The purpose of this blog is to show some of the evidence for the genocide of the jews (the holocaust) by the NSDAP (nazi party in germany) during ww2.
I will mainly focus on the use of gaschambers as a means of killing, since its one of the most common topic of discussions among revisionist authors as well as right wing extremist people who deny the holocaust.
I will mainly write about the Auschwitz II Birkenau camp, since it is often discussed, and since I've personally focused on that camp when studying the holocaust.
A primary point is to show the absurdity of the revisionist view of the holocaust, since they often say things like
- "human testimonies means nothing" (when human testimonies is presented, though all human testimonies can't be althrough disregarded just like that if you want to be scientific. Any historian must consider the human testimonies of a event especially when there are many testimonies),
- "they were tortured" (without presenting any proof of the use of torture in the testimony presented, except some other people that was tortured for other reasons at other places by other people)
- "they lied because they are jews, all jews lie" (a unscientific, racist and offensive comment)
- "this person said some numbers that are incorrect or unrealistic, therefor everything he/she says means nothing, he/she is althrough a liar and cannot be trusted at all" (especially remembering numbers of people filling up a room is pretty hard, and even if a person would exaggerate a detail in his/her story, that doesnt mean everything he/she says is a planned outright lie based on some conspiracy groups agenda, and its very unscientific and racist to disregard someone just because he is a jew).
People who deny the holocaust (or the use of gaschambers as a means of genocide by the nazis during ww2) seem to believe they can undermine everything by just pointing out minor errors in testimonies. And that's where the conspiracy comes in. It's based on the idea that there is a agenda behind all human testimonies. This agenda is usually racist, antisemitic, though mostly disguised in many ways. Some say it is all Gräuelpropaganda (german: atrocity propaganda stories), some old war propaganda of the enemies cruelties still flourishing. They pick up real old fake stuff, like the soap made of jewish fat from victims, or lampshades made of jewish skin, proven false a long time ago, or the shrunken heads. They love to bring up these old stuff though modern historians don't believe in them and seldom mention them.
Their worldview seem to be based on simplicity. It's like they can't (or are not interested in) accepting that the world and history is complex. It is true that both the axis powers and the allies used propaganda. It is also true that some things believed by historians in the past is now disregarded or revised, for example which camps used gas chambers and how many victims died at the auschwitz camp. History is always revised by historians.
History will show what stands the test of time. If the gaschambers is to be considered one of those old atrocity stories it must be part of a very complex (and absurd and impossible) tree of propaganda. It is simply absurd that so many people would be involved and still today continue lying when the war is over. And it is also absurd that so many details in the documents, diaries, speeches and confessions by the nazis support the holocaust and the gassings in the extermination camps. We now have like hundreds of "signs" pointing at the same direction (some of them very explicit, and some of them just very convincing) and we do not have massive proof pointing at the opposite direction. Do we have ANY proof at the opposite direction except some desperate attempts to disregard the use of gas by doing test at a museum/memorial site? Do we have any survivors, any jew, gypsie, prisoner of war, homosexual, "asocial". political prisoner or any other survivor of the camp, that have come out and describe how all those old, sick and kids (with their mothers) who were considered "unfit for work" survived after the selection at the platform at Auschwitz Birkenau? It would be so easy for just one or two or three of them to step up and tell the story. He or she would become famous and could write lots of books and stuff, proving his own identity and testifying about what was really going on in the camp. Where are such kind of survivor?
One can summarise it like this: The revisionists says its all war propaganda and lies, and the historians wont change their minds concerning use of gas chambers as long as the argument presented is based on racism and conspiracy theories. One of these arguments is "human testimonies means nothing", "all the human testimonies we have seen cannot be trusted". What we are talking about here is at least 10 (there might be more) SS witnesses concerning gassing at the Auschwits camp alone. Then there are other SS witnesses to the gassings in other camps. We also have a couple of eyewitnesses from the Sonderkommando squad (prisoners forced to work in the gas chambers and crematorias). I dont know how many but i've come across 3 or 4 so far. Then we have many indirect witnesses from the prisoners at Auschwitz Birkenau who often saw new trains arrive and the same procedure take place as they had been through: the unloading of people from the trains, the selection of those who were fit for work and those who were unfit, the unfit walking towards the area of the Crematorias (usually Crematoria II and III near the platform where they were, at the end of the railroad), and these people was never seen again. These "indirect" witnesses also heard about the genocide from other prisoners and from guards. They were warned to obey and harassed by hearing that they could end up like their own relatives "up the chimney" while they pointed at the crematorias. Some of them heard this warning just after arrival after they had been seperated from family members at the selection.
I consider this last category of eyewitnesses just as important as the direct eyewitnesses who saw the killings with their own eyes. If the "unfit for work" people were not killed there in the gaschambers, where did they go? Why havent any historian or revisionist presented proof that they survived somehow. Are they all disregarding the prisoners seeing these trains arrive day by day? It must be pointed out that sometimes prisoners were moved from Auschwitz to other camps for different reasons. But no one have proven that this happened to the unfit for work groups after selection at the platform.
Another common type of argument the revisionist use is the typhus epedemics in the camps. It is true that some of the camps had a typhus epedemic. But several reports by survivors describe both the typhus epedemics and the killings by gassings. One thing doesnt have to exclude the other you know. It is possibly also true that most of those starved, sick and dead people shown at the early liberation movies and photos are victims of typhus and starvation, a starvation that might have to do with the war and also SS guards leaving the camps when the allies came closer. But that doesnt say anything about the gassings. Its just images from the liberation of some of the camps, though sometimes used by the alllies to show how cruel the nazis were. And honestly, if the nazis "just" stole the homes from jews and others, put them in cattle waggons on trains to ghettos and camps, isolating them, forcing them to live under diffictult conditions, that would be cruel in itself, and its no wonder the allied soldiers reacted and the press went there to document what they found. These images was not shown to prove the use of gas chambers anyway.
Then there are some revisionists who point out that there was actually survivors when the allies arrived. They reason like this: if the nazis wanted to exterminate all jews, why didnt they do it right away, and why did many survive. But these revisionists forget that evidence points to a decision by the nazis to kill off the "unfit" right away and then use the rest of the prisoners for forced labour as long as they could endure, until they die off. Survivors also describe that when people got too sick they were sometimes killed one way or the other. There were often selections in the camp to see if people had become unfit for work and must be killed. So the camp prisoners were just kept alive to work, and sometimes they were even given help by doctors to stay fit for work. But this, in itself, does not prove that there was no massive genocide goiing on, especially after the selection at the train platform. The genocide of the jews during ww2 includes some absurdities. Sometimes prisoners were killed for minor things. Sometimes they were saved and kept alive for minor things. The photos of the kids used in medical experiments shows some of this absurdities. These kids were kept alive, but not to live and get better, but to be test objects.
If the revisionists are right. If their view of history is correct and the official historical view is wrong, i think Hitler & co must be very upset in heaven/hell that so much evidence is against them and that they lack convincing proof for their story. They must think that Goebbles and Himmler wrote very stupid things in their diaries, that SS men lied so much about the gassings, even after the trials were over, and that so many survivors testify against them and that no survivors say something in their defence when they were treated good. Hitler must regret alot of things he said in his speeches about "extermination of the jewish race", and Himmler must regret his speech at Posen where he so openly talked about it. They must regret they executed a million jews or more by the einzatsgruppen in Poland. They must regret they talked about the jews as the major enemy in the war, and described the jewish race so evil it must be exterminated during the war for the future to be safe. They must be upset that the overall testimony evidence against them is so convincing that saying the holocaust didn't take place, or the gassings didnt take place, is like saying all survivors of the Titanic, or the WTC, or M/S Estonia, or the 2004 tsunami, are liars and manipulators. By the way, some human testimonies from these disasters contain minor errors, exaggerations and in some cases supernatural events, and in these disasters the early reports included errors that historians today knows are false.
Their worldview seem to be based on simplicity. It's like they can't (or are not interested in) accepting that the world and history is complex. It is true that both the axis powers and the allies used propaganda. It is also true that some things believed by historians in the past is now disregarded or revised, for example which camps used gas chambers and how many victims died at the auschwitz camp. History is always revised by historians.
History will show what stands the test of time. If the gaschambers is to be considered one of those old atrocity stories it must be part of a very complex (and absurd and impossible) tree of propaganda. It is simply absurd that so many people would be involved and still today continue lying when the war is over. And it is also absurd that so many details in the documents, diaries, speeches and confessions by the nazis support the holocaust and the gassings in the extermination camps. We now have like hundreds of "signs" pointing at the same direction (some of them very explicit, and some of them just very convincing) and we do not have massive proof pointing at the opposite direction. Do we have ANY proof at the opposite direction except some desperate attempts to disregard the use of gas by doing test at a museum/memorial site? Do we have any survivors, any jew, gypsie, prisoner of war, homosexual, "asocial". political prisoner or any other survivor of the camp, that have come out and describe how all those old, sick and kids (with their mothers) who were considered "unfit for work" survived after the selection at the platform at Auschwitz Birkenau? It would be so easy for just one or two or three of them to step up and tell the story. He or she would become famous and could write lots of books and stuff, proving his own identity and testifying about what was really going on in the camp. Where are such kind of survivor?
One can summarise it like this: The revisionists says its all war propaganda and lies, and the historians wont change their minds concerning use of gas chambers as long as the argument presented is based on racism and conspiracy theories. One of these arguments is "human testimonies means nothing", "all the human testimonies we have seen cannot be trusted". What we are talking about here is at least 10 (there might be more) SS witnesses concerning gassing at the Auschwits camp alone. Then there are other SS witnesses to the gassings in other camps. We also have a couple of eyewitnesses from the Sonderkommando squad (prisoners forced to work in the gas chambers and crematorias). I dont know how many but i've come across 3 or 4 so far. Then we have many indirect witnesses from the prisoners at Auschwitz Birkenau who often saw new trains arrive and the same procedure take place as they had been through: the unloading of people from the trains, the selection of those who were fit for work and those who were unfit, the unfit walking towards the area of the Crematorias (usually Crematoria II and III near the platform where they were, at the end of the railroad), and these people was never seen again. These "indirect" witnesses also heard about the genocide from other prisoners and from guards. They were warned to obey and harassed by hearing that they could end up like their own relatives "up the chimney" while they pointed at the crematorias. Some of them heard this warning just after arrival after they had been seperated from family members at the selection.
I consider this last category of eyewitnesses just as important as the direct eyewitnesses who saw the killings with their own eyes. If the "unfit for work" people were not killed there in the gaschambers, where did they go? Why havent any historian or revisionist presented proof that they survived somehow. Are they all disregarding the prisoners seeing these trains arrive day by day? It must be pointed out that sometimes prisoners were moved from Auschwitz to other camps for different reasons. But no one have proven that this happened to the unfit for work groups after selection at the platform.
Another common type of argument the revisionist use is the typhus epedemics in the camps. It is true that some of the camps had a typhus epedemic. But several reports by survivors describe both the typhus epedemics and the killings by gassings. One thing doesnt have to exclude the other you know. It is possibly also true that most of those starved, sick and dead people shown at the early liberation movies and photos are victims of typhus and starvation, a starvation that might have to do with the war and also SS guards leaving the camps when the allies came closer. But that doesnt say anything about the gassings. Its just images from the liberation of some of the camps, though sometimes used by the alllies to show how cruel the nazis were. And honestly, if the nazis "just" stole the homes from jews and others, put them in cattle waggons on trains to ghettos and camps, isolating them, forcing them to live under diffictult conditions, that would be cruel in itself, and its no wonder the allied soldiers reacted and the press went there to document what they found. These images was not shown to prove the use of gas chambers anyway.
Then there are some revisionists who point out that there was actually survivors when the allies arrived. They reason like this: if the nazis wanted to exterminate all jews, why didnt they do it right away, and why did many survive. But these revisionists forget that evidence points to a decision by the nazis to kill off the "unfit" right away and then use the rest of the prisoners for forced labour as long as they could endure, until they die off. Survivors also describe that when people got too sick they were sometimes killed one way or the other. There were often selections in the camp to see if people had become unfit for work and must be killed. So the camp prisoners were just kept alive to work, and sometimes they were even given help by doctors to stay fit for work. But this, in itself, does not prove that there was no massive genocide goiing on, especially after the selection at the train platform. The genocide of the jews during ww2 includes some absurdities. Sometimes prisoners were killed for minor things. Sometimes they were saved and kept alive for minor things. The photos of the kids used in medical experiments shows some of this absurdities. These kids were kept alive, but not to live and get better, but to be test objects.
If the revisionists are right. If their view of history is correct and the official historical view is wrong, i think Hitler & co must be very upset in heaven/hell that so much evidence is against them and that they lack convincing proof for their story. They must think that Goebbles and Himmler wrote very stupid things in their diaries, that SS men lied so much about the gassings, even after the trials were over, and that so many survivors testify against them and that no survivors say something in their defence when they were treated good. Hitler must regret alot of things he said in his speeches about "extermination of the jewish race", and Himmler must regret his speech at Posen where he so openly talked about it. They must regret they executed a million jews or more by the einzatsgruppen in Poland. They must regret they talked about the jews as the major enemy in the war, and described the jewish race so evil it must be exterminated during the war for the future to be safe. They must be upset that the overall testimony evidence against them is so convincing that saying the holocaust didn't take place, or the gassings didnt take place, is like saying all survivors of the Titanic, or the WTC, or M/S Estonia, or the 2004 tsunami, are liars and manipulators. By the way, some human testimonies from these disasters contain minor errors, exaggerations and in some cases supernatural events, and in these disasters the early reports included errors that historians today knows are false.
I also want to say that anyone should study history with an open mind and be ready to question things. Sometimes the official story can be wrong, manipulated or based on a political agenda. For example, the Palestine-Israel conflict is described very differently in different parts of the world, and the reports of what's going on there focus on different things. Sometimes history must be revised. I think for anyone interested in this particular subject (holocaust vs revisionism) should study both sides. But be ready for propaganda. Just as you might encounter some old war propaganda when you study history, you will encounter alot of conspiracy and racism if you study those who question all the SS testimonies, all the Sonderkommando witnesses, all the auschwitz survivors who describe this horrible event in history. Don't fall for anything. Dont be afriad to study everything.
I do believe in freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and i dont think anyone should end up in prison for having a different opinion. I also believe famous authors have a lot of responsible for what they write, as they can influence alot of people in different directions.
