Morbit humor, Giwer Matt

Unfortunately, the article <[email protected]> seems
to have either expired or been cancelled from the news servers I can
find. However, this article is available from DejaNews, and it contains
the important quoted text.

That text is in the middle of a discussion about the gas chambers of
Auschwitz. Specifically, about whether the rooms usually labelled
“morgue” in Kremas II and III are in fact those gas chambers. (They
are, of course.) Matt Giwer mentions a “conceptual drawing,” which
prompts Danny Keren to comment:

The construction documents do mention a “gassing cellar” and a
“gas chamber” in the Kremas.

Matt Giwer’s astounding response:

So far as has been posted that comes from one letter as opposed to
the rest that do not. One needs to ask why that one person would
call it that. Perhaps a morbid sense of humor. One would also
have to review all of his other documents to see how else he
refers to it.

“Perhaps a morbid sense of humor.” The captured Nazi documents refer to
a “gas chamber” and a “gassing cellar,” and Matt Giwer attributes this
labelling to “a morbid sense of humor.”

The URL which retrieves his article from DejaNews is currently
(June 18th, 1996):[email protected]%3e&server=dnserver.dbapr&CONTEXT=835115353.5943&hitnum=9

Here is the text as retrieved from DejaNews:

Subject: Re: A little Q&A on the holocaust
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Date: 1996/05/10
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Organization: images incarnate
X-Netcom-Date: Fri May 10 6:14:16 PM CDT 1996
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism

[email protected] (Daniel Keren) wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:

>Giwer wrote one of oddest pieces of “revisionist” nonsense I have
>ever seen. He does not deny the number of Holocaust victims; he
>states, for instance, that 1.2 million people died in Auschwitz. But,
>for some reason, he argues they died of reasons other than gassing.

>My own speculation: the Giwer-troll wants to fight with everybody.
>His position, so he hopes, will anger both “revisionists” and
>”anti-revisionists”. The former, because he says the Nazis killed
>millions of innocent people; the latter, because he denies the
>gas chambers.

># What was the holocaust?

>Giwer, the 163-IQ man, elaborates. Let’s see.

># First there is the fact of the holocaust. Some 13 million
># people went into concentration and work camps and about a million
># emerged. Over six years, 12 million people disappeared.

>As a matter of fact, even this is not true (although it’s certainly
>not a “revisionist” statement). A great many civilians who were
>killed by the Nazis did not die in the camps, but from starvation,
>and Nazi-style “reprisals”.

Point taken.

># What was the plan for the Holocaust?
># Surprisingly, we have little hard information on the subject.

>Er, ah, “we” means Giwer. His problem is that he draws his
>knowledge about the Holocaust from what he reads on
>alt.revisionism. There is plenty of hard information
>on the subject.

That is what has been under discussion and that way I see. Write
your own article.

># In fact we have only one master plan document which is
># the Wannsee Protocol.

>We have numerous documents detailing Nazi mass murder. They
>are often posted here.

># After this late 1941 conference, it does become sinister.
># The plan becomes to move Jews to the east to be worked to death
># by hard manual labor such as road building.

>Finally, an admission.

I have been saying that all along.

># But what is missing from the revised plan is any mention
># whatsoever of gassing or anything other than being worked to
># death.

>True. But this is mentioned in other documents. The Wannsee
>document does imply that the “solution of the Jewish problem”
>is the annihilation of the Jews. It doesn’t go into the

The method was already discussed in the Wannsee protocol, it left
only one group undiscussed.

># In addition there a provision for sending those over 65
># to a ghetto instead of to hard labor. There is a similar
># provision for Jews decorated for combat in WW I.

>Giwer, intentionally perhaps, fails to mention that only German
>and Austrian Jews over 65 were considered. A small portion (about
>1 percent) of the Jewish population mentioned in the Wannsee
>Protocol. There were far more Jews in Poland and the USSR than
>in Germany and Austria. People over 65 can’t reproduce, and they
>were not going to live for very long anyway.

Point taken.

># What is the basis for stories about the Holocaust?
># Again, there is surprisingly little.

>There is little that Giwer knows about. That’s true.

># Unfortunately these witnesses are not particularly credible in
># that the tell stories that are contrary to science,

>No, they are not. We’ve been through this. When a witness says
>that exhaust from diesel fumes killed the people in the chambers
>in half-an-hour or so, “revisionists” claim that this testimony
>”contradicts science”, because “diesel fumes are not lethal”. We’ve
>seen “revisionists” make this claim over and over again. But it’s
>a lie; diesel fumes are lethal. In a series of experiments which
>is often mentioned here, British researchers, testing the toxicity
>of diesel fumes, pumped the exhaust of a tiny diesel engine into
>a chamber in which animals were put. The animals died.

This is being discussed in another thread. Join in.

>To repeat – the problem is that “revisionists” either know nothing
>about science, or that they lie. The problem is not with the

And when you do join in you will discover that my knowledge of
science has lead to an explanation of why there might have been
reports of “steaming” people. You would be wise to take
advantage of it.

># All violations of physical law in testimony are equal and thus
># when we read that death by gassing causes the bodies to give off
># heat, it is in the same category as turning off the gravity.
>This is an example to “revisionist” deceit. The testimony, of
>course, does not say that the corpses gave off heat because
>the victims were killed with poison gas. It says that when the
>doors to a gas chamber in which many people were shut were
>opened – shortly after they were gassed – heat was given off.

>I suggest to Giwer to close himself in a chamber densely
>packed with people, and measure the temperature in it.

When you write your own article you can interperate it as you

># What is the physical evidence for the holocaust?

>What is the physical evidence for any historical event? For
>World War I? For World War II? Let’s be specific. What is the
>physical evidence to the claim that Germany occupied Paris
>in WW2? That should be easy. Maybe the 163-IQ man wants to
>take a shot at it?

>There is no less physical evidence to the Holocaust than to
>other historical events. Actually, because of the cyanide
>compounds in the remains of the gassing installations, and
>other physical remains, there is stronger physical evidence to
>the Holocaust than to most other historical events.

We are discussing what there is in other threads.

># It is hardly in question that millions of people disappeared
># into the concentration and work camps and that very few survived.

>That is indeed correct.

># For example, for years there was a hunt for a building at
># Auschwitz that would permit gassing of people at the rate that
># had to have occurred to satisfy the 12 million body count and the
># reports of so many of these witnesses.

>Er, ah, a few corrections to this truly incredible paragraph:

>1) No one claims 12 million people were murdered in Auschwitz.
> The number is much smaller. About 1.3 million.

Point taken.

>2) There is no “hunt” for the buildings (there were more than
> one) in which the mass gassings took place. Their locations
> are well-known.

Then all of this talk about the new information from Moscow has
has added nothing new?

># Presently the effort is to find features of a morgue converted
># into a gas chamber to perform this function.

>This is plain nonsense.

># Although the partially underground construction can be
># explained as means of providing a cooler environment for its use
># as a morgue that works against the use as a gas chamber as it
># makes the evaporation of the gas slower. It is unclear what the
># more expensive roof has to do with either a morgue or a gas
># chamber.

>Well, perhaps it was possible to build a cheaper roof. Perhaps,
>also, Giwer can give a more accurate description of the roof,
>how much it cost to build it, etc.

It is not my point of going into that kind of depth here.

># But in addition to structural damage protection there is
># damage to the people inside. The concrete and the earth would
># protect against fragmentation but the overpressure would damage
># eardrums. And thus the air-tight door to keep that pressure wave
># out of the building.

>1) Why build an air-raid shelter inside the crematorium?

It is out back, not inside. I have suggested it was a secondary
purpose to a building that was already more than half way to
being useful as one.

>2) Why does the inventory list only the *smaller* among the
> two cellars as having a gas tight door? It obviously makes
> no sense. If one of the cellars was going to be used as an
> air-raid shelter, why not use the larger one?

This is being discussed in another thread. The air tight door
would mitigate the damage to the people inside from the
overpressure, mainly eardrum rupture.

>3) Is there any testimony or any blueprint which mention that
> there was any intent to use these cellars as air-raid shelters?

No more than there is one citing it as a gas chamber.

># If these were gas chambers then they were the first and only
># large scale gas chambers in the world.

>That is true.

># Rather we are being asked to accept that the unknowledgeable
># and inexperienced people are diligently searching for evidence
># on this conceptual drawing that is an a gas chamber.

>The construction documents do mention a “gassing cellar” and a
>”gas chamber” in the Kremas.

So far as has been posted that comes from one letter as opposed
to the rest that do not. One needs to ask why that one person
would call it that. Perhaps a morbid sense of humor. One would
also have to review all of his other documents to see how else he
refers to it.

>Moreover, Giwer “forgets” all the testimonies about the mass
>gassing in the Kremas.

I dicussed testimonies above.

># And along the way they are ignoring all of the indications of
># another purpose, that of a bomb shelter.

>Are there any such indications by anyone who was there?

When would that have come out? This identification is recent.

>who designed the Kremas? Dejaco, the architect of the Kremas,
>was tried in Austria in 1972. Did he ever mention the air-raid
>shelter theory?

I have not read his testimony. Did he testify to gas chambers?

># Of course one might ask why it was the only one of the three
># structures that was destroyed when the SS abandoned the camp.
># Those who wish it to be a gas chamber say it was to destroy the
># evidence yet any evidence there might have been before was still
># there under the rubble. No evidence was destroyed.

>This is a truly odd statement. Kremas IV and V were razed. Only
>the floor remains. And Giwer says “no evidence was destroyed”?

Nizkor carries a picture of the above ground undressing room of
Krema IV as the gas chamber. Several of the slits for
introducing gas are in the picturs. So says the caption in any

But it is unclear what you are referring to by razed. If you
mean the Krema itself, the ovens would still be there. No
evidence destroyed. Collapsing the roof of the building I am
talking about just makes evidence harder to get at.

># Rather upon retreat one would destroy anything that might be
># of military value to the enemy, in this case a bomb shelter.

>Well, this little theory has some gaping holes in it.

>1) Why wasn’t the room in Krema I – which we *know* was an
> air-raid shelter – destroyed?

Isn’t that the room that the curator said was rebuilt?

>2) Why were Kremas IV and V – which Giwer does not seem to claim
> were air-raid shelters – destroyed?

I have not discussed those other places because it was a
different building. They were above ground and not suitable.

>3) Isn’t it obvious that the SS had hardly nothing to gain from
> destroying these buildings, if they were air-raid shelters?
> The German army was finished. The war was going to end soon,
> everyone knew that. There’s no indication AFAIK that large
> Soviet troops were planning to stay in Auschwitz, and would
> indeed use these cellars as air-raid shelters. And anyway, how
> much of the German Air-Force was around in January 1945?

When retreating one hopes to regroup. It would also have been
useful as protection against artillery attack.

> No, it’s absolutely clear that if these cellars were “innocent”,
> the SS would have left them standing. The argument would have
> been “these crazies are accusing us of using these air-raid
> shelters as gas chambers! Let’s leave them standing, so everyone
> can see they were just air-raid shelters”.

So what did bringing down the roof accomplish but make the
evidence more difficult to get at?

># Even more fabulous are the stories of Treblinka. Although
># the total number of gassings at the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex is
># officially down to a bit over a million, the 40 acre complex at
># Treblinka is supposed to have gassed and burned 2 million in a
># space of hardly two years where A-B took nearly four years for
># its lesser number.

>Another typical “revisionist” trick. The 2 million figure was
>apparently given by one of the Ukrainian guards in the camp who,
>as I recall, didn’t spend a lot of time there. Historians believe
>the true figure to be around 700,000.

2 million was posted here as gospel. I have used it many times.
You are the first to say that it is wrong.

># The executions at Treblinka were originally testified to
># have been done by electrocution, being steamed alive, and by
># being put into vacuum chambers.

>Once again: these were incorrect rumors which were *not* supplied
>by the SS-men in the camp, or the sonderkommando survivors. These
>were erroneous interpretations made by people (mostly, members
>of the Polish underground) who were spying on the camps from a
>distance. They saw the trains full with people going into the
>camps, and no one coming out. They even saw the corpses being
>dragged to the mass graves. But they couldn’t see into the chambers
>and know how the victims were killed. The “steam story” is probably
>a misinterpretation of the exhaust coming out of the gas chambers
>when the doors were opened (and even Giwer now agrees that diesels
>can produce white exhaust).

># Let me jump ahead to the end of the story here so the rest
># of it can be put in context. After this complex was shut down
># every trace of it was removed such that nothing can be found
># today, not even building foundations.

>Human remains were found, up to a depth of 7.5 meters, in Treblinka.

But not in sufficient quantity and, unless a typo, much too deep
without a rather massive excavation. With either number used we
are talking pounds of bone ash per square foot.

># At Treblinka the currently popular means of extermination is
># the engine exhaust from abandoned Russian tanks. Death by carbon
># monoxide poisoning. What is interesting about the testimony
># regarding this is that it occurred in roughly the same time frame
># as cyanide poisoning even though they are not equivalently deadly
># nor did they have the same release mechanisms.

>”Not equivalently deadly”? It depends on the concentration. HCN
>is more lethal than CO, in the same concentration. Let Giwer
>stand in a room with 10 ppm HCN, and tell us what happens to him.
>Then, he can switch to a room with 60,000 ppm CO. As for the release
>mechanism, well, large engines do release very large volumes
>of poisonous gas rather quickly.

Pardon me if I ignore this stupid game one more time.

>For the record, most testimonies place the duration of the
>gassing in the larger gas chambers in Treblinka at 30-40 minutes.

I have seen numbers up to an hour.

># Now of course these engines sound simple and reasonable but
># what is missing from all of the stories are descriptions of them.
># Not descriptions of the engines per se but everything else that
># would have been needed to make them work. For example, the
># engine mounts.

>This is starting to be ridiculous. First, Giwer does not know
>if these details are missing from the testimonies. He can try and
>find them in the transcripts of the trials. But who would bother?

>Is he really suggesting that Nazi Germany – a technological
>superpower that built submarines, jet planes, and rockets – could
>not handle these “problems”? Mounting a tank engine?

># And then where are the batteries to run the starter? And
># the mounts for the batteries? And the fuel tank and the mounts
># for the fuel tanks?

>And the engine’s key? Why don’t you ask where’s the engine’s
>key? For God’s sake, stop this nonsense.

># And then all of this in a specially built building to
># protect it from the elements.

>Yep folks – the Nazis could build submarines, they could conquer
>Europe, they could send rockets that flew all the way to London, but
>they couldn’t build a structure to protect the engine from the
>elements. They could destroy cities, but they couldn’t destroy this
>structure when Treblinka was dismantled. I can’t believe I’m reading
>this. Giwer outdid himself this time.

Rather than simply bringing in the entire tank? since they
needed the chassis that is.

># But there is more to Treblinka than just this. This is the
># camp of the great burning pits. Ten pits 40 or 50 meters long by
># 8 meters by 2 or 3 meters deep, stories vary. For those
># unfamiliar with metric a meter is about 3 1/3 feet. Half a
># football field long. as wide as the longest dimension of your
># average two story house and six to ten feet deep. All ten of
># these pits were used for burning bodies, 2 million bodies in
># fact.

>No – less than 2 million.

># Yet even at only two pounds of bone ash per body and evenly
># burying it over the 40 acres of Treblinka, there is no sign of
># the 50 tons of bone ash per acre.

>But ashes were discovered in the camp.

>BTW, can Giwer tell us the volume of these “50 tons of bone ash”?

What the volume it would make a clearly noticeable layer in those
cores. But now I am told the burial area was only five acres to
the layer just became 8 times thicker.

># But wait, there is more. Each of these pits was supposed to
># have a channel that collected the human fat so it could be
># collected and then poured back over the bodies as fuel for
># burning them.

>Are there such stories about Treblinka? About Auschwitz and its
>much shallower “burning pits”, yes. But about Treblinka?

It has been posted here many times and there have been many
threads on it.

># And then given the spirit of revenge what would be the
># motivation to separate known fact from stories given that
># sympathetic liberators are eating it up without the least
># challenge to the stories?

>And all the trials of former SS-men held by the German Legal
>System? Was this also “revenge”?

What were they charged with specifically?

># So how could so many die so quickly?

>Giwer goes on to suggest that they died of starvation, slave
>labor etc. Actually, many did die due to starvation and
>overwork; many others were shot; but, also, many died in the
>gas chambers – mostly those who were classified as “unfit
>for work”, hence the Nazis found no reason to keep them alive.

The question is not so much how many died without gassing but
rather how so many survived with it.

># If it is all this simple why are these stories preserved?

>Because they are true.

That is what we are discussing.

># The stories are preserved primarily by Jewish organizations.

>There has been a *huge* body of work on the Holocaust by
>German historians.

These stories in particular and are there no German Jewish

># There is very little impartial secular history on these stories.

>This is a lie.

These particular stories.

># As the Jews are clearly the ones preserving these stories,


USHMM for example. SW for another.

># Take for example one the most famous people from Auschwitz,
># Anne Frank. Even with the Nazis in full retreat the story of her
># last days is that she was in an SS infirmary at Auschwitz
># recovering from typhus.

>Can someone verify this?

Try Nizkor.

># On one hand we are told that those who were unfit to
># work and in this case we have hardly more than a child and not a
># skilled laborer sick with typhus being moved from camp to camp in
># some form of transportation in what clearly appears to be an
># effort to save her life.

>Joseph Kramer must be laughing in hell. 40,000 died in Belsen
>alone at the war’s end when, according to Giwer, the poor little
>Nazis were frantically trying to save the lives of the inmates.

I merely raise the point of incompatible events.

># I feel myself involved in the long honored avocation of
># debunking nonsense.

>Debunking nonsense is indeed an honored tradition.

>Which is why some people take the time to debunk Giwer’s nonsense,
>his lies and slanders, and his hate propaganda.

There is no hate in what I have written.


6,000,000 are a tragedy, the other 6,000,000 a footnote.

What kind of truth is it that needs protection?