Beaulieu 2, Beaulieu Jean Francois

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 protected] Tue Dec 19 08:01:51 PST 1995
Article: 16696 of alt.revisionism
Path: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: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne5.vir.com

Ulrich Roessler ([email protected]) 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 protected]>
>References: <[email protected]>

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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne16.vir.com

Subject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret?
From: [email protected] (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 protected] 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: <[email protected]>
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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne9.vir.com

[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (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 protected] 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: <[email protected]>
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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne18.vir.com

ubject: Re: Auschwitz, a secret?
From: [email protected] (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 protected] 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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne10.vir.com

[email protected] (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 protected] 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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne10.vir.com

[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

In an article (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

In article <[email protected]>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote:
>>From: [email protected] (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 protected] 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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne10.vir.com

[email protected] (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 protected] 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: <[email protected]>
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:
><[email protected]>) 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 protected]>):
>
> 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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

[email protected] (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 protected] Fri Dec 29 02:16:15 PST 1995
Article: 17843 of alt.revisionism
Path: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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
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 protected] 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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne31.vir.com

mstein[email protected] (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 protected] 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: <[email protected]>
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 [email protected] 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: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne4.vir.com

In article <[email protected]>, Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote:

>[email protected] (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 protected] 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: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne11.vir.com

[email protected] (Stephane Bruchfeld) wrote:
>
[email protected] (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.


The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/b/beaulieu.jean-francois/1995/beaulieu.1295
From [email protected] Mon Dec 18 09:40:22 PST 1995
Article: 16577 of alt.revisionism
Path: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: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ipdyne6.vir.com