used minor stories about 1,000 russian POWS. After the war, the propagandist saw that the presence of a large amount of crematorias there was usefull to shift the story and center it around Auschwitz since those 'proofs' were more able to strike imagination. The camp wasn't demolish like Treblinka when it was shut down by the nazis, it was a powerfull porpagandist tool, so it became the main extermination camp. So, even if the Treblinka and Belzec WW II stories were true, the Nuremberg prosecution took the huge risk to consecrate a simple goulag as the no 1 extermination camp despite the real one were elsewhere? I'm unsure if I saw this reference about the gasing of jews before the mid 1944, its possible that a single one appeared in the propaganda over the large amount of othe one concerning Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec, but I'll wait to see... From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed Dec 20 09:15:24 PST 1995 Article: 16832 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!van-bc!news.rmii.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret? Date: 20 Dec 1995 03:41:11 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 309 Message-ID: <4b80kn$h61@Vir.com> References: <4b3e07$e2g@Vir.com> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne16.vir.com Subject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret? From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ken McVay OBC) In article , Ken McVay wrote: >> My argument was that almost nothing related to the gas chamber >> story appeared in the propaganda organized by Chaim Weizman and >> his friends before the mid 1944 for the case of Auschwitz. I also >The first reference I ran across (during a quick peek at the >Auschwitz archives here) to public awareness dealt with the >escape of Vrba and Weczler, which occurred in early April, 1944. Irrelevant again since the WRB report was published in november 1944. It is probably true that the stuff for the WRB report came in USA in the summer of 1944, but I said explicitelly that the first references for mass gasing of jews in Auschwitz were in the summer 1944, despite I'm not totally sure that no one exist before that period, I think it's the case except perhaps for one thet I'm unsure to have see. >According to the article, their report reached President Roosevelt "by >early summer." Copies were also sent to the Pope and other >leaders. >In mid-June, Roosevelt made a statement dealing with the >Hungarian deportations, and referred not to Auschwitz, but to >the "insane desire to wipe out the Jewish race in Europe." >I have some difficulty understanding your English phrasing, so >perhaps you can explain what it is you are trying to say - it >>seems to be this: "Since there weren't news stories about >gassings at Auschwitz, the gassings did not occur." If I am >stating your case incorrectly, please tell me. The phrasing could be: since mass gasing supposely began in early 1942, since those gassingg couldn't be keep secret for Auschwitz especially, since the camp was almost transparent, since ceils were formed by inmates to collect informations and send it to the resistance, since there's almost if no no use of mass gassing for Auschwitz in the propaganda over 2 years, then there was no gassings. But more details could be found at the end of this posting and in the 250 lines reply that I sent to U. Roessler yesterday. And a big part of my argument was based on a publication: the polish fighting review published in London during WW II. To be clear: the critical period is spring 1942 summer 1944. More than 2 years. It is not just that the story of mass gasing of jews was almost if not totally absent in the propaganda about Auschwitz, it is even that the Polish Fighting review mention several times Auschwitz in connection with epidemies, torutures, and other stories, details can be found in the other postings. So Auschwitz was also in the collimator, there was an organized movement in this camp to bring out propaganda but the story about mass gasing of jews is unexistent over 2 years and more. Auschwitz was use in the Polish fighting review in connection >> said that the summer propaganda (1944) was drop quickly and that >> the use of Auschwitz in the propaganda reappeared really with much >> more emphasis in november 1944. The 'almost nothing' here mean >> that the 2 propaganda stories that I know were not even about jews >> but about polish childrens and russian POWS. I'm unsure but I think >You might want to review the Roosevelt statement noted above. It is not contradicting what I said: the first appearance was apparently in the summer of 1944. >> the WRB report (november 44) had many problems because W. Laqueurt >> in 'The terrible secret' said himself that hundreds of liberations >> and escapes happened before 1944 (page 168-169), even if the other >Liberations and escapes from where? Auschwitz? Yes. It's incredible how people seems to have difficulty to see my point. I know that I'm writting sometimes a bad english, especially when I'm tired, but with Y. Eleken, Mark Van Alstine, you're the third who is completelly beside the track in your reply. But here I think that it can be due to the fact that you apparently missed my first posting 10 days ago on that since U. Roessler seems to be the only one up to now who has understand what was my argument and english is not his maternal tongue. But I'll reproduce at the end of this message my first posting on that topic. > The US authorities didn't believe them despite that. >The President certainly believed that the European Jews were >being exterminated. Do you deny that? Yes I do. I know about his speech: it was reproduced 20 years ago in 'The hoax of the twentieth century'. But Roosevelt didn;t mention mass gassing in his public speech of the summer if memory deserve, he just talked about extermination with generalistic words (Hungarian jews) and there was no real public endorsment of the gas chamber story by the president in june if memory deserve, the first public endorsment appeared at the end of 1944. I deny that he believed it because the american didn't lift a finger to bombard the 'gas chambers' in the summer, there was nothing else to bomb than buma factories and crematorias. I'll have to conclude that the american didn't bombard the railroad lines neither between Hungary and Auschwitz since 400,000 jews were allegedly deported there according to the post war propaganda. It was an electoral year, and Roosevelt was simply doing his best when he endorsed a part of Weizman propaganda under pressure. Now I'll reproduce the first posting, it contain many syntactical errors since I was tired when I wrote it, but I think it's almost understandable: ********************************************************************* I apologize if one the reference for wich I'm given the page is a french translation from the book 'the terrifiant secret, W. Laqueurt, but I was unable to find an original english copy. Anyway the refe- rence in english is normally I suppose 5 or 10 pages before the one that I'm quoting. This posting is a mixing of 3 differents sources: a study from Enrique Aynat, The hoax of the twentieth century and a couple of personnal research. a) Could the extermination millions of jews in gas chamber be keepen secret for Auschwitz? Locate near an important aglomeration, the camp was full of civilians. They were woking there during the day before to go home in the evening. In 'les crematoires d'Auschwitz' (1993), the anti-revisionnist writer J.C. Pressac who used germans documents wrote (p62): "For the Bikernau crematories, the germans had contracts with 12 civilians enterprises[...] Each working site was using between 100 and 150 peoples, 1/3 civilians. The number of ovens was growing with years with the expension of the camp and the maintenance was unavoidable. Auschwitz was critical for the allieds: Syntethic rubber production was important for the americans, and it is not surprising that many air photo missions concerning this camp took place. The huge backwardness of the americans concerning the fabrication of synthetic rubber after they had lost their usual source in Malaisia in 1941-42 didn't let them any choice: they had to know everything about Auschwitz, and there's no doubt that they took meseures to pick-up as much information as possible. We know, btw, that the americans broke the cryptology code that the germans used in their communications. Over 2 years 1/2, no mention of mass gasing was intercept despite the germans were ignoring that their communications were decrypt. But there's more: the english historian Laqueurt in 'the terrifiant secret' gaves some hint despite he's not revisionnist: We learn, around page 30, that Auschwitz was an archipello, that thousands of inmates were frequently shipped toward annex camps, mixed with civilians across Silesia, that hundreds of civiliasn were working at Auschwitz, that journalist were travelling freely in this region... It is the same author who say that that there was many liberations in 1942-43-44. And many jews also (200 or 300, page 206 in the french version). The jewish writter Reitlinger , in 'the final solution', talk also of an emettor-receiver wich was in activity in the inmate barracks over months. The amiral Canaris, chief of the conter-spying agency of the third reich was a double agent. He gaves many informations to the allied countries during the war, but nothing about mass liquidation at Auschwitz was transmit. There was an organize resistance in nazi camps. Groups of communist, jews or others were able to send information in London. The short information was transmit with an emettor, polish resistance unities in Warsaw were doing it after the collection of information. The long messages were carried by newsmonger who were travelling across Europe to bring it in Switzerland and then to London. The red cross payed an important role to help inmates in many camps (this one also) but refused to endorse the propaganda about gas chambers during WW2 despite this one wasn't about Auschwitz. The N.Y times archives and some other newspaper published during the war had been deeply studied by the american Butz but also by some non revisionnist historiens: There's almost no if not no reference about mass gasing of jews in Auschwitz before the summer of 1944, and even then those claims received few echos and were quickly forgot. But thos gasing allegedly started in 1942! There's in those newspapers many accusations brought by zionist leaders like Chaim Weizman but often related to a call for the opening of Palestine (under british controll) to jewish immigration. But the quasy totality of the accusations are about executions in Treblinka, Belzec, mass electrocution of jews (sic!), gasing within wagons and so on. A large amount of fantasies wich were, for an important part, dropped after the war. But for Auschwitz, it is hard to find something. The claim of those jewish leaders was that the allied had to negociate with the germans to allow the jews to leave Europe and go in Palestine because it could 'save their life'. b) What was said about Auschwitz? There was some escapes too. W. Pilecki escaped from Auschwitz in april 1943 and 4 months later got in contact with the polish resistance in Warsaw ( "Fighting Auschwitz", J. Garlinsky). But he wasn't alone: W. Laqueurt speak in his book of dozens of escapes in 1942-43-44 (p. 206). And I repeat: Laqueurt doesn't challenge the extermination story, he's a conformist who believe post war testimonies. The Polish fighting review was published by the polish government in exile in London between 1940-45. This review was fed by the resistance ceils (communist and jews) in Auschwitz and Bikernau, J. Garlinsky, a non revisionist author told how the transmission of informations outside the camp was easy. There was contact with civilians, some germans guards of polish descent were easy to buy, the resistance was collecting information on a daily bases from Bikernau. The anti-nazi propaganda brought heavy accusations against germany in this camp: torture, promiscuity, executions, epidemies, a mix of truth and falsehoods, but sometimes impressives details: the number of prisonners, estimations of death rates during the typhus epidemy, details about some dead inmates. The working hours, the task they had to do, but no allusion to mass gasing of jews before 1945 in this review! The only reference concerning a gasing procedure (one in 2 years 1/2) is about a group of russian inmates, that's all. But nothing about was is suppose to be the central story of the camp. But they had a lot of advantages to use it in their propaganda. And it's not the only source from this period: Despite thousands of stories about nazi atrocities fed the propaganda in London, I heard up to now about 2 references about the use of lethal gas in Auschwitz, one concern the russians. But if reports about extermination in obscur facilities like Treblinka were there wasn't hundreds of civilians who were working were coming weekly in London, if a large quantity of reports about mass electrocution, or other atrocity stories wich were drop after the war were used, the strange thing here is that for the central camp of the extermination process, for the more transparent camp the story really began at the end of WWII. Jewish leaders in USA didn't use Auschwitz like they did for other places. We can find a clear indication of that if we read the non revisionist historian Gilbert. In 'Auschwitz and the allieds', one of his conclusion is that nothing of this story transpired between 1942 and june 44. Even the june accusations were quickly drop by the jewish leaders and the story began really in november 1944. The first american raid on Auschwitz was during the summer of 1944. It was the factories wich were bombed, not the 'gas chambers'. The american information services knew that there was nothing to bomb. It is just before the liberation of the camp that the american government decided to endorse Chaim Weizman propaganda: the reason is probably that if he had brough such accusations in 1943, the german government would have take measure to give a rebuttal to those stories: it was easy for Auscwitz since a lot of non germans, civilians could be join and a red cross delegation or a comission from a neutral country hadn't any chance to endorse the propaganda. It is at the end of november 1944, just before the evacuation of the camp that the story really began: the american press revealed that 2 inmates escaped and were able to go in Switzerland to give a verry accurate description of the gassing procedure and the installations in Auscwitz. The authors of the WRB report stayed anonymous during 16 years despite it had be more credible to present those ones immediatelly. They were suppose to be sonderkommandos. Here there's a ridicoulous feature: it wasn't even necessary that a double escape happen for the zionist leaders, the communist and the allied and the whole world learn about mass gasing there. The name of the WRB report wasn't give in 1944. They stayed anonymous for 16 years and the jewish writter Reitlinger was a bit bothered in the first edition of the final solution about this fact but those ones were produced before the second edition of his book 150 miles away from his Sussex domicile (London). Rudolph Vrba, author of a best seller a bit later, 'I cannot forgive'. Vrba is suppose to had the false identity of Walter Rosenberg in Auschwitz despite he wrote that the other inmates called him 'Rudi'. After the war, Auschwitz became the biggest extermination camp in Nuremberg, but there's a problem there: even if the war propaganda was full of scrap wich was drop after 1945, if we look the story the camp for wich the extermination process couldn't be hidden was totally ignored by the propaganda while obscur facilities generate a large amount of accusations despite those one were much more isolated. The WWII propaganda wasn't connect to reality. ********************************************************** References principales: 'politically corrects' books: "Le terrifiant secret", G. Laqueurt, "Auschwitz and the allied", M. Gilbert, "Les crematoires d'Auschwitz", J.C. Pressac, "The final soulution", G. Reitlinger, Revisionnsit books: "The Hoax of the twentieth century", Arthur Butz, 360 pages, 12$ US Institute for historical review, P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 U.S.A. Revue d'histoire revisioniste, no 5 'Le gouvernement polonais en exil', E. Aynat RHR B.P. 122 92704 COLOMBES Cedex, France, 100 ff It is possible that Enrique Aynat study 'the polish government in exile' vould be found also in english at the IHR, but I'm unsure. *** appendice *** A couple of days after my initial posting, I was able to find tha From email@example.com Wed Dec 20 09:15:29 PST 1995 Article: 16878 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: How do Holocaust-deniers explain Ribbentrop? Date: 20 Dec 1995 02:27:28 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 69 Message-ID: <4b7sag$h1i@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne8.vir.com (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.revisionism) >Mr. Beaulieu, I think your last few lines summarize your point: >Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote: >> the hate of Hitler for jews is well known. Perhaps you lost the >> focus because you concentrated yourself on the apparent sincerity of >> Ribbentrop there, but I see that statement as even less usable than >> the other one. >No, I think you lost the focus. The important point was that it was >confirmed that Hitler said these words, or words much like them: > > If the Jews there did not want to work they would be shot. If > they could not work they would have to perish. > > ...innocent beasts of nature...have to be killed...why should > [the Jews] be shown more leniency? >Furthermore, he used these words "in connection with the Jewish >problem." I said that Mein Kamph, Hitler's speech were containing a lot of hate stuff of the same kind before WWII. Slogans to kill jews were used by the SA, the SS even before Hitler took the power. Between the words and the facts, there's often a margin. German jews were not exterminated in the 30's despite they hadn't an easy life. Ribbentrop said himself that he was surprise by Hitler's words. I can interpret that in such a sense: usually the final solution was describe as a programm of expulsion, or Hitler's words were not going so far normally but that day Eva had a headache and didn't satisfy his 'sexy' fuehrer and Hitler's felt furious. Well, you never have a bad day? The thing here is that Ribbentrop felt embarass and surprise by those words : jm>interpreter Schmidt and the two gentlemen the fact that this was the first jm>time the Fuehrer had used expressions in connection with the Jewish problem jm>which I could no longer understand. These words were certainly not jm>invented by Schmidt. The Fuehrer did express himself in some such way at This mean also that in other circunstances, Hitler's speech was less tough. So as I said, it's a certanty that jews were mistreated, and it's quite possible that in Russia or elsewhere exactions (like murders for those who didn't or couldn't(?) want to work) were commited but you try to show that those words described an official policy for the liquidation of jews rather than , well I dont know if it can be say, 'paroles en l'air', or words in the air, words wich are impulsivelly release. This is quite different than a detail report signed by Hitler about an articulate policy of liquidation. The second one would be more difficult to explain. But let say that the sentence: > If the Jews there did not want to work they would be shot. If > they could not work they would have to perish. has all the weight than you'd like it have, lets say that it represent a real proof of what was the official policy of Germany toward all the jews over years, let say that it describe accuratly the final solution as you'd like and that those words are gospel words: so this mean also that the gas chamber story is wrong since the jews were shot, mmmmmmmh? Good try Jamie. I hope you'll have more sucess with the next one. From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Dec 22 02:49:26 PST 1995 Article: 17262 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!natinst.com!news-relay.us.dell.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret? Date: 22 Dec 1995 03:06:03 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 18 Message-ID: <4bd7ar$sg2@Vir.com> References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne9.vir.com email@example.com (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote: > > > firstname.lastname@example.org (Ulrich Roessler) writes: > > > >>>> > Thank you for this fine post. My sister's mother-in-law, a > non-Jewish member of the Polish resistance, has always stated that > she and others knew of the genocide and tried to communicate it > to those outside the Reich. Since she was captured by the nazis > in the fall of 1943, her information had to be available prior to 1944. > > --YFE How regrettable it is that she couldn't! Imagine, there was daily contact between the inmates and polish AK agents over 2 years, plus all the other factors that I mentionned, he she hadn't be the possibility to do it if I'm looking the data wich was written back those days. From email@example.com Tue Dec 26 15:37:23 PST 1995 Article: 17510 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!io.org!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Auschwitz, a secret? (complement) Date: 23 Dec 1995 03:21:58 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 96 Message-ID: <4bfskm$36p@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne18.vir.com I dont know if Ulrich Roessler or K. McVay will reply to the previous messages about this topic, but I think it's preferable now to give the last part of the stuff. An objection that could come from a non revisionnist point of view could be: 'Well, why we sould bother that Auschwitz wasn't a part of the propaganda (if we talk about mass gasing of jews) before the summer of 1944 since it became a well know fact in 1944 anyway?" Here, I can make a parallel with a fictive scenario: I'm an historian of the 25 th century, I'm told that from the 21 th century we all know that Los Angeles was completly destroy by a fire from the first of may 1994 to the 26 of june 1994. There was a fantastic amount of lines wich were written about that, mainly hostorians who quoted historians who resumed what other historians said before and so on. I'm doing some research and I suddenly discovering in the archives that this fire wasn't mention in any of the L.A. newspapers during this period. Morever, I'm doing some research in the dossiers of the city (miracoulously saved from the fire) and I'm discovering that no citizen though to call the fire stations except the 20 june 1994, for wich there's a formal proof that a guy phoned the fireman office about a conflagration in a 3 floors building. The cause is allegedly a computer defectuosity despite the firemans were never able to explain why an undamadged plate with a bacon slice was found close to a carbonized bedspread. This is almost Enrique Eynat case. I'll add some complements here a) What was the A.K b) More on the transmission of information outside the camp c) What was said about Auscwitz a) What was the A.K. ? The Armia Krajowa, or the interior (or secret ) army was formed in 1942 from a previous resistance movement. It was organised like a real army. In 1944 the AK had between 250,000 to 350,000 members. In Bikernau there was a secret organisation created in april 1942 by colonel Karcz. The contacts between the Bikernau organisation and the main camp of Auscwitz took place on a daily bases. The main task of Karcz group wat to provide informations to the Ak elements outside. In 1942 the organisation of W. Pilecki, an ex polish officer, could count on 1000 members between Auschwitz and Bikernau (Fighting Auschwitz, J. Garlinski,p 97-98). In 1942-43 the resistant groups in Auschwitz were so powerfull that they were contolling the Hospital, the kitchens, the main office and they had their agent in key positions. I have talk a bit on this emettor wich was in activity over 7 months in 1942. It was one of the miscellaneous way to get out of the camps the information wich was received by the polish resistance. But the A.K could count also on the complicity of few SS to transmit some messages outside ( Fighting Auschwitz, p 206-208). But often, messages were simply transmitted with the liberation of inmates ( W. Laqueurt, the terrible secret, p 169, Fighting Auschwitz, p 54-55, 112). escapes were also frequent (Laqueurt, the same page). b) More on the transmission of information outside the camp Communications between Poland and London were relativelly easy for the resistance. The general Bor-Komorowski, commendant of the AK, said that clandestine radio messages were regularelly transmitted to London and that for the year 1942-43-44, there was almost 300 of those messages per month. (T. Bor-Komorowski, 'The secret Army', p. 150). An other part of the stuff was microfilm and send in London on a montly base. The polish resistance had about 100 radio emettors wich could reach London. But other messages were transmitted via newsmonger who were able to reach London after a couple of week via neutral countries (Sweden mainly). c) What was said about Auscwitz The main source here is the 'polish figting review' published in London by the Polish government in exile in London. Auschwitz is mention several times but, as I said, the only thing that the resistance movement seems to have send over 2 years is stories about torture, hard conditions of work, epidemies, promiscuity, etc... An interesting thing is that the P.F.R. use the other camps, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka for wich information was less accessible, in connection to a mass liquidation of jews (by lethal gas or other means) but do not use what is suposse to be the no 1 feature of Auschwitz. Now I'm just saying: if in Laqueurt,J. Garlinski, or Langbein book we can find postwar statements that mass gasing of jews took place there, how is it possible that it's so hard to find refeences of that in the P.F.R, other anti-nazi publications during the war of newspapers? I'm still waiting for it. As I said, I think that possibly one mention of that did exist before the summer of 1944 among the large amount of propaganda wich was generate by the other camps, but I'm unsure. If somebody can bring 2, than I'll say: well, the argument is not as strong than I thought. If someone bring 3 independant references, than I'll say that the argument doesn't hold. I'm not talking about mass extermi- nation in Treblinka or Belzec: Auschwitz, the number 1 camp. It's a big 'mistery', comparable to the L.Angeles fire story. From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue Dec 26 15:37:24 PST 1995 Article: 17511 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!io.org!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret? Date: 23 Dec 1995 03:34:09 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 56 Message-ID: <4bftbh$36p@Vir.com> References: <4b3e07$e2g@Vir.com> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne18.vir.com ubject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret? From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Yale F. Edeiken) >> Jean-Francois Beaulieu writes: >> >> >> This was my point and the reply of Y. Edeken and Mark was that >> I was wrong because...explicit references on gas chambers in Auschwitz >> were done at the summer of 1944! > No, our point was that it was well known before 1944. In 1944, it was >requested that the bomber command target the facilities. If it was well known before 1944, please bring the evidence. And not something wich was published after the war put newspaper articles or declarations wich were done before the summer of 1944. If you bring one, I'll say, perhaps, 'this is this one that I think I saw'. If you bring 3 I'll be very impress. Here, I'm talking about declarations about mass exterminations of jews in Auschwitz with gas chambers, not the (not so wrong) stories about typhus, or mistreatments. Neither something about Belzec or Treblinka. . >> The US authorities didn't believe them despite that. >> My impression was due to the fact that I was already fully convince >> that the gas chamber story was a hoax (I don't know how many hundreds >> of revisionnist arguments I had read before to fall on that story) >> but this explanation didn't satisfy me totally. On the other hand, >> I've retry recently to imagine the picture and it doesn't sound >> as strange as it was the first time. The request for the bombardment >> of gas chambers was a continuation of a long propaganda, it was just >> another aspect of it. >> >> "Chaim Weizmann had proposed such measures in the summer of 1944 >> (somewhat half-heartedly, it appears). The strong impression gained is >> that the British and Americans, while pretending to consider >> Weizmann's proposal seriously, were just engaged in verbal games." >> > This is, frankly, a lie. The suggestion was never turned down because >because the authorities disbelieved the reports about Auschwitz but because >some members of bomber command had an agenda of their own. Nope. It had just require few more bombers to destroy the crematorias and the 'they had and agenda of their own' refer probably here to the usual accusation: gohyims always hate us, they are guilty, that's because the US army, Roosevelt, and the whole world was secretelly or openly anti-semit and the other usual scrap. Despite the allieds gave the excuse that it wasn't possible to bomb the 'gas chambers', it was just a polite formula gave to the jewish propagandist around Chaim Weizman wich meant: don't take us for fools. The american intelligence acted exactly as if they didn't believe the extermination propaganda, and they had valid reasons. From email@example.com Wed Dec 27 08:50:45 PST 1995 Article: 17548 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: AUSCHWITZ: A COUNTER FAQ Date: 27 Dec 1995 01:50:57 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 40 Message-ID: <4bq8q1$bki@Vir.com> References: <4bk5oc$15d@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne14.vir.com This is an appendice to the last one: # Normally, it is say that the door were opened and the zyclon-B was # evacuate. >>Not in Kremas II and III; in them, the HCN was extracted using a >>ventilation system. > You dont even do an effort to solve the simple problem of the > ventilation's direction vs the fact that zyclon-B is lighter > than the air. Here I bet that you'll say that since HCN mollecular weight is 27 and the air 29, the fan was able to evacuate the gas despite that (accounting for the necessary time for HCN to rise up). Well, I'll just mention few things: your porous pilars had to be relativelly isolated from the air flow, so the zyclon-B generator, the place were we can expect the higher density of HCN mollecules wasn't submit to the full power of the ventilation since it was a 'porous pillar'. Second, I think that only HCN mollecules directly located between the fan and the evacuation aperture could really be driven out without any problems. Those wich were not along this path had the time to gradually rise up again. The gas pockets between the piles of corpses were hardly submit to such air flow. The mollecules wich had paste to the cold floor under the piles of corpses neither. Danny, I think that if an engineer would submit such an execution method, accounting with all the problems involved, with a simple fan rather than a pressurised system, he has no chance to get an approbation. It was *impossible* in half an hour of ventilation to drive out all the gas: I can't imagine that they were able to tolerate that so much gas could reach the other rooms were SS, even civilians sometimes had to work. I can't imagine that they decided to wash the walls everywhere after to avoid the residual emission problem rather than to change their method. Or at least to invert the ventilation direction, damned... From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu Dec 28 08:04:41 PST 1995 Article: 17738 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: How do Holocaust-deniers explain ...? Date: 26 Dec 1995 20:10:28 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 35 Message-ID: <4bpkrk$4gj@Vir.com> References: <4bh4j2$3la@Vir.com> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne10.vir.com firstname.lastname@example.org (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote: > > > Jean-Francois Beaulieu writes > > > The question remains: > > > > > >>> Jean-Francois Beaulieu writes: > > > > >>> This mean also that in other circunstances, Hitler's speech was less > > >>> tough. > > Show me statements from Hitler that "were less tough." You wrote > a very long post but it not include a single statement that would > indicate that statements we have quoted were abberations. > > I have not the time to dig into books to find 'less tough' speeches of Hitler. I know simply that for what I can remember, elements of Hitle's speech were not always identical. But hre I think you misunderstood the context: I was refering to private speech, or entertainment, with Ribbentrop or others. because Ribbentrop felt surprise to ear those words from Hitler in Jamie's text. So my logic was simple: if he felt surprise, this mean that in private entertainment Hitler was less though on the definition of the final solution. If it wasn't the case, why did Ribbentrop felt surprise and amazed ? --YFE > > > >>>> > From email@example.com Thu Dec 28 08:04:41 PST 1995 Article: 17739 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret? Date: 26 Dec 1995 20:14:29 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 92 Message-ID: <4bpl35$4gj@Vir.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne10.vir.com firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael P. Stein) wrote: In an article (Michael P. Stein) wrote: In article <email@example.com>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote: >>From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ulrich Roessler) >>First you argue because of the absence of clear informations about Auschwitz >>for a long time 1942-44 that no exterminations did take place there. >> >> Yes I do. I didn't study all the sources but I know many clues wich >> corroborate Eynat study >> >> a) Butz did an extensive review of the N.Y. times during this period >> b) Martin Gilber said himself that the extermination of jews in Auschwitz >> wasn't 'know' apparently before the mid 1944 >> c) Laqueurt said it himself in his book > Which book? The terrible secret. > > Have you read "Breaking the Silence" by Breitman and Laqueur? German No. Who's the publisher? How much does it cost? >industrialist and Allied agent Eduard Schulte, who was considered quite >reliable and sober by the OSS, brought out word that it was planned to >build extermination facilities in Auschwitz. It is fairly recent >information; apparently for a long time the identity of the agent was >misplaced in the wrong box in the National Archives. I don't know wich kind of evidence Laqueurt is providing here. When I first post on that I was talking about WWll documents like newspaper articles (since there was many references to mass executions in Treblinka and so on in the N.Y. Times) but also anti-nazi publications during WWll like the P.F.R despite there's dozens of publications of the same kind wich were existing. I read just a fraction of the total, so my statement was concerning mainly resistance reports wich were published during the war and preserved after. I don't know if here you're refering to a kind of internal document of the CIA discovered in a coincidence recently, or no documents, or something else. I can hardly comment on that since I didn't read the book. I don't know even the nature of the proofs which are there, you just give 3 sentences rather than a longer devellopment, I'll wait either for a longer explanation or an adress to find it before to comment. >> I just said: normally, since there wasn't hundreds of civilians who were >> working in those camps contrarely to Auschwitz, > But were there hundreds of civilians working in Birkenau? It is very >important not to confuse the two camps when making arguments of this sort. Yes there was, I gave previously a reference ( a paragraph translation from J.C. Preesac book 'les crematoires d'Auschwitz, 1993) about the construction and the maintenance of crematories ('each working site used 150 peoples, 1/3 civilians...'). He's using the word Bikernau in the same paragraph. In A.T.O. pages 313,315,348 at least were containing references to that in different situations. If you want some other explicit references to Bikernau perhaps I could find if I'm searching more, Laqueurt didn't specify 'Bikernau" on his side if memory deserve. But in this case as I said in 'Fighting Auschwitz' J.Garlinski, p97-98 we can find data about the daily information exchanges which were existing between Bikernau's A.K. members and the central camp via a contact. Both camps were differents but the exchange of informations was present. On the other hand it is still maintain today that mass gassing of jews did exist in Auschwitz 1 also despite the number involves are not comparable to Bikernau. >> The quaisy silence over mass gasing at >> Auschwitz is unexplanable. > You keep using "quaisy." Do you mean "quasi-silence" (in this >context, "nearly complete silence")? Yes. I used 'quaisi-silence' because, as I said, there was a story about tha liquidation of 1,000 russian pows and another short story about polish childrens in all the P.Fighting review's publications during the war. > Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer. VA is the abreviation of wich state? I have no dictonnary to check where is Arlington. From email@example.com Thu Dec 28 08:04:42 PST 1995 Article: 17740 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: AUSCHWITZ: A COUNTER FAQ Date: 26 Dec 1995 20:20:01 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 249 Message-ID: <4bpldh$r29@Vir.com> References: <4bk5oc$15d@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne10.vir.com firstname.lastname@example.org (Daniel Keren) wrote: A truly horrible collection of old "revisionist science" rubbish] # But the holocaust museum in Washington show a picture in wich it # is suppose to be through a 'gas induction port that zyclon-B was # introduce there and this gas found its way through a 'porous # pillar' a couple of meters bellow, despite those one are maden # of solid concrete (if someone want to visit it a day...). >This is old garbage, from the "Leuchter report". You are confusing >the supporting pillars of the structure with the wiremesh introduction >devices, which indeed resemble "hollow pillars", or "porous pillars", >and are referred to as such by some authors. I was able to get some further informations on that yesterday but not a complete one. Which material was allegedly used for those 'porous pillars'? I'll come back on that soon as I'll have a response to that question despite I'd prefer to find a draw of it. # Anyway. The walls are of mortar and bricks, there's no gaskets to # isolate the allege homicidal room, no distribution system, no # pressurise system neither, no mechanical constructions (pipes or # others) wich are use in a normal gas chamber. >Obviously, these were not "normal" gas chambers; for one thing, the >SS didn't make an effort to make the killing as fast as possible, >which is why there were no means to quickly circulate the HCN in >the room. In "normal" gas chambers, such an effort is indeed made. >Only a fool will assume that a "pressurise system" would >be needed; it was not needed in the delousing chambers, neither It was not need in a delousing chamber simply because there's no eye witness who claim that the SS were removing the clothes 1/2 hour after the door were opened. It would have been very expensive to use a pressurise system in each of the degesh facilities (I think there was more than 10) and totally unusefull. It would be also unusefull in an homicial gas chamber, but then the'll have to wait a longer time: do you contest that a fan is less efficient than a pressurised system? >were all the other items you list. The delousing chambers worked >perfectly well without them, and the homicidal chambers also worked >perfectly well without them - both, after all, worked according to >the very same principles, and both used the same chemical agent >(Zyklon). The only difference is that a homicidal gas chamber has >to be reinforced, and the Zyklon has to be inserted from the >outside - two rather easy requirements to fulfill, especially for >a technological superpower that built rockets and jet planes... The usual way to use zyclon-B is to spread it in thin layers on papers and to remove those one after to remove the pellets. So I maintain the comparison with US gas chambers: were are given some explanations about adaptations which are completelly absurds in such a case. >Also, the claim about lack of "isolation" is idiotic - after all, >there are cyanide traces in the gas chamber, and "revisionists" admit >that Zyklon-B was indeed used in them. So, obviously, this problem >was solved. When the SS were doing a desinfection in a house, they had to carefully tight with self adhesive tape window's borders, locks and so on (NI-9912). So do you mean that they used the same procedure for each homicidal gasing rather than to gasket the room? Zyclon B was use once or twice for a desinfection in krema 2 if I compare the level of cyanide traces there and those for the degesh facilities. They had just to evacuate the place, tight the room with improvised means like they did elsewhere and evacuate the whole building. They couldn't do it for each homicidal gassing. # Normally, it is say that the door were opened and the zyclon-B was # evacuate. >Not in Kremas II and III; in them, the HCN was extracted using a >ventilation system. You dont even do an effort to solve the simple problem of the ventilation's direction vs the fact that zyclon-B is lighter than the air. # The problem is that there's other rooms around wich are # connected to the alleged gas chamber. So here, Zyclon-B wasn't # evacuate with an exhaust fan 10 or 20 meters above the ground but # had the possibility through the door, the goods lift (for the bodies # wicha had to be bring up for incineration) and the non sealed door # even _during the execution_to reach all the other rooms were the # personnel who was operating the crematories was working. >This is rubbish; first, the HCN was, as noted, extracted in the >underground Kremas (II and III). Moreover, your whole argument >collapsed because, as even "revisionists" admit, HCN *was used* >in the Kremas. Do you understand? Since it was used, this means >that these "problems" you describe were solved. If you it didn't come to your mind even once that they could have evacuate the whole building for a single disinfection but not for each homicidal gassing, then you have a serious problem. # Since boiling point of Zyclon-B is 26 deg Celcius (more that 80 # farenheight) we are told that the nazis, rather than to use a # technology wich was existing 20 years before in USA did not just # an irrational choice by choosing an underground building (cold), >An underground building is "cold"? Is it colder than a building >which is above ground level? Won't a chamber be considerably >warmed when many people are squeezed into it? Moreover, Zyklon-B >>releases the HCN at temperatures far lower than 26 C. The temperature >of a human body is 37 C, BTW. It release it slowly under its boiling point and as I said, experiences led by Luftl show that the floor wouldn't be heat on a significative scale with such a method. If Luftl experience is wrong despite he gaves the elements to reproduce it, than you have just to bring a counter experience which proove the opposite. ># This is a first problem: without an appropriate temperature, # the pellets would release the gas over hours and hours. >Rubbish. Moreover, a very low concentration will kill humans >fast; 300 ppm (parts-per-million) kill people within minutes. >So, it would have been enough for a small postion of the HCN >o evaporate. My statement was'nt that people couldn't be kill but that sonderkmmandos would face a big problem there. # Many reasons had been bring up by anti revisionnist to demolish # the claim that since delousing chambers (degesh facilities) contains # around 1,000 more Ferro-cyanide traces on the wall than 'homicide # gas chambers', >A lie; the ratio is not 1:1000, it is higher. The fact that there >are more traces in the delousing chambers was posted here hundreds >of times; it is because delousing requires many hours, while >homicidal gassing is so much faster. This, plus the fact that Yap, but zyclon-B couldn't be evacuate there quickly neither: the fan's direction was the wrong one and zyclon-b as you know, has a strong adherance to surfaces (here bodies, walls, a cold floor where the condensation was unavoidable as soon as the temperature would drop with air intake from the fan and the fact that bodies can't heat a room a long time, that the room wasn't thermically insulated, etc..) >the gas chambers were destroyed in late 1944 - early 1945, and >left in ruins for 40 years before these samples were taken; so, >the exposure to rain, acid rain, and the sun further reduced the >amount of cyanic compounds. The delousing chambers, on the other >hand, are intact. This has been respond correclty by Grubach in his article. If you contest the proofs which were given that ferro-cyhanide is not stable, than you'll have to point where Grubach is wrong in his methodology. # In such a case, we can say that since there was around 46 ovens at # Birkenau and since we know the period of operation of those ones # with nazi documentation (less than 2 years for the majority), it is # highly improbable that more than 200,000 bodies could have been reduce # in ashes during the war. >This figure is ridiculous; it contradicts all the documentary evidence >(including patents submitted by Topf, the firm that built the >Auschwitz furnaces), and by logic as well. A point that >"revisionists" keep "forgetting", is that the Birkenau furnaces >were, obviously, not run like ordinary crematoriums. No coffins >were used; no care was taken to collect the ashes; and, lastly, more >than one person was burned in one furnace (what made this even >easier was the fact that so many of the victims were infants >and children). I gave an answer to your statements in the same posting later but you 'forgot' to quote those parts.But I'll just add something about one of your statement for which I wasn't explicit enough. 'No care was taken to collect the ashes'. This is wrong. Since bones couldn't be reduce in ashes in those crematories, nor the teets, they had to crunch it as they allegedly had to crunch the bones of peoples in Treblinka according to Nizcor files. If not, they could hardly introduce other bodies there. Bones can't be destroy easally with fire. # But the jews who were dying from epidemies didn't stop to dye # after the germans have transform those morgues in gas chambers, # so what, the truck was bringing one body at a time from the hospital # after? Or they were pile up outside while hundreds of civilians were # working at the camp? >This whole paragraph is so badly written that I can only guess >what you mean. Are you suggesting that the Kremas could not burn >those who died after being admitted in the camp, because they >were overloaded with burning those who were murdered upon >arrival? Well, that's stupid; they could spare some of the >Kremas for burning those who died in the camp. Also, selections No they couldn't since the others were allegedly also containing gas chambers. In such a case we'll have to think they had to use krema 2 'gas chamber' as a mortuary a day, and the other day crema 3, and so on. But even there we face an impossibility over certain periods for which the rate of arrival was high. It's a rubbish statement that they didn't think to at leat reserve a crematory just for that purpose. The whole story was built around the use of crematories as a propagandist weapon and tons of absurdity emerge when a guy look back and dig a bit. >were constantly made in the camp, and those who were determined to >be too sick or too weak to work were sent to the gas chambers. # It is said by anti-revisionnist that the evacuation of bodies by # sonderkommandos was possible because the germans used the _exact_ # fatal dose for humans (.4g/meter cube) in the gas chamber. >I have never, ever, seen any "anti-revisionist" write anything like >this. Pressac states that the concentration was far higher. Others >quote the sonderkommando testimonies about using gas masks in some >of the Kremas; in Krema II and III, ventilation was used. Yap, in the FAQ which was sent.: > But - HCN is far more effective on warm-blooded animals (including > humans) than on insects, so the period of exposure to HCN is far > longer for delousing clothes than that required for homicidal > gassings, and a much lower concentration is necessary to kill people > instead of insects. I saw something about in in the previous FAQ which was sent 3-4 weeks ago or eithor on the Nizkor project. It's true that Pressac talk about higher concentrations since anti-revisionnist use one or the other figure, depending which one is the more convenient to attack such or such other revisionnist claim. From email@example.com Thu Dec 28 13:23:56 PST 1995 Article: 17761 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!istar.net!news1.ottawa.istar.net!fonorola!news.ottawa.istar.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Auschwitz: A counter FAQ Date: 28 Dec 1995 06:28:06 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 148 Message-ID: <4btddm$81k@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne21.vir.com : >I find it interesting that the last time M. Beaulieu posted the >first version of his "counter FAQ" (Dec 2, with Message-ID: ><firstname.lastname@example.org>) both Mr. Keren and I reacted to >M. Beaulieu's claim above in similar fashion. M. Beaulieu seems >totally oblivious of our comments. I didn't see this first posting of D. Keren, just the last one >I wrote then (Message-ID: <email@example.com>): > > M. Beaulieu, excuse my ignorance of "anti-revisionist" writings. > This particular claim has escaped my notice. Who has stated this > and where? I believe Pressac has written that the dosages used > were between 12-20g/cubic meter. > >I can only repeat my question. Moreover, in the first version of >Beaulieu's "counter FAQ" there was the following passage: [....] >M. Beaulieu answered neither my claims nor my question. The This is a lie! 1 or 2 days after I wrote: *********************************************************************** >6.0 Ventilation time >> It is said by anti-revisionnist that the evacuation of bodies by sonder >> kommandos was possible because the germans used the _exact_ fatal >> dose for humans (.4g/meter cube) in the gas chamber. So the argument >> goes like that: then, the gas was more easy to evacuate and the sonder- >> kommandos were able to start their job 1/2 hour after the door were >> open. >M. Beaulieu, excuse my ignorance of "anti-revisionist" writings. >This particular claim has escaped my notice. Who has stated this >and where? I believe Pressac has written that the dosages used >were between 12-20g/cubic meter. What's a coincidence! I recently stated in socio.culture.french to somebody who brought this argument (0.4 g /meter cube) that the anti-revisionnist had to sit together and find an agreement since I read in 'truth prevail' from Pressac that the lethal dose use was even more than what is the normal dose for insects. The guy probably used this connection after a contact with Ulrich Roessler (Hi Ulrich, no-no-no I'm not forgetting you, I've just not the time to reply to everybody today) who used, if memory deserve, the same argument previously (I'm not sure) but I'm sure to have see in the Nyzclor Project or either at the Simon Wiesenthal center that the quantity of zyclon-B wich was use was 50 times less than what Pressac claim. Well, you'll have to find an agreement between you: you can't use a data when it is convenient to fight a revisionist argument and use a contradictory data to fight another revisionist argument later. But anyway, those 2 claims do exist in the anti-revisionist side. >> In the case of zyclon-B, the ventilation is hard because the mollecules >> can paste on walls, bodies, surfaces in general. It is not obvious that >> 20 times more zyclon-B is 20 times easy to ventilate. First, if z.B >> mollecules are captured by a surface, the thin layer wich is form may >> perhaps slow down the binding process for the others, so even if I have >> the impression that a lower density/ m. cube is easier to ventilate, >> it wasn't proove that their's a proportionnal law. >M. Beaulieu, are you a chemist? If not, what are your >credentials, other than your perusal of "revisionist" materials? I'm not. I'm physicist engineer despite I've work on computer applications (management, client-server, pattern recognition and artificiall intelligence) since I graduated. I forgot unfortunatelly a big part of what I learned, but I'm able, if necessary, to go at Montreal University library, look for a reference and after 2 hours of 'memory refrech' to catch the essantial despite if we talk about chemistry, I've just 4-5 university courses. But in this case, I stated it clearly: this was an hypothesis. It has no more value than the claim in front that 20 times less zyclon-B is 'obviously' 20 times faster to ventilate. I know just enough to say that my first idea is not stupid despite some guy may come back and say 'well, this is wrong because...'. If the demonstration seems convincing, I'll just drop completelly this hypothesis. My purpose wasn't to say that I can demolish the statement in front that there's a proportionnal law, it was to say: it can be that or something else. The best way that I could see to check it is to do an experience, and test the residual concentration of zyclon-B after different times with different concentrations. I'm sure that lower concentration are more easy to ventilate, but I'm not so sure that it is a proportionnal law. >Because I've corresponded with a (full) professor in chemistry >about this and other "revisionist" quasi-technical points. This >professor is, to boot, an expert on cyanides. Are you an expert, >M. Beaulieu? His reaction to your (and Faurisson's, and...) claim >above about the "pasting" of hydrogen cyanide (not Zyklon B) to >surfaces, walls, bodies etc. was a tired sigh. He said: "This >person (I was quoting something very similar from Faurisson) >doesn't know what he is talking about" and went on to explain >that hydrogen cyanide in gaseous form is _not_ difficult to >ventilate. And naturally you don't give his name. Man, this is the most stupid statement that I 've seen for a while: The NI-9912 circular distribute by the producer of zyclon-B is quite clear: zyclon-B is hard to ventilate. If your so called expert on cyanides is more competent than the company wich produced the zyclon-B, the chemist who were working for this one, than he have just to say that revisionnist (many of them who have credidential in chemistery), many anti-revisionnist who accept the NI-9912 document (and another one that I have somewhere in my wall cupboard), the chemist who were employ by the manufacturer, were wrong: zyclon-B do not take 20 hours to be ventilate at the concentration wich are mentionned. ******** END OF THE QUOTATION *************************************** Here 'memory refresh' was used rather than reminder because I was tired. To be clear: My degree is in physic engineering, I have a couple of course in pattern recognition (master degree, but I didn't complete it) and my work is not directly related to physic for 7 years but I'm able to understand the concepts and, in some cases, to catch theory despite it take me a couple of hours if a specific topic is a bit complex. This is not the case here. I don't say that I remember everything since I had to use just 10% over 7 years, but I'm able to use the mathematical bases that I have to reunderstand some things if necessary. It is not necesserelly evident when I open a book, but with a good effort and a couple of hours, it's not a major problem. But here it's not relevant since I was talking about basic concepts with an hypothesis, and I _didn't_ claim that it was necesserelly the right one. Read the text above. >M. Beaulieu, don't you think the questions that have been put to >you have at least some relevance to the question at hand? Why >have you chosen to keep silent and repeat false claims? Are you, >as you say you are, at all interested in a rational discussion, >or is this just a rhetorical device on your part? Unfortunatelly diploms do not garentee honesty and I'm sure that I can find dishonest peoples who will say 'I have a PHD in chemistery, shut up!', but we can find also scientist on the revisionist side. I'm lucky to have at least a suffisant background to detect some dishonest statements and make up my mind on a rationnal bases. >Posted and e-mailed. What did I said? I didn't receive an email. It doesn't require a degree here:-) From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Dec 29 02:16:14 PST 1995 Article: 17842 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret? Date: 28 Dec 1995 04:05:13 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 72 Message-ID: <4bt51p$u1v@Vir.com> References: <4b3e07$e2g@Vir.com> <email@example.com> <4bftbh$36p@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark Van Alstine) wrote: >> >> If it was well known before 1944, please bring the evidence. And not >> something wich was published after the war put newspaper articles or >> declarations wich were done before the summer of 1944. If you bring one, >> I'll say, perhaps, 'this is this one that I think I saw'. If you bring 3 >> I'll be very impress. > [..] [here, 35 unusefull lines which proove that the propaganda about mass gasing in Auschwitz started around the summer of 1944 are deleted] >> Nope. It had just require few more bombers to destroy the crematorias >> and the 'they had and agenda of their own' refer probably here to the >> usual accusation: gohyims always hate us, they are guilty, that's >Well, m'sieur Beaulieu, I must say that last passage of yours was absolute >and unadulterated crap. I suppose you mean by saying "[i]t had just >require few more bombers to destroy the crematorias" that you are >asserting that the Allies didn't have enough bombers to spare to bomb >Auschitz? Bull. [...] Here, 31 unusefull lines which prooves that it was requiring little more planes to blast the crematorias (so not a strong effort)are delated. That was my statement. >As for the "[A]merican intelligence [having] acted exactly as if they [...] >_explicitly_ and _knowingly_ lied to the WRB about the unavailability of >bomber assets to bomb Auschwitz with. And you defend them as having "valid >reasons?" Here, [...] means 28 unusefull lines which proove that the War Department was engage in a verbal games (through letters and false pretext) and never consider seriously that they should bomb Auschwitz 'gas chambers' are deleted. You are just prooving my statements and after you claim that you demolished what I said, funny no? The only difference is that you say that the W.Department lied to the zionist leaders, and this is what I said also, but you don't give the reason explicitelly (anti semitism I suppose? Indifference?). In my case I say that it's because they didnt believe the gas chambers story, despite they used polites formulas in their letters to those guys ( they couldn't say that this is a fishy story if they were expecting a backclash in such a case), but the excuses that they are giving are non-senses. So the real 'valid reason' that I was refering to is the absence of gas chambers. But then I feel you'll post 100 lines of quotations which proove that I'm wrong because the excuses given by the W.D. were false. I'll just give an example: I know that John Beaty, who got the rank of colonel in the W.Department, was one of the 2 editors of the G2-Report, which was issued each noon to personns in high places (including White House ) to inform them about new devellopments. In his book 'Iron Curtain Over America', published in 1951, he's ridiculizing the 6 million legend with a few remarks. For your information, no I didn't read this book, it was just mention in the foreword of the hoax, but if Butz talked about it he read it himself and I'm sure to find it if I'm searching a bit. What does it proove? That the picture of a whole war departement which was saying 'jews are liquidated daily in gas chambers? Good thing for those Christ killers!' is not the right one. I'm not saying neither that everybody was kidding about the gas chamber story that they didn't believe, but I've a serious clue that the last hypothesist is closer to reality. >You're pathetic, m'sieur Beaulieu. Simply pathetic. We'll, at least no one will accuse me of quoting too much :-) From email@example.com Fri Dec 29 02:16:15 PST 1995 Article: 17843 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret? Date: 28 Dec 1995 04:12:11 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 49 Message-ID: <4bt5er$u1v@Vir.com> References: <4b3e07$e2g@Vir.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4bftbh$36p@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com Marty Kelley wrote: >> >> >> >> >> This was my point and the reply of Y. Edeken and Mark was that >> >> I was wrong because...explicit references on gas chambers in Auschwitz >> >> were done at the summer of 1944! >> >> > No, our point was that it was well known before 1944. In 1944, it was >> >requested that the bomber command target the facilities. >> >> >> If it was well known before 1944, please bring the evidence. And not >> something wich was published after the war put newspaper articles or >> declarations wich were done before the summer of 1944. If you bring one, >> I'll say, perhaps, 'this is this one that I think I saw'. If you bring 3 >> I'll be very impress. >So would you also only accept newspaper articles published *during* the >war as "proof" that the Allies had broken German and Japanese codes? No but the main difference is that the allied wouldn't announce that in the newspaper!!!! >The facts about the breaking of those codes only became available well >after the war, for obvious reasons. > >Obviously, the analogy is a bit loose--the need to keep the codebreaking >projects secret was great, while public release of information on Ok, I thought first that you were bringing that argument seriously... >exterminations at Auschwitz would not have harmed Allied security, as far >as I know. But the simple fact there were few (or no) contemporaraneous >journalistic accounts of the murders is not enough to outweigh the >evidence that was discovered subsequent to the war. > Yes it is, for the reasons that I gave: detailed reports about the daily life in Auschwitz was given in the Polish Fighting review and even some newspapers, but nothing about mass gasing. Since the collection of information was maden by the polish resistance there over 2 years 1/2, since the purpose of such collection was it's use in the propaganda, since Auschwitz was even use a bit in the propaganda but not with stories about mass gasing of jews before the mid 1944, than your argument doesn't hold. From email@example.com Fri Dec 29 02:16:16 PST 1995 Article: 17854 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Where are the Mass Graves Date: 28 Dec 1995 04:16:49 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 24 Message-ID: <4bt5nh$q2g@Vir.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael P. Stein) wrote: Subject: Re: Where are the Mass Graves > This is the article where Weber and Allen seem to get the idea that >corpses and graves are two-dimensional objects, and that all corpses are >roughly the same size, and all graves are assumed to be filled with the >same efficiency, so that the only determinant of grave capacity is >surface area. To "prove" that the Treblinka graves could not have held >the required number of corpses, they cited the Katyn corpse/surface area >ratio and scaled up, ignoring the far greater depth of the Treblinka >graves, the fact that the Katyn victims were all adult males while the >Treblinka victims were mixed men, women, and children, the depth of ground Since there was normally no selection in Treblinka, I don't believe that you can assume a great proportion of childrens so 30% is probably a good figure. With an average of half an adult weight, you have 85% of the place occupied with 100% adults so it has no importance. But you're right about the depth, despite I don't know if an official figure exist, the only one that I saw up to now is the 7 meters from John Morris but it concerned ashes and bones, not bodies. From email@example.com Fri Dec 29 03:57:55 PST 1995 Article: 17868 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!frankensun.altair.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Auschwitz: a counter FAQ Date: 29 Dec 1995 04:32:41 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 167 Message-ID: <4bvr19$6ge@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com Subject: Re: AUSCHWITZ: A COUNTER FAQ Harry Mazal wrote >> Jean-Francois Beaulieu writes: >> >> Here I bet that you'll say that since HCN mollecular weight is 27 >> and the air 29, the fan was able to evacuate the gas despite that >> (accounting for the necessary time for HCN to rise up). >Dear me. Mr. Beaulieu appears not to know very much about gas >laws and physical chemistry. Let us offer some instruction: >"Gases when under uniform conditions diffuse at rates inversely >proportional the the square roots of their molecular weights. ... >>A gas of lower molecular weight will diffuse much more rapidly >than a gas of higher molecular weight. Simply stated, hydrogen >cyanide or hydrocyanic acid will diffuse rapidly in a closed space >Employing Avogadro's principle, the molecules of _all_ gases >occupy the same space and therefore the same volume irrespective >of their size or weight. In a closed chamber, the lighter molecules >of hydrogen cyanide will diffuse rapidly and co-mingle proportionately >with the molecules of all other gases present. It is not terribly relevant >whether HCN is lighter or heavier than air, the ventilators will treat >HCN exactly the same way as they treat any other gas. I hav'nt the time to check in the couple of books that I kept (the libraries are closed for the hollidays) but I didn't try to check back this arguments when I read it the first time. Pressac was embarass by this fact, a revisionnist quote him in a book, I was able to check in A.T.O. later that the quotation was correct and I didn't ask myself questions since Pressac himself was embarass. I knew the law pv=NRT but I don't remember the quare root law. I think that the entropy is behind that. My first though was that with an equal kinetic enrgy for both mollecules the gravity force due to the lighter mollecular weight wouldn't act to slow down the expension to the upper direction with the same efficiency but the collisions around that mollecule can probably counter-balance that to a great extend. I'll check for details later. On the other hand I found something amusing in the photocopies of Pressace book: 'Les crematoires d'auschitz' (1993). It's about the power of the fans. The first amusing thing is that the fan for the Leichenkeller 2 room is suppose to have a greter ventilation capacity than the leichenkeller 1 ( the 'gas chamber'). Leichenkeller 2 was allegedly the place where peoples where removing there clothes, isn't right? I'll chek later on the other draw that I have somewhere but this is a bit amusing. The thing here is that I never tried to figure what was the equivalent of 8,000 meter cube of air per hour (the power given for the gas chamber fan). It's around 16 times the 'gas chamber' volume, so one could think that in 4 minutes all the Zyclon-B was evacuate but this is not the case. When the air flow evacuate the air there's a drop of particles in a certan region and the distribution of mollecules of impureties (HCN here) is disturb. The redistribution will happen gradually but during that moment, the air around the path of the previous air flow has a poor quantity of HCN mollecules. We could, without accounting for this factor, compute a necessary time wich is more than 10 minutes to drop the HCN conentration to an acceptable level but even there as I said this factor may slow down the evacuation process. What interest me here is not to engage a discussion about such a thing simply because, as I said, the main reason for wich HCN is verry dangerous is the fact that mollecules which paste on walls, the floor, the bodies are hard to ventilate and this is the rason why the manufacturer recommand a so long ventilation for a house. The concentration in the air is the most easy part to ventilate. But the HCN wich continue to be release by the walls, the floor, the pockets of gas between the bodies and the porous pillar is the harder part to ventilate. To explain what I mean, 8,000 meter cube per hour mean around 2 meter cube per second, if you open 2 windows for a house and you have a unidirectional wind, with a 1 meter square widow you can get the same result with a 7 kilometers/hour velocity. Of course, things are not so simple in the reallity, there's not always wind, but this can be the case, and we can have a higher velocity too, 7 km /hour is not a lot. So the powerfull ventilation system is the equivalent of that. Now I'm looking back to the manufacturer NI-9912 document and I see that the SS have to open the windows and get out as soon as possible. And I figure that they let the door open two. The only difference is the dimension of the room, normally a third of the Leichenkeller for an ordinarry house. But for the ventilation system, there's no difference with the fan. So it is said that the residual emissions will be verry dangerous over 20 hours. So where's the difference with the case of the Leichenkeller? The fan has no more impact there than the example of the window that I gave, there's absolutelly no possible comparison with a pressurised system, the gas will spread in all the other rooms where the other peoples are working, SS, jews who _are required_ to operate the crematories and burn the corpses. If they are killed or if they fall down, nobody will be able to do the job. I gave the reason why I think also that sonderkommandos were not so much in security with a gas mask: the effort involve, the contact with the skin, and so on. You may elude those questions, but once for a while: why do anti-revisionist claim so high that the fan makes a big difference with the case of a normal house as described in the NI-9912 document? > >> Well, I'll just mention few things: your porous pilars had to be > relativelly isolated from the air flow, so the zyclon-B generator, > the place were we can expect the higher density of HCN mollecules > wasn't submit to the full power of the ventilation since it was a > 'porous pillar'. >There is no 'zyclon-B generator.' Zyklon-B is a commercial form of >hydrogen cyanide adsorbed onto a substrate. There are three forms >of this substrate that have been commonly used: lignin discs, diato- >maceous earth (i.e. Celite) impregnated with an organic material that >selectively adsorbs HCN, and silica gel which adsorbs HCN at a >predetermined ratio. An irritant and warning agent is usually added to >the product. Hydrogen cyanide is released at a predetermined rate >once the cans that hold the product are opened. The velocity of diffusion >has already been discussed in this newsgroup. I know that stuff for a while M. Mazal. > >The 'porous columns' referred to by Mr. Beaulieu are no more than >wire-mesh forms. Their usefulness is not so much in their ability to >release hydrogen cyanide as it is desorbed by the substrate, but to >facilitate the withdrawal of the Zyklon-B pellets once their deadly >function has been carried out. Any excedent HCN in the product >can be taken out of the gas chambers allowing the ventilation system to >carry out its task with greater efficiency. For that, you need to have the correct pillar. I have different versions on that and I'll come back soon, for remaining questions > >> Second, I think that only HCN mollecules >> directly located between the fan and the evacuation aperture could >> really be driven out without any problems. Those wich were not along >> this path had the time to gradually rise up again. The gas pockets >> between the piles of corpses were hardly submit to such air flow. >Not relevant. Any gas pockets would rapidly be dispelled when moving >the corpses. Mr. Beaulieu must study Graham's Law of Diffusion. He >must also remember that the 'sonderkommandos' were equipped with >gas masks. Ok, when the sonderkommandos will lift the bodies the pocket of gas will vanish on March, is it Graham's law? >> The mollecules wich had paste to the cold floor under the piles of >> corpses neither. Danny, I think that if an engineer would submit >> such an execution method, accounting with all the problems involved, >> with a simple fan rather than a pressurised system, he has no >> chance to get an approbation. >Mr. Beaulieu is mistaken. The HCN molecules would not bind chemically >to the walls or floors of the gas chambers. To this day HCN is employed >to destroy pests (mainly rodents) in the holds of ships and in flour mills. >If there were any danger of the gas binding to the walls of the ships, or >God forbid, to the cereals in the flour mill, it would not be used. This one is the biggest lie that I saw. I'll post on that Saturday when I'll have more time. And the rest of your posting also. I received some informations on you by email, not verry kind but I won't talk about it. You are perhaps the chemist that Stephan was refering too, but some element in this email gave me a aerious clue that honesty is not related to a degree that someone may show up all around, I don't think that you'll impress me. There's chemist on both sides, fortunatelly diplomes do not impress me more than arguments. When I decided to accept a big part of the Leuchter report as true (not all neither), it wasn't because Leuchter was a gas chamber specialist. From firstname.lastname@example.org Sun Dec 31 00:04:34 PST 1995 Article: 18142 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Auschwitz, a secret? Date: 28 Dec 1995 04:42:37 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 106 Message-ID: <4bt77t$a58@Vir.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com In article <email@example.com>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote: >firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael P. Stein) wrote: >>> Have you read "Breaking the Silence" by Breitman and Laqueur? German >> >> No. Who's the publisher? How much does it cost? >13. 86-1931: Laqueur, Walter, 1921- Breaking the silence / New York : Simon > and Schuster, c1986. 320 p. : ill., ports. ; 25 cm. > LC CALL NUMBER: D810.J4 L276 1986 > > I think it costs about $20 US in hardcover. I don't know about >softcover or how much it is in Canada, or if it has been translated to >French. Try a library first. I'll try first in a library despite I doubt... if I can read a couple of pages before this will help me to decide if I'll buy it or not, 30 canadian$ ( or 20 US$) is 10 can$ more than the upper limit that I tought to. >> I don't know wich kind of evidence Laqueurt is providing here. > Information from a German gentile spying for the OSS. Hum, I saw it, I was refering to the kind of documents, but anywhay I'll see in the book probably. >>> But were there hundreds of civilians working in Birkenau? It is very >>>important not to confuse the two camps when making arguments of this sort. >> >> Yes there was, I gave previously a reference ( a paragraph translation >> from J.C. Preesac book 'les crematoires d'Auschwitz, 1993) about the >> construction and the maintenance of crematories ('each working site used >> 150 peoples, 1/3 civilians...'). He's using the word Bikernau in the same >> paragraph. In A.T.O. pages 313,315,348 at least were containing >> references to that in different situations. > I'll have to look, but if the big number was for construction, then of >course there would have been little opportunity for the workers to see >gassings - the gassings couldn't start until at least one Krema was >completed, and once all of them were finished most of the workers would be This is right, despite maintenance was unavoidable but I figure that maintenance was using just a fraction of the total. On the other hand since mass gassing were suppose to start in 1942 I've the impression that they couldn't ignore neither. I wasn't tallking about the fact that they could see a gassing but the fact that they could speak with prisonners. If memory deserve, the bodies of the victims of the 2 'red houses' were bring back in Bikernau for incineration and many inmates couldn't ignore that, so all the inmates in Bikernau should have learn about mass gasing. In such a case, I can't imagine an efficient control over a year for wich no inmates was able to talk about it to a fraction of those civilians. But there was also many civilians employed to other works than crematoria construction, despite the bulk was use in Auschwitz 1. But as I said, communications between those 2 camps was not so hard to establish between differents groups of A.K inmates. >sent home. Also, if the workers were sworn to secrecy, then they would >not have talked. Do you have positive testimony from any civilian workers >who were around the Kremas on a regular basis in 1944, during the arrival >of the Hungarian Jews, and said they never saw anything strange, like >people marching straight into a Krema from the train and not coming out >again? No I don't but I didn't search for this single question neither. I dont know why you are searching such a specific testimony for the summer of 1944, perhaps because of the story about Hungarian jews, but I can't help you and I have the impression that even if such a witness exist you'll have some trouble to search a so specific topic. But perhaps not, you're certanly more accustom than me to search among the miscellaneous holocaust sites. On the other hand, I've the impression that assisting to such a scene wasn't necessary for a civilian to learn about mass gasings. Despite you talk about workers who could be sworn to secrecy, I've not the impression that it wast possible to avoid that civilians learn it from inmates nor that they'd talk to their families after. I've some difficulties to imagine it otherwise. Anyway. From email@example.com Sun Dec 31 08:52:17 PST 1995 Article: 18182 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!Rezonet.net!Vir.com!usenet From: Jean-Francois Beaulieu Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: AUSCHWITZ: A COUNTER FAQ Date: 30 Dec 1995 20:21:44 GMT Organization: Communications Vir, Internet Access Montreal. Lines: 170 Message-ID: <4c470o$4md@Vir.com> References: <4bk5oc$15d@Vir.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne11.vir.com email@example.com (Stephane Bruchfeld) wrote: > > firstname.lastname@example.org (Stephane Bruchfeld) wrote >>>M. Beaulieu answered neither my claims nor my question. The >> This is a lie! 1 or 2 days after I wrote: >A lie? Well, it did not appear on my server. Do you know the >message-ID of that article? I'm not keeping such infos, just the ascii files that I'm uploading. Indeed, it may be due to your newsgroup access. >> What's a coincidence! I recently stated in socio.culture.french to somebody >> who brought this argument (0.4 g /meter cube) that the anti-revisionnist [snip] >But you write: >> I'm sure to have see in the Nyzclor Project or either at the >> Simon Wiesenthal center that the quantity of zyclon-B wich was >> use was 50 times less than what Pressac claim. Well, >> you'll have to find an agreement between you: you can't use a >> data when it is convenient to fight a revisionist argument and use >> a contradictory data to fight another revisionist argument later. >> But anyway, those 2 claims do exist in the anti-revisionist side." >Do they indeed? Would you care to indicate, and try to be a bit >more precise this time, which "anti-revisionist" has claimed a >quantity of Zyklon B 50 times less than that held by Pressac? Miloslav Billik, the same guy who posted recently a french article here. He's understanding of the Nizkor file was the same than mine, if he took it from there and he brought the argument right after. You quote a file that you choose arbitrarely to proove that I'm wrong because I claimed that anti deniers are using contradictory data, depending wich argument they have to respond: you even claim that it was NEVER said that a concentration far lower than Pressac claim was used. But in the recent FAQ wich was posted we have those paragraphs: > A concentration of up to 16,000 ppm (parts per million) is sometimes > used, with exposure times of up to 72 hours, to kill insects, but as > little as 300 ppm will cause death in humans within fifteen minutes > or so. > > Breitman offers background information about the development of > Zyklon B as a killing device, and provides clear evidence that the > Nazis determined the effective Zyklon B concentration through a > process of trial and error. > (Get pub/camps/auschwitz/auschwitz.faq1) > > When the difference in the concentration of gas required to kill > insects and humans was mentioned in Leuchter's cross-examination in > the Zundel trial, Leuchter responded: "I've never killed beetles. I, > you know, I don't know. I haven't made computations for killing > beetles" - Hardly the response one would expect from an "expert" on > the subject... > > Because of the relatively small concentrations required to > exterminate humans as opposed to lice, and because of the far shorter > exposure time required, the HCN in the gas chambers used to kill > humans hardly had time to form chemical compounds on the walls. If you don't consider that as a satisfying reference, then I can't do anything more for you. >>>Because I've corresponded with a (full) professor in chemistry >>>about this and other "revisionist" quasi-technical points. This >>>professor is, to boot, an expert on cyanides. Are you an expert, >>>M. Beaulieu? His reaction to your (and Faurisson's, and...) claim >>>above about the "pasting" of hydrogen cyanide (not Zyklon B) to >>>surfaces, walls, bodies etc. was a tired sigh. He said: "This >>>person (I was quoting something very similar from Faurisson) >>>doesn't know what he is talking about" and went on to explain >>>that hydrogen cyanide in gaseous form is _not_ difficult to >>>ventilate. >> And naturally you don't give his name. Man, this is the most stupid >> statement that I 've seen for a while: >Very sure of ourselves, aren't we? Elsewhere you have presumed >that Mr. Katz is my source. Well, AFAIK Mr. Katz is not a >professor in chemistry. He is thus not my source. The name of >this professor is not a secret, at least not in this country. In [...] I maintain my statement: zyclon-B his hard to ventilate. Reasons bellow. [Talking about NI-9912] >AFAIK this document was presented at Nuremberg by the >prosecution. Would you be so kind as to quote the relevant >passage which shows how, why and in what circumstances hydrogen >cyanide is "hard to ventilate". Oh, and don't hesitate to quote >also from that other document you claim to have in your "wall >cupboard". The NI-9912 say that it take 20 hours to ventilate a room were zyclon-B was use against insects. With the example of the windows that I gave to Mazal, I think it's obvious that most of the particles in the air are evacuated before an hour. So the remaining particles wich constitue the danger are those wich had paste on walls and furnitures. You asked for an exact statement that zyclon-B is hard to ventilate and can paste on surfaces: "Luftbarkeit: wegen starken Haftvermogens des Gases an Oeberflachen erschwert u. langwierig". NI-9098 "Ventilability: hard and long since this gas paste strongly to surfaces" NI-9098 So it's publish by the manufacturer: what do you want more? The 21 february in 'Le monde', Geroge Wellers in a reply to Faurisson said that the explanation was that there was no furnitures in a gas chamber. Faurisson sent a reply wich was never publish if memory deserve. The same argument was use again by D. Lipsdat a couple of years later. G. Wellers was the director of the jewish documentation center in Paris. HCN mollecules are very soluble in water, contrarely to the ferro-cyanide derivative ( the blue stain). This is the reason why the body of a prisonner was wash in USA after an execution. The main zone of absorbtion are muscous. But all the body's surface can absorb HCN if we account for the sweat. For the case of the walls, the floor, humidity is present in the case of the Leichenkellers despite you don't need even humidity in this case: walls and floors temperature are not comparable to the one you can find in air according to Luftl's experiences. This is also sommen sense. On the other hand, ventilation from outside, especially during the winter would drop temperature VERY FAST in the chamber. It is true that ventilation could drive out HCN mollecules on the path between ventilation apertures (in-out) but heat redistribution is going beyond this path. To be clear: temperature would drop not only where HCN mollecules were evacuated but beyond. So adherance to surfaces is unavoidable, or let say condensation here. >Yes. How interesting. There are many hypotheses in and about the >world, Beaulieu. Maybe you should start a new newsgroup, >alt.hypothesis or alt.speculation, and take up time and bandwidth >there instead of here. I will correct the text of the FAQ to give more accuracy next time. >Who, other than the computer scientist, Arthur Butz? And are >there any certified chemical scientists, toxicologists, >pathologists etc.? What have they published in their fields which >is relevant to the questions here? You are amazing. I don't know if you are there for a while but it's a well known fact that Luftl (ex director of the austrian engineer association) had publish revisionist material. Germa Rudolph, a chemist also. There was also a couple of chemist present at Zundel's trial if memory deserve. I could find for others if you want, but I don't know how many you need. There's chemist on both side.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor