Defending HItler

[Ford]

OK. You build a submarine.

You mean a U-boat?

 

[Hermit]

I ask for the scientific evidence that those gas chambers were built in those buildings.

We can do better than that. Interviews with people who operated them and witnessed the gassings, for instance. When I brought that up previously, you replied:

Forget about "witness", because actually the men mentioned in that link are not alive, so, it is possible that those words don't belong to them.

I posted an interview with one of those workers, which was recorded in audio as well as video in this post, to see if you could still say "it is possible that those words don't belong to them", but you totally ignored it. So here is another one:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDzEKkovr0c[/YOUTUBE]

Click "Play" and move the slider to 37:28. The man you hear talking is Josef Klehr. He was an SS-Oberscharführer who worked at the Auschwitz KZ among others. Comparing death by lethal injection to death by gassing he says : "This death was not as gruesome as the gassing. That was gruesome. Yeh. It was like a beehive [in the gas chamber]. They came into the gassing room, and when the camp doctor was ready, he gave the order to the SS above and he poured the gas into the chimney and then it went mmmmmmm. And the sound is dying away until it isn't any more. That was a gruesome death. This gas harmed the respirator." Then, at 38:24, "When I have seen taking out the corpses, they were green and blue. And it lasted longer than the injection. The syringe wasn't fully injected and he already collapsed. But with the gassing, the humming lasted for 10 minutes at least and then it was getting weaker. This is what I mean, that it was more gruesome, the gassing."

Would you tell Klehr, were he still alive, that he could not have witnessed what he said he witnessed, or that he is a liar? Would you say that to the man who admitted during his court case that one of his tasks was to draw up the roster for who was to dump the Zyklon B into the gas chambers?

Anyway, the gas chambers were only one method of killing as many people as cheaply and efficiently as possible. The KZs were mass extermination facilities. Oswald Kaduk, an SS member who worked at the Auschwitz KZ from 1941 until its closure, put it this way (beginning at 9:07) when the interviewer put it to him that "Today there are many people that say Auschwitz was a lie, that nobody at all was gassed." "I have to say, I do not consider these people normal. We have to stick to the truth. There are people denying it, but what happened, happened, and it is not up for dispute."

German is my first language, so don't try the "maybe the translation is wrong" line with me.

 

[barbos]

Defending Hitler does not imply denying history.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Defending Hitler does not imply denying history.

To defend Hitler by saying that the Holocaust did not happen is denying history. End of story.

 

[Cycad]

Same as well, gas chambers are not made just changing water pipes to carry poison gas or just opening holes in the ceiling of a room. Such is a complete nonsense.

Johann Paul Kremer.
Served in the SS in the Auschwitz concentration camp as a physician during World War II

He coined ANUS MUNDI to describe Auschwitz.
In his diary, he described the exact procedures and technical set up of the gas chambers. Buy his diary and read it !

Gas chambers, crematoria, execution wall, multiple witness, buildings, documents, movies etc : an undeniable mountain of corroborating evidence. And the only thing you come up with is a childish drawing of a submarine ?

 

[laughing dog]

Attacking Mr. Hitler's attorney calling him a Holocaust denier goes against the rules of the court....

No, it does not. It is a statement of plain fact. Just like stating that gas chambers existed is stating a fact. You, on the other hand, make claims without producing an iota of evidence, and literally make up excuses (people are lying, extrapolating from the Iraq war). It is truly pathetic.

OK. You build a submarine. ...

What is the point of this babble? Submarines have nothing to do with gas chambers.

You asked for a link, and I gave you several. Others have provided links to witness testimony. On the other hand, you have yet to produce one link to support any of your assertions. Any jury in the world would find your client guilty given the lack of a cogent defense.

I have wasted enough time dealing with your vile and deliberate ignorance and intellectual sloppiness. Feel free to make embarrass yourself further with your denial of the holocaust. You will have one less person in your audience.

 

[humbleman]

I ask for the scientific evidence that those gas chambers were built in those buildings.

We can do better than that. Interviews with people who operated them and witnessed the gassings, for instance. When I brought that up previously, you replied:

Forget about "witness", because actually the men mentioned in that link are not alive, so, it is possible that those words don't belong to them.

I posted an interview with one of those workers, which was recorded in audio as well as video in this post, to see if you could still say "it is possible that those words don't belong to them", but you totally ignored it. So here is another one:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDzEKkovr0c[/YOUTUBE]

Click "Play" and move the slider to 37:28. The man you hear talking is Josef Klehr. He was an SS-Oberscharführer who worked at the Auschwitz KZ among others. Comparing death by lethal injection to death by gassing he says : "This death was not as gruesome as the gassing. That was gruesome. Yeh. It was like a beehive [in the gas chamber]. They came into the gassing room, and when the camp doctor was ready, he gave the order to the SS above and he poured the gas into the chimney and then it went mmmmmmm. And the sound is dying away until it isn't any more. That was a gruesome death. This gas harmed the respirator." Then, at 38:24, "When I have seen taking out the corpses, they were green and blue. And it lasted longer than the injection. The syringe wasn't fully injected and he already collapsed. But with the gassing, the humming lasted for 10 minutes at least and then it was getting weaker. This is what I mean, that it was more gruesome, the gassing."

Would you tell Klehr, were he still alive, that he could not have witnessed what he said he witnessed, or that he is a liar? Would you say that to the man who admitted during his court case that one of his tasks was to draw up the roster for who was to dump the Zyklon B into the gas chambers?

Anyway, the gas chambers were only one method of killing as many people as cheaply and efficiently as possible. The KZs were mass extermination facilities. Oswald Kaduk, an SS member who worked at the Auschwitz KZ from 1941 until its closure, put it this way (beginning at 9:07) when the interviewer put it to him that "Today there are many people that say Auschwitz was a lie, that nobody at all was gassed." "I have to say, I do not consider these people normal. We have to stick to the truth. There are people denying it, but what happened, happened, and it is not up for dispute."

German is my first language, so don't try the "maybe the translation is wrong" line with me.

The plaintiff is now cataloguing gas poison as a "secondary" method of mass murder and is replacing it with lethal injection.

It is clear that the change of place of importance between the two methods is caused by the voided capability to demonstrate scientifically that gas chambers existed.

The witness clearly expressed the event as "experimenting" with methods of killing.

He compared lethal injection with better chances of the desired effects than poison gas.

The experiments were not made in a specially built gas chamber, and the method of deliver the gas is not fully understood, as using the chimney for this purpose.

The witness is not only lying but describing a fantasy.

The defense will ask for the demonstration of such method of delivering poison gas thru the chimney into a room in norder to kill tens of people inside. The procedure made after the gas poison was delivered.

The defense will start a petition for mistrial.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Attacking Mr. Hitler's attorney calling him a Holocaust denier goes against the rules of the court....

No, it does not. It is a statement of plain fact. Just like stating that gas chambers existed is stating a fact. You, on the other hand, make claims without producing an iota of evidence, and literally make up excuses (people are lying, extrapolating from the Iraq war). It is truly pathetic.

OK. You build a submarine.

You have the body, the instruments to control, the fuel, the radar, the periscope, some people taking care of the engine and the instruments. There you go, with people inside and the submarine floats very well but when you try to submerge the submarine still is located over the surface.

You forgot to include a mechanism acting for buoyancy. This is to say, a system which will fill up with water tanks surrounding the body of te submarine so it can submerge, and an air pressure system to push the water and fill the tanks with air so the submarine will come back afloat.

See? you just can't build a submarine without such a system to make it submerge and later to come afloat.

Same as well, gas chambers are not made just changing water pipes to carry poison gas or just opening holes in the ceiling of a room. Such is a complete nonsense.

The Nazis used cylinders of Zyclon B. A hole in the ceiling was sufficient. Any reasonably sealed room was sufficient. They also kept meticulous records such as passports, IDs and birth certificates of the murdered

 

[barbos]

Defending Hitler does not imply denying history.

To defend Hitler by saying that the Holocaust did not happen is denying history. End of story.

Yes, that's what I said, I think.

 

[humbleman]

OK. You build a submarine. ...

What is the point of this babble? Submarines have nothing to do with gas chambers.

You asked for a link, and I gave you several. Others have provided links to witness testimony. On the other hand, you have yet to produce one link to support any of your assertions. Any jury in the world would find your client guilty given the lack of a cogent defense.

I have wasted enough time dealing with your vile and deliberate ignorance and intellectual sloppiness. Feel free to make embarrass yourself further with your denial of the holocaust. You will have one less person in your audience.

Rats are the first to abandon the ship when is sinking.

If no one is capable to get the idea of how a submarine works for submerging and buoyancy, then the required methodology to make a gas chamber won't be understood as well. It is so simple to explain it, like breathing itself or drinking lots of milk and later farting and having diarrhea, and more.

The idea of making gas chambers using water pipes and shower heads running on the ceiling, chimneys, and who knows what other rudimentary methods to kill "millions" of people, hundreds per day, poisoning a group, removing them right after their death, pushing another group of tens of people, delivering the gas, removing the bodies again right after they died, pushing another group of tens of people, delivering the gas, and so forth, SEVERAL times a day...

The defense calls for immediate mistrial for reasons if insanity clearly expressed by the plaintiff.

That fairy tale was probably believed by former generations who were impressed by the atrocity shown in pictures from which the assumed evidence wasn't analyzed doing the proper investigation to verify the accusations compared with the evidence.

Mr. Hitler can't be accused of crimes based on the fanaticism of his enemies.

The defense ask for the vindication of the name of Mr. Hitler as a man of war and remove the image of him as a mass murderer in base of the ridiculous position of the plaintiff when coming to the court with story tell arguments which are not corroborated at all by the scientific method.

 

[humbleman]

OK. You build a submarine.

You have the body, the instruments to control, the fuel, the radar, the periscope, some people taking care of the engine and the instruments. There you go, with people inside and the submarine floats very well but when you try to submerge the submarine still is located over the surface.

You forgot to include a mechanism acting for buoyancy. This is to say, a system which will fill up with water tanks surrounding the body of te submarine so it can submerge, and an air pressure system to push the water and fill the tanks with air so the submarine will come back afloat.

See? you just can't build a submarine without such a system to make it submerge and later to come afloat.

Same as well, gas chambers are not made just changing water pipes to carry poison gas or just opening holes in the ceiling of a room. Such is a complete nonsense.

The Nazis used cylinders of Zyclon B. A hole in the ceiling was sufficient. Any reasonably sealed room was sufficient. They also kept meticulous records such as passports, IDs and birth certificates of the murdered

The rooms show no indication at all that they were sealed in the past.

The plaintiff argument is void. The judge won't accept it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

OK. You build a submarine.

You have the body, the instruments to control, the fuel, the radar, the periscope, some people taking care of the engine and the instruments. There you go, with people inside and the submarine floats very well but when you try to submerge the submarine still is located over the surface.

You forgot to include a mechanism acting for buoyancy. This is to say, a system which will fill up with water tanks surrounding the body of te submarine so it can submerge, and an air pressure system to push the water and fill the tanks with air so the submarine will come back afloat.

See? you just can't build a submarine without such a system to make it submerge and later to come afloat.

Same as well, gas chambers are not made just changing water pipes to carry poison gas or just opening holes in the ceiling of a room. Such is a complete nonsense.

The Nazis used cylinders of Zyclon B. A hole in the ceiling was sufficient. Any reasonably sealed room was sufficient. They also kept meticulous records such as passports, IDs and birth certificates of the murdered

The rooms show no indication at all that they were sealed in the past.

The plaintiff argument is void. The judge won't accept it.

Near proximity is enough, plus packing them in is enough. It kills within minutes.

 

[Sarpedon]

Only your pretend judge doesn't accept it. Real judges, at Nuremberg, did. You're just a pathetic little man, making up something in your head because reality is not to your liking.

 

[Ford]

The rooms show no indication at all that they were sealed in the past.

Tell you what...go into your bathroom. Crack open a window so the room isn't "sealed." Then dump equal parts bleach and ammonia into the toilet.

The room isn't sealed, so you should be just fine.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The rooms show no indication at all that they were sealed in the past.

Tell you what...go into your bathroom. Crack open a window so the room isn't "sealed." Then dump equal parts bleach and ammonia into the toilet.

The room isn't sealed, so you should be just fine.

I believe most of the gas chambers were carbon monoxide. I'd imagine that seal would less critical.

 

[Hermit]

We can do better than that. Interviews with people who operated them and witnessed the gassings, for instance. When I brought that up previously, you replied:
I posted an interview with one of those workers, which was recorded in audio as well as video in this post, to see if you could still say "it is possible that those words don't belong to them", but you totally ignored it. So here is another one:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDzEKkovr0c[/YOUTUBE]

Click "Play" and move the slider to 37:28. The man you hear talking is Josef Klehr. He was an SS-Oberscharführer who worked at the Auschwitz KZ among others. Comparing death by lethal injection to death by gassing he says : "This death was not as gruesome as the gassing. That was gruesome. Yeh. It was like a beehive [in the gas chamber]. They came into the gassing room, and when the camp doctor was ready, he gave the order to the SS above and he poured the gas into the chimney and then it went mmmmmmm. And the sound is dying away until it isn't any more. That was a gruesome death. This gas harmed the respirator." Then, at 38:24, "When I have seen taking out the corpses, they were green and blue. And it lasted longer than the injection. The syringe wasn't fully injected and he already collapsed. But with the gassing, the humming lasted for 10 minutes at least and then it was getting weaker. This is what I mean, that it was more gruesome, the gassing."

Would you tell Klehr, were he still alive, that he could not have witnessed what he said he witnessed, or that he is a liar? Would you say that to the man who admitted during his court case that one of his tasks was to draw up the roster for who was to dump the Zyklon B into the gas chambers?

Anyway, the gas chambers were only one method of killing as many people as cheaply and efficiently as possible. The KZs were mass extermination facilities. Oswald Kaduk, an SS member who worked at the Auschwitz KZ from 1941 until its closure, put it this way (beginning at 9:07) when the interviewer put it to him that "Today there are many people that say Auschwitz was a lie, that nobody at all was gassed." "I have to say, I do not consider these people normal. We have to stick to the truth. There are people denying it, but what happened, happened, and it is not up for dispute."

German is my first language, so don't try the "maybe the translation is wrong" line with me.

The witness is not only lying but describing a fantasy.

Looks like the answer to the question I now bolded is "Yes, I would."

I respect your opinion like those held by flat-earthers, except that yours is way more pernicious.

And no, I am not posting in this thread to defend or attack Hitler. My posts are solely directed at your holocaust denial.

 

[humbleman]

Only your pretend judge doesn't accept it. Real judges, at Nuremberg, did. You're just a pathetic little man, making up something in your head because reality is not to your liking.

I didn't say the defense won't accept it, but surely the defense will argue -with 100% rights to do it- that the assumed evidence is insufficient.

Pictures of the buildings in general don't show sealed doors neither other means like windows or vents showwuing that those rooms were used as gas chambers.

You just can't make a gas chamber without sealed doors, windows, vents, etc.

The absence of sealed doors is enough to dismiss those rooms as gas chambers.

The judges at Nuremberg were dudes who sold their sold to the devil... well to the guys who pay them or, black mail them or because being family of assumed victims or, working for the cause of cover up the killings perpetuated as collarteral damage by the allies.

The defense is presenting evidence that the millions of tons dropped by the allies are the cause of the killing of hundreds of thousands of detainees working in German factories, cities, and inside the perimeters of the German forces.

Malicious people is accusing Mr. Hitler of crimes he never committed.

Definitively a review in history must be made and those millions of people who died must be rightfully recognized as victims of collateral damage.

 

[Sarpedon]

No it wasn't carbon monoxide. They tried that in the early years and gave it up as it was too slow and inefficient. The gas chambers were almost always Zyklon B or similar chemical.

Both flat earthers and holocaust deniers are stupid. Only holocaust deniers are immoral.

 

[LordKiran]

OK. You build a submarine. ...

What is the point of this babble? Submarines have nothing to do with gas chambers.

You asked for a link, and I gave you several. Others have provided links to witness testimony. On the other hand, you have yet to produce one link to support any of your assertions. Any jury in the world would find your client guilty given the lack of a cogent defense.

I have wasted enough time dealing with your vile and deliberate ignorance and intellectual sloppiness. Feel free to make embarrass yourself further with your denial of the holocaust. You will have one less person in your audience.

Rats are the first to abandon the ship when is sinking.

If no one is capable to get the idea of how a submarine works for submerging and buoyancy, then the required methodology to make a gas chamber won't be understood as well. It is so simple to explain it, like breathing itself or drinking lots of milk and later farting and having diarrhea, and more.

The idea of making gas chambers using water pipes and shower heads running on the ceiling, chimneys, and who knows what other rudimentary methods to kill "millions" of people, hundreds per day, poisoning a group, removing them right after their death, pushing another group of tens of people, delivering the gas, removing the bodies again right after they died, pushing another group of tens of people, delivering the gas, and so forth, SEVERAL times a day...

The defense calls for immediate mistrial for reasons if insanity clearly expressed by the plaintiff.

That fairy tale was probably believed by former generations who were impressed by the atrocity shown in pictures from which the assumed evidence wasn't analyzed doing the proper investigation to verify the accusations compared with the evidence.

Mr. Hitler can't be accused of crimes based on the fanaticism of his enemies.

The defense ask for the vindication of the name of Mr. Hitler as a man of war and remove the image of him as a mass murderer in base of the ridiculous position of the plaintiff when coming to the court with story tell arguments which are not corroborated at all by the scientific method.

We all understand how a gas chamber works. Have you ever heard of people leaving their cars running in the garage as a form of suicide? Pretty simple concept really.

Do you think your use of legal jargon makes you look smart? Because it doesn't. It makes you look like you're putting on airs.

 

[Horatio Parker]

No it wasn't carbon monoxide. They tried that in the early years and gave it up as it was too slow and inefficient. The gas chambers were almost always Zyklon B or similar chemical.

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005220

Chelmno

In 1941, the SS concluded that the deportation of Jews to killing centers (to be gassed) was the most efficient way of achieving the "Final Solution". That same year, the Nazis opened the Chelmno camp in Poland. Jews from the Lodz area of Poland and Roma were killed there in mobile gas vans.

Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka

In 1942, systematic mass killing in stationary gas chambers (with carbon monoxide gas generated by diesel engines) began at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, all in Poland. As victims were "unloaded" from cattle cars, they were told that they had to be disinfected in "showers." The Nazi and Ukrainian guards sometimes shouted at and beat the victims, who were ordered to enter the "showers" with raised arms to allow as many people as possible to fit into the gas chambers. The tighter the gas chambers were packed, the faster the victims suffocated.

I believe more were killed by CM/shooting than cyanide. FWIW.