Monday, November 12, 2007

Michael Mills and Zyklon-B

The evidence concerning the supply of Zyklon-B for homicidal gassing continues to be distorted, not just by outright deniers, but also by self-appointed 'skeptics' who have simply misread the postwar trial testimony, or incorrectly inferred the grounds upon which judges reached their verdicts.

Read more!

In 2003, Michael Mills started this thread on the Axis History Forum to promote his view that:
Many readers will know that at the post-war trial of Tesch and Weinbacher, the managers of the firm Tesch & Stabenow, reports of the visit of representatives of the firm to Riga for the purpose of using Zyklon-B was accepted as proof that the firm had knowignly [sic] supplied that prodcut [sic] to the SS for homicidal purposes.

The British judges who sentenced Tesch and Weinbacher to death may be forgiven for their false interpretation of the visit to Riga. At that time the imaginations of Allied officials were filled with reports of the homicidal use of Zyklon-B. to the extent that the possibility of an innocent use was simply disregarded.

Today we know much more about the normal use of Zyklon-B for delousing (even Gerlach confirms that that was its proper use), so there is no excuse for historians confusing the normal and homicidal uses, and Breitman apparently did.
Mills implies that the judges had insufficient evidence that Zyklon-B was used to gas humans, and hanged two innocent men on the basis of a misreading of Tesch's visit to Riga. However, the United Nations War Crimes Commission's Law-Report of the Zyklon-B Case is now available to view on-line here, and it clearly shows that Mills had misread the trial evidence, thereby leading him to present a Straw Man version of both the eyewitnesses and the judges.

The evidence relied on by the prosecution is summarized in part 4 of the report. It will be noted straight away that Tesch's visit to Riga does not appear in the summary. Instead, we have testimony from Tesch's employees which clearly shows that Tesch knew that Zyklon-B was being used to kill humans:
Anna Uenzelmann, a former stenographer of the firm, said that in about June 1942 Tesch, after he had dictated a travel report on returning from Berlin, had told her that Zyklon B was being used for gassing human beings, and had appeared to be as terrified and shocked about the matter as she was.
Moreover, Tesch had noted a meeting with members of the Wehrmacht in which gassing humans with prussic acid was discussed and recommended:
Emil Sehm, a former bookkeeper and accountant employed by Tesch and Stabenow, supplied information, regarding the legitimate business activities of the firm and the positions of the three accused therein, which substantially bore out the opening statements of the Prosecutor on these points. He went on to state that in the Autumn of 1942 he saw in the files of the firm’s registry one of the reports, dictated by Tesch, which gave accounts of his business journeys. In this travel report, Tesch recorded an interview with leading members of the Wehrmacht, during which he was told that the burial, after shooting, of Jews in increasing numbers was proving more and more unhygienic, and that it was proposed to kill them with prussic acid. Dr. Tesch, when asked for his views, had proposed to use the same method, involving the release of prussic acid gas in an enclosed space, as was used in the extermination of vermin. He undertook to train the S.S. men in this new method of killing human beings.

Sehm had written down a note of these facts and taken it away with him, but had burnt it the next day on the advice of an old friend, named Wilhelm Pook, to whom he had related what he had seen.
We can therefore see quite clearly how revisionist canards have been generated about Auschwitz, and other features of the Final Solution, which could have been nipped in the bud through a simple checking of the relevant postwar trial records.

34 comments:

ngoodgame said...

"We can therefore see quite clearly how revisionist canards have been generated about Auschwitz, and other features of the Final Solution, which could have been nipped in the bud through a simple checking of the relevant postwar trial records."

Unfortunatly nothing can be seen clearly without the transcript of the court procedings. The summary offered via hyperlink certainly does not nip in the bud the revisionist argument. On the contrary, the summary of those procedings states that

"In Weinbacher’s case, there was no direct evidence, either by way of conversation or of anything that he had written among the documents of the firm produced during the trial, which formed any kind of evidence specifically imputing knowledge to Weinbacher as to how Zyklon B was being used at Auschwitz."

The verdicts seemed to be handed down on conjecture alone. Even the prosecution's witnesses claimed to have burned the notes he had taken of an incriminating conversation.

I consider myself an unbiased seeker of truth. It is my suspicion that there is validity to the revisionist arguments. If the Germans truly did the things that are taught in 6th grade history books, there would be overwhelming evidence available to support it. Not only that, but there would be no reason for embellishment and deception (ie shrunken heads and jew soap) which, originally passed off as gospel, was subsequently found to be nonesense. Finally, if the truth was so evident, there would be no reason to pass laws to jail those who contest the "official" narrative.

Lastly, I would like to hear an answer (and I know that this is not related to the topic at hand but perhaps you could indulge me anyway) about why even though the official deathtoll at Auschwitz has been reduced by millions, the 6 million tally remains unchanged.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Mmm, "an unbiased seeker of truth" who just happens to repeat every denier cliche from the Cesspit and other denier sites. No-one without 'bias' believes that there is not overwhelming evidence of gassing at Auschwitz. Your comments on death tolls are similarly ignorant, as a simple comparison of, e.g., Hilberg and Benz, would confirm.

You also did not address the substance of the blog. The use of Zyklon-B for murder was proven by the eyewitness testimony relating to Tesch. If you have evidence that those witnesses were mistaken, fire away, but of course you don't, hence your recycling of diversionary CODOH bullshit.

ngoodgame said...

Thank you for your response, and I mean that sincerely. A couple of years ago, I assumed like most people, that holocaust deniers were anti-Semitic lunatics who denied Hitler killed Jews. After happening across various revisionist websites, I learned that I had been a victim of propaganda and misinformation. I realized that the revisionist point of view was being blatantly misrepresented by the main stream media and that a vast majority of Americans were unaware of it.

Now, I honestly am not certain whether or not the revisionist argument that millions of Jews were NOT gassed by Zyklon B is correct. What I do know is that I have read the revisionist arguments and found them persuasive. The evidence that one would expect to find after millions of people were sent to the gas chambers is missing. There are no obvious gas chambers, much less a lengthy paper trail. True, just like in the above article, there is contradictory eye witness testimony. But in order for me to be convinced, there needs to be more evidence. To quote a revisionist, “you don’t need a magnifying glass to find an elephant in the room”.

As to my repeating every “denier cliché from the cesspit,” you are entitled to your opinion. Cliché’s however are more often then not true because if they weren’t, they would not be around long enough to become cliché. Cliché of course is synonymous with truism.

Next you say that “no one without bias believes that there is not overwhelming evidence of gassing at Auschwitz”. False! Perhaps I am just under-informed. This is an entirely likely scenario that I am open to. However, I can assure you that as a truth seeker, I am anxious for overwhelming evidence in order to gain knowledge and a better understanding. Perhaps I just haven’t come across it yet.

As for the Auschwitz death toll, I have done a little research and found the answers I was looking for. You referred me to the works of two historians, but you could have simply explained that main stream historians, since the 50’s, have been saying that the death toll at Auschwitz was around 1 million but the Soviet era propaganda sign was only changed recently after the end of the cold war. And that this does not, according to main stream historians, affect the 6 million figure.

Let us turn now to the substance of the blog. You claim that “the use of Zyklon-B for murder was proven by the eyewitness testimony relating to Tesch.” This statement is no more valid than if I claimed the use of Zyklon-B for murder was disproved by the defense claim that “Zyklon B was delivered only for normal purposes of disinfection and for medical reasons”. Point is, eyewitness testimony does not “prove” anything especially when at least one of the eyewitness is a demonstrable liar. Furthermore, you haven’t made the eyewitness testimony available. All we have to work with is the summary of the testimony (compliments of Mr. Stein) and not the actual transcripts. Some EVIDENCE I would expect to see would be invoices for the time period when the gassings supposedly began in 41/42. If these invoices showed a dramatic increase in the amount of Zyklon-B shipped than in previous months and there was no credible alternative explanation, I would be persuaded. But this is exactly the kind of evidence that is suspiciously absent.

Obviously, I can’t prove that Emil Sehm did not take notes regarding Tesch discussing with members of the Wehrmacht the improved hygiene benefits of burying Jews killed with prussic acid compared with burying Jews killed with bullets, and then conveniently burning the notes a day later. It just sounds like nonsense to me. It’s too bad we can’t read the cross examination of Mr. Wilhelm Bahr. I think it would be very revealing. I’m sure we both agree that Dr. Bendel is a liar. Why would the prosecution feel it needed to lie to convict these two men? Wasn’t the truth damning enough? The neat thing about truth is that if it is on your side, there is no need to exaggerate, embellish, or lie. Two men were sentenced to death on the flimsiest of uncorroborated eyewitness testimony. The fix was in; the winners of wars are the writers of history. The losers are given a fair trial, executed, and then demonized so the winners can teach their children to pat themselves on the back.

Again, these are the problems I (Open minded truth seeker) have with the official holocaust narrative.

1) Host of dubious contradictory witnesses but lack of overwhelming evidence.
2) The mainstream misrepresentation of the revisionist point of view.
3) The Demonization and many places incarceration of revisionists.

Taken together, these three points make me very suspicious of the official narrative.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Whoops, you forgot the two former stenographers who testified, and Sehm's friend who confirmed his testimony. You forgot Pery Broad's testimony about Auschwitz and you forgot that the book-keeper kept records of shipments. I'm sure these were honest oversights on your part.

Cliché is not synonymous with truism. As Stephen Fry wrote, "It is a cliché that most clichés are true, but then like most clichés, that cliché is untrue."

ngoodgame said...

Sorry Jon, I didn’t forget. I read Stein’s summary of each of those witnesses. Like I said in the previous two posts, that is not proof of anything. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the prosecution got the other witnesses to lie for them like they did Dr. Bendel. Plus without the actual transcript, there is no way to know the veracity of the defense and the validity of the witnesses. Did you forget something? I would be interested in learning your thoughts on why the prosecution allowed the false testimony of Dr. Bendel.

ngoodgame said...

Oh, and Microsoft Word agrees that cliche is synonymous with truism.

Jonathan Harrison said...

It's unreasonable to assume that a witness lied unless you have evidence to that effect, which you don't. The veracity of Witness A tells us nothing about the veracity of Witness B. You are peddling a ridiculous conspiracy theory and yet asking us to believe that you retain some kind of objectivity.

As for cliche v truism, I refer you to the Stephen Fry quote above. Some cliches are clearly untrue.

ngoodgame said...

You're not playing fair. I asked you to comment on why the prosecution allowed the false testimony of Dr. Bendel and you couldn't or wouldn't respond. Instead you accuse me of "peddling a ridiculous conspiracy theory".

What is laughable is that you submit a SUMMARY of a military court proceeding as "proof" that Zyklone-B was used to kill humans. Talk about a logical fallacy. Then, when I point out that one of the prosecution's witnesses lied, your defense is "well that doesn't mean the rest of them did". Come on. Just admit that without the entire transcript of the proceedings, the veracity of any of the witnesses can't be determined (except where obvious lies have been reproduced in the summary).

Jonathan Harrison said...

You haven't demonstrated that Bendel lied about matters that affected the guilt of the defendants or that the prosecution knew he was lying. The burden of proof lies with you to do so. Similarly, the burden of proof regarding the other witnesses lies with you, not me, as you're the person who is challenging the court's decision. You need to show that the overall weight of ALL the eyewitness testimony is insufficient for the judges to have reasonably concluded that Tesch knew that Zyklon-B was being supplied to Auschwitz for the purpose of killing. Cherrypicking errors by one or two witnesses that you regard as fishy is not going to do that. You have to show evidence of systematic lying and conspiracy.

Butch said...

What always surprises me about you sanctimonious fucks is how quickly you resort to sarcasm and ad homonym (as in immediately).

It is clear that ngoodgame makes some good points and seems to have some type logical education so of course he must be besmirched immediately.

He would have (I believe) debated (discusses is probably a better word) with you as long as you like but J.H. was loosing ground so quickly he had to trivialize the argument to keep ngoodgame from writing back.

Having said all that I really do believe you guys are doing some good; no thinking person could read the exchange between goodgame and J.H. and NOT believe goodgame overwhelmingly made the better points.

Jonathan Harrison said...

His points were so good that he ran away when asked to substantiate them. Meanwhile, fuckwit Butch doesn't have the brain-cells to realise that someone who uses "santimonious fucks" in his first sentence immediately looks like a prick when he then accuses his opponents of ad-hominems.

Butch said...

He lives!

What happened to all the real Jews? How is it that "Harrison" is the only one still keeping this shit-hole alive?

Your (predictable) answer is so typical of you fucks. But I don't mind because it conjures up the image of a total looser (you)spontaneously reacting to the only part of the question he could address.

I'm not shitting you when I say you are indeed doing a favor for truth when you spin your tails. It's a different world thanks to the Internet -- keep up the good work.

Butch

P.S. Can you possibly explain to me why Sergey Romanov (the Russian living in Moscow) doesn't speak or write Russian. I ask only cuz I'm curious how disingenuous you fucks really are.

P.P.S. If you refuse to address the S.R. question, could you possibly direct me to someone who can clear up this obvious misrepresentation?

ngoodgame said...

Wrong again John, I didn’t “run away” because I couldn’t substantiate my points. It just seemed kind of pointless continually repeating them without having them addressed. Allow me to cut and paste the thrust of my argument in the hopes that you may finally respond.

From my first post: “Unfortunately nothing can be seen clearly without the transcript of the court proceedings. The summary offered via hyperlink certainly does not nip in the bud the revisionist argument.”

From my second post: You claim that “the use of Zyklon-B for murder was proven by the eyewitness testimony relating to Tesch.” This statement is no more valid than if I claimed the use of Zyklon-B for murder was disproved by the defense claim that “Zyklon B was delivered only for normal purposes of disinfection and for medical reasons”. Point is, eyewitness testimony does not “prove” anything… Furthermore, you haven’t made the eyewitness testimony available. All we have to work with is the summary of the testimony (compliments of Mr. Stein) and not the actual transcripts.

From my third post: I read Stein’s summary of each of those witnesses. Like I said in the previous two posts, that is not proof of anything.

From my fifth post: What is laughable is that you submit a SUMMARY of a military court proceeding as "proof" that Zyklone-B was used to kill humans. Talk about a logical fallacy… Come on. Just admit that without the entire transcript of the proceedings, the veracity of any of the witnesses can't be determined (except where obvious lies have been reproduced in the summary).

Do you see a pattern here John? As I explained in my second post, “I honestly am not certain whether or not the revisionist argument that millions of Jews were NOT gassed by Zyklon B is correct.” What motivated me to respond to your original article was that I took exception to your conclusions that were simply not supported by the evidence that you offered. Please make the original transcripts of the court proceedings available and we can continue this discussion.

Butch said...

Ngoodgame,

Join the club.

I have been dealing with these fucks for years and it's always the same. Always.

I genuinely appreciated your non-antisemitic overture (as well as your overall civility) but possibly you aren't familiar with the new definition of antisemitism?

Original definition: Someone who hates Jews.

New definition: Someone who Jews hate.

In any event, it was enlightening to read your tightly-reasoned appraisal of the situation -- the cliche exchange was especially amusing -- but you'll never get anywhere with these... PhDs.

If you'd like a real treat, keep the debate alive, it will only be a short while before they trot out antisemitism or, as a minimum, begin to parse and trivialize your arguments.

The truth has such an unmistakable aroma.

Butch

P.S. They used to maintain an "open" forum but I was kicking their asses so badly (especially Nick Terry's and Sergey's) that it has now gone to a three-part procedure just to post.

Jonathan Harrison said...

NGG, you have not refuted the extracts from the witness statements in my blog, which in my view show that the judges made the correct decision. You have claimed instead that another witness was lying, but you have not substantiated this claim. Moreover, your entire approach to this case is based on a "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" fallacy.

Butch said...

JH,

If his entire case is based on falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, why didn't you just say that from the beginning? His argument never changed?

NGG:

This is an extremely typical exchange with theses folks (or possibly I should say "folk", since it looks like JH is the only one keeping the ship afloat at present). If you had pushed much harder, any sooner, the Latin would have come out sooner (along with straw-men and Red Herring, et al).

I too asked the Auschwitz (six-million) question and likewise got no reasonable answer except that the Soviets had "over-estimated" the death toll... but only at Auschwitz. So, of course, any argument I might have made after that would have (ultimately) been refuted with falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. There are countless examples just as compelling as the six-million question.

Clearly the traditional holocaust story is fabrication but these fucks won’t give an inch and I don’t even know why. The net effect of their site (in you case anyway) has been to alienate and frustrate you which will almost certainly cause you to take an even closer look at the numbers and make the obvious conclusions.

They have never even actually abandoned the “Jew-soap” story, they just stopped defending it once it became too bizarre to defend. I too was inculcated with the holocaust since I was first exposed to history (age 10 maybe?). I might be a bit older than you -- I'm 53 -- but I was actually shown photographs of shrunken heads, lampshades made from Jewish skin, Jewish-soap, Jewish-hair mattresses, etc.

People forget (or were never told) that no “death camps” existed in Allied liberated territory, all of them were in Soviet liberated countries (primarily Poland). Entire achieves were captured from these camps which could have proved (or disproved) the holocaust claims but then again, there was no love lost between the Germans and the Russians following the war so for the Soviets to withhold information is no surprise. I would guess that these archives still exist somewhere.

I bought the traditional story until I was approximately 35 years old, then, like you, did a bit of reading (and thinking) and discovered “the math was all wrong” (as we used to say in engineering school}. It’s been awhile since I have formally studied WWII -- and I do not know the typical American public-school history curriculum -- but I would hazard to guess that the traditional holocaust story is no longer taught; it has just become too incredulous even for sixth-graders. Though, I also suspect the salient anti-Semitic points are still made in one form or the other.

This particular fuck (JH) sounds a lot like a guy names “Globus” who once chided me because I didn’t argue the “standard catechisms”. I don’t suppose it ever occurred to him that by not arguing catechisms (i.e. my arguments were based on original though) should have buoyed my case but possibly he was only capable of defending standard catechisms. Who knows?

As an aside, thy used to have a poster named Sergey Romanov who claimed to live in Moscow (possibly their “Soviet" expert) but he neither speaks, reads or writes Russian?? I have asked for clarification on that question dozens of times but he/they won’t answer. Besides, so what? Even if Romanov is a fraud, it could easily be refuted with falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

There are some clearly anti-Semitic forums that are more interested in genuine Jew hating than any sort of resolution but there are also volumes of credible documentation that challenge (destroy?) the traditional story.

In all fairness, I believe the Jewish people are as much a victim of this hoax as the rest of us; thy went to the same schools, saw the same movies, read the same newspapers etc. But for a Jew to deny or even question the holocaust, I would think tantamount to blasphemy. Possibly analogous to an African-American not trotting out the slavery issue at appropriate times (please note, I am not denying the clearly documented slavery era).

As a breath of fresh air, (most) Europeans view the holocaust much like they view obesity in the U.S.; it’s an American problem. There are probably more holocaust museums in the U.S. than in all of Europe. I have actually been to Auschwitz, Poland and the overwhelming nationality of the visitors were -- you guessed it -- “U.S. Americans”.

Did Jews die in WWII? Absolutely. But so did an estimated 75 million others. Were six-million Jews systematically gassed by the Germans? Get real.

Butch

P.S. I am taking the liberty of sending this to your mail-box since it stands an excellent chance of being purged… which means it won’t be because they need to show they are unbiased.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Butch, your post will be retained here as evidence of your abusive posting style. Sergey has translated Soviet documentation here and elsewhere, as a simple search would have confirmed.

Butch said...

Thank you very much; I’ll count that as a double win. Not only did you completely alienate NGG but anyone else reading this thread -- one of the few that has any comments so will likely attract attention if anyone else stumbles on your site -- will surely come away with the same doubts you left NGG with.

If I'm mistaken about Sergey, well, I guess I'm mistaken. I read one of his exchanges (on another forum) with a real Russian and he made no attempt what-so-ever to speak to the man in Russian even though the real Russian was having quite a bit of difficulty with English (and yes Sergey had the capability to post in Cyrillic had he chosen to do so). As I recall, the real Russian was attempting to explain the double meaning of a particular Russian word to Sergey (all the while struggling with English) and it seemed to me that any normal bi-lingual person would have immediately cleared up the confusion with a few words in Russian.

Made me wonder, that’s all. So I asked (many, many times), but it was never answered so I assumed it was just another, ahhh… myth?

In future, I'll avoid abusiveness, for example, I won't say things like: Meanwhile, fuckwit Butch doesn't have the brain-cells to realise that someone who uses "santimonious (sic) fucks" in his first sentence immediately looks like a prick when he then accuses his opponents of ad-hominems.

joachim neander said...

@ "ngoodgame":

To regular Zyklon-B, intended for fumigating and also used for this purpose at Auschwitz, a strongly smelling substance was added to warn the Desinfektoren, the people who did the disinfestation work. But there exists at Auschwitz an original Lieferschein for Zyklon-B with the explicit remark that this very batch, as demanded, does not contain the warning agent. Why? (Please don't come with the argument "forgery.")

ngoodgame said...

I think I understand Joachim’s question.

First he says that regular Zyklon-B used for fumigation was given an artificial smell that helped to warn the fumigators of its presence.

Next he says that there was another batch of Zyklon-B that was devoid of this artificial smell.

He then asks for an explanation as to why this was but will not allow me to deny the veracity of his initial statements.

The implied argument with Joachim’s question is that the bad smell was not injected into this particular batch of Zyklon-B because it was used in the deliberate murder of unsuspecting Jews.

Now, I am no expert on Zyklon-B, Auschwitz, or the holocaust, so, before I jump headlong trying to give an answer, let me ask a few questions.

First, was Zyklon-B odorless and colorless (like propane) before the artificial smell was added to it?

Next, it is my understanding of the official narrative at Auschwitz that Jews were crowded into large rooms, then large metal doors were sealed shut. Next, holes in the ceiling were uncovered and the Zyklon-B was poured in. If this is the case, what would be the purpose of removing the bad smell from the Zyklon-B? At this point did the Jew’s not already know what was going on? And why would the German’s care if they did?

In summary, simply explain to me better how “demanding” that the bad smell be removed from this particular batch of Zyklon-B, benefited the Germans.

joachim neander said...

@ "ngoodgame":

Thank you for asking questions worth to think about. Though I hold a minor degree in physics and chemistry (the French MPC, 1958) I'm no expert on Zyklon-B. My knowledge comes only from secondary sources, e.g. the German language Wikipedia articles and from Pressac's book. Zyklon-B was the trade mark for a preparation that emanates, under temperatures above ca. 28 centigrades, HCN, a gas that is a little bit lighter than air and that is lethal for warm-blooded animals (and human beings) already in very small concentrations. It is colorless but smells from bitter almonds. Unfortunately, 30 to 50 per cent of human beings cannot detect this smell (because of genetic reasons). Therefore, for normal use, an intensely smelling agent is added to warn the Desinfektoren, who enter, after ventilation, a ship or a building that was disinfested.

Pressac agrees that most of the Zyklon-B shipped to Auschwitz was used there for disinfestation, its normal use. That would mean that this Zyklon-B contained also the warning agent.

I agree with you that those who were herded into the gas chambers knew or at least felt, already before the Zyklon-B pellets were thrown in, that they were not going to shower, and that they would not leave this room alive. Now Zyklon-B without the warning agent was cheaper, and probably you know well what kind of scrooges German state bureaucrats were (and still are)- they bargain for every penny. And what is more, there was no need to warn the "Desinfektoren" working at the gas chambers. The HCN concentration for killing people is 1/20 to 1/25 of the concentration for killing vermin, ventilation therefore needed only a tiny fraction of the time needed for normal use, and the "Desinfektoren" were Jews from the Sonderkommando - if one or more of them died due to insufficient ventilation, it was no great loss in the eyes of the SS. So not being a watertight proof, it is at least plausible that the odorless Zyklon-B was meant for killing people, not lice.

Butch said...

To Mr. Neander,

If Zyklon-B (that which did not have the warning agent) was cheaper, and if Zyklon-B was used (primarily) to exterminate human beings -- and certainly the amount of ZB needed to kill a human would have to be more than to kill lice (for example) -- it would seem that "odorless” ZB would be the standard form of ZB as opposed to the "single" canister that you seem to indicate in your opening statement (to ngoodgame).

There are many, many valid reasons why an odorless canister might have been found: experimentation, use in areas where time was not an issue, miss-shipment, etc., etc.

I have never found it realistic that ZB -- which was designed and used extensively for it's intended purpose (insect control) -- would be the preferred agent for human extermination. The German's were fairly up on their chemistry, could they not have found a better designed agent (and probably less expensive, since less exposure would be needed)?

An expert on Zyklon-B (or even a chemist) could probably easily clear this up; unfortunately we will have to wait for Joh's ruling.

Butch

joachim neander said...

@ "Butch":

Quote: "certainly the amount of ZB needed to kill a human would have to be more than to kill lice (for example)."

Sorry, quite the contrary is correct. The toxic effect of HCN depends on its concentration and works far better in the body cells of warm-blooded animals (men, mammals, birds) than in those of insects.

The standard work on the use of HCN for pest control still is a publication by Gerhard Peters: "Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung" from 1933, accessible on the Web at www.holocaust-history.org/works/peters-1933/htm/intro00.htm.
Peters gives the following data:
For human beings, a concentration of more than 100 mg per cubic meter is lethal. Apes die within a few minutes from 200-300 mg/cbm. (This amount would apply also to the killing of human beings.) For killing bugs, cockroaches, or other pests in military barracks, 10 g/cbm during several hours are used. That means, to kill lice or bugs, according to Peters, the concentration of HCN must be 30 to 50 times higher than for killing human beings. Not the reverse, as you assume.

joachim neander said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
joachim neander said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ngoodgame said...

Joachim, I have more questions and please overlook my ignorance and enlighten me if I am in error.

Question 1: Was the odorless Zyklon-B found at Auschwitz manufactured and delivered by the firm Tesch & Stabenow?

Question 2: If so, what was the defense employed by Tesch and Weinbacher as to why odorless Zyklon-B was manufactured.

Question 3: If the question of the odorless Zyklon-B was not brought up at the Tesch and Weinbacher trial, how do you account for this?

Question 4: Where can I find the incriminating documents that demonstrate how much money the German government saved by ordering the Zyklon-B without the added odor?

Assertion 1: It is entirely likely that had the German government actually “demanded” that odorless Zyklon-B be sent to Auschwitz, it would not have decreased its cost. The manufacturing operation of Zyklon-B was presumably geared toward creating Zyklon-B that contained an artificially bad smell. Perhaps this was easily rectified and the production of odorless Zyklon-B would have cut costs. On the other hand, it may have required very expensive changes to its industrial manufacture. I don’t know, but I am not ready to concede the point until the documents requested in question 4 are produced.

Assertion 2: Again, this is the kind of “paper trail” that should have been easily produced within the first 5 years, of allied victory. There should have been solid ironclad indisputable proof with a clear picture of exactly how millions of Jews were murdered by Zyklon-B! At the very least, this odorless zyklon-B should have been introduced as evidence at the trial. Then, there would be no debating 50+ years down the road. The fact that is being brought up now, but not in the trial, which occurred within a year of the actual events causes me to be suspicious of its validity.

Regarding the publication by Gerhard Peters, I wonder if there is an English translation available. Can you provide a link?

Lastly, it is always troubling to read “this post has been removed by the author”. Can I get an explanation as to why these two posts were removed?

Butch said...

Neander,

You are absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing that out.

Butch

joachim neander said...

@ "ngoodgame":

Question 1: according to the Lieferschein I saw at Auschwitz, yes.

Questions 2-3: I do not know. I did not study the trials of the T&S firm. I just mused about the fact that odorless Zyklon-B was ordered and delivered to Auschwitz. Don't you feel that this fact should one make thinking? But not being an expert in this field, I would not dare to give a definitive answer.

Question 4: I do not know if relevant documents have come upon us. I only know - from the literature - that the warning agent was added to the "regular" Zyklon-B pallets (or cardboard tiles) at the end of the manufacturing process. It should, therefore, not have been necessary to alter the manufacturing process, it would have sufficed to stop it one step earlier.

I do not know if someone has translated the Peters article into English. By the way, I feel it absolutely necessary in Holocaust studies to have at least a good reading knowledge of German, Russian, Yiddish and Polish, because the bulk of original documents, including early survivor reports, was written in one of these languages. Every translation is at the same time an interpretation, or as the Italians say, "tradutore - traditore."

As to your question, why I deleted two posts: I often have problems with my internet connection, it shuts down unexpectedly, and then I must repeat everything. Eventually I found my comment three times on the blog. So I decided to delete two of them. I'm sorry that I caused you trouble with this.

Jonathan Harrison said...

@ "ngoodgame", regarding Questions 2 & 3, I don't know if the document that Joachim has seen was available to the defence or prosecution in 1946. It seems odd that it is absent from the summary of the trial.

Speculation: My understanding of Pressac is that the documents he found at the Auschwitz archive in the 1980's had not been studied until that point. Maybe the Soviets just did not realise the significance of the documents in their possession and thus did not pass them on to the British prosecutors?

ngoodgame said...

I feel that I have said all I have to say regarding this thread but I would like to continue discussing a certain aspect of the holocaust. Perhaps a new thread should be started.

As I have tried to make clear, I don’t consider myself anti-Semitic, racist, or prejudice in any way. My beliefs and suspicions about the holocaust have been arrived at through limited independent study of evidence and the arguments of various points of view. As I have acknowledged above, it is entirely likely that I am just ignorant to certain evidence or arguments that, had I the opportunity to view, would remove all doubts from my mind.

To summarize my first point, one doesn’t have to be a racist or hate Jews to question the holocaust. One may simply be ignorant or mistaken about certain evidence, or they may be correct.

Others like me who arrive at their suspicions objectively through research or study are not completely refuted. There is a debate and that debate continues. Perhaps (and this is not my experience but I will concede for arguments sake that) revisionists may be largely refuted, or thoroughly refuted, but they are not completely refuted as the debate does continue. If it were so terribly obvious that one side was entirely correct, there would be no such thing as revisionism. If there was a room in Auschwitz that was obviously a gas chamber, there would be no such thing as revisionism.

The holocaust debate is not that dissimilar from various religious debates. To use religion as an example, there are thousands of different sects of Christianity, each quick to suggest that theirs has the most correct interpretation of scripture. All sects have arguments and evidence which support their dogma. Also, like the holocaust debate, many religious debates have the heated rhetoric including the demonization of those who adhere to alternative viewpoints (Sabbatarianism and replacement theology are two subjects that come to mind). In religious debates, even when a group is thoroughly refuted (and I am just saying this for arguments sake. It is again, not my experience that revisionists are thoroughly refuted) honest, reasonable, and rational people continue to choose to believe the refuted and absurd. They even attempt to evangelize others to their absurd, refuted belief system (here the Mormons come to mind).

My final point is this: I feel that the laws in certain countries of Europe and elsewhere that outlaw holocaust denial or holocaust minimizing are unconscionable. People should be free to believe and to proclaim what they believe even if those beliefs are ridiculous. That citizens of supposed enlightened western democracies are denied the right to think for themselves or denied the right to proclaim what they think, however mistaken they may or may not be, is appalling.

Here is my question: Will the contributors here at holocaust controversies join me in condemning these outrageous laws and the governments that enact them?
Or perhaps someone would like to explain why these laws are necessary and point out the good that they serve.

Thank you very much.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Hello Cesspit readers! This blog's position regarding laws against denial has been stated on several occasions: we are opposed to such laws. But you and your Cesspit chums such as Wankdraft and Jonnie Hargis would already have known that if you'd been paying attention to previous postings here. A simple search on the search engine would also have made our position clear.

Butch said...

JH,

Thank you for that clarification, ‘course ngoodgame is still oblivious to your position. Maybe he'll search the archives to determine it for himself. BTW, I didn't ask the question, NGG did.

I'm just a dumb-ass but had I been you I would have answered something like this:

"Yes NGG, we will join you in such a condemnation. It is indeed unconscionable as we have often stated."

That would actually be a great answer because it would have the added benefit of not addressing the more salient point of his question:

“Or perhaps someone would like to explain why these laws are necessary and point out the good that they serve.”

Then again, if I were you, I would use that as my byline as opposed to the puerile “What part of genocide don’t you understand?”. Nick must have come up with that one. It couldn't have been Sergey because he is only an EN-3 English speaker and the form of the present byline is something of a colloquialism.

Anyway... I suppose it's more logical to drag the issue back and forth between two different sites and involve half a dozen people and half a dozen days to get the point out.

Butch

P.S. What’s with this Wankdraft?? I thought it was “Fuckwit”? Get your story straight.

Arnon said...

how very tiresome, all those arguments and facts and quotes and yes, latin too. i know a number of people who lived through concentration camps; most of them dead now, of course. i have their accounts first-hand; i don't need soviet archives or confessions of an ss officer. i realize that this, in view of some of the people on this forum, amounts to no more than anecdotal evidence. you want--what? more photos? more confessions? more witnesses? more paperwork?better math? i just need to go across the street and talk to an old guy, a retired math teacher. not his favorite subject, he prefers to discuss music or wines, but if pressed he will tell what it was like in the death camp. a real person, who has lived a real life and saw real death. i have met a few like him. but you don't want to hear this, do you?
no doubt this contribution of mine will be met with nothing but derision, and you all will continue your oh-so erudite and academic discussion, celebrating your intellectual prowess and staunch refusal to bow down to orthodoxy. the tone of insufferable smugness, the preening of minds admiring their own audacity permeates your words like the stench of a decaying corpse in the basement permeates the entire house. bored, frustrated teenagers igniting their intestinal gas are a good analogy. occasionally, there is blowback.

Joe said...

Aaron,

May you be throat-fucked by an AIDS infected nigger... and there are plenty of those around. Niggers are 12 times more likely to have AIDS than whites. Fuck, in some sub-Saharan African countries, they have a 30% AIDS rate! Every third nigger has AIDS.

So what does this have to do with Aaron? Well, he's the goofy kind of fuck who would rather claim niggers don't have a disproportionate AIDS rate -- therefore, it's safe to let a nigger fuck his ass -- than face reality. Same with the dead kikes, it's easier to buy into some greasy old jew story about jew soap than it is to face reality.

Either way, Aaron, you're getting ass-fucked. Enjoy.

Butch