It is direct evidence that they did not think the Jews in Auschwitz were being killed.
By the way, did you know that Elie Wiesel was in the Auschwitz hospital when the Soviet army approached, he had been operated on for an infected foot by a Jewish doctor. The Nazis gave him the option to evacuate with them, or await the Soviets. He chose to go with the Nazis, along with his father. It is all recounted in his book ‘Night’.
Otto Frank, Anne’s father, and Primo Levi, we also in the Auschwitz hospital when the Soviet army approached the camp. They chose to stay and were liberated by the them.
*“After the top had been removed the bodies were covered with inflammable material and ignited. It took about two days until the grave burned down to the bottom. I myself observed that the fire had glowed down to the bottom.”
*
Moreover, this was Blobel’s second affidavit, in the first he confesses to witnessing killings using gas vans, shootings, killing women and children, overseeing the Babi Yar massacre, and disposing of the bodies. However, he doesn’t state that he actually witnessed the burning of bodies, so I hypothesize that the second affidavit was prepared to remedy that defect in the first.
Here is an excerpt from the first Blobel affidavit -
*In January 1942 I was removed from this post of chief of the Sonderkommando 4A and was transferred to Berlin for disciplinary reasons. There I had no assignment for a time. I was under the supervision of the office IV, under the former Gruppenfuhrer Mueller.
In the fall of 1942 I was assigned to go to the occupied Eastern Territories as Mueller’s deputy, and to wipe out the traces of the mass graves of people executed by the Einsatzgruppen. This was my task until summer of 1944.*
Blobel was relieved of his duties in '42 because he was a drunk. He was then assigned to remove all traces of the holocaust in the east.
If that is direct evidence, the reality is that you are missing that declassified papers report that the Allies became aware of what was going on at Auschwitz close to the end of the war, but decided not to bomb the death camp as it was too far away, the bombings were not as accurate as one sees today and it was not a manufacturing target. Also knowing that prisoners were going to be the main casualties was a factor on deciding not to bomb the place. Evidence also shows that Churchill in particular was appalled by the information reporting the atrocities going on at Auschwitz.
Don’t bother. A better test would involve whole (not cut) animals more similar in size to humans. Like sheep. Pigs would do in a pinch, but sheep are much closer in size to humans.
And a lot of them. A single sheep isn’t much of a comparison to a pile of bodies.
Of course, this improved experiment design would be hugely dangerous (and expensive), so I wouldn’t recommend it.
Besides, other than the Nazis we do have examples of mass cremation (India just did one a few months ago for flood victims), and your pet theory would claim those don’t work they way they actually did, either.
Arguing “theory” in the face of evidence, especially recent evidence where there was no reason to hide the methods, and using a single small animal less than 5% of the mass of a single human being for comparison to a pile of multiple human bodies, flies in the face of all reason and sense.
Did you actually read the document, or did you just expect us not to? It in no way says that. It says that when confronted with the rumor, the Germans denied it, and were to be formally notified that “this Government expects that Jewish and other survivors of these and other concentration, detention, and labor camps in Germany and German-controlled territory will be kept alive by German authorities.”
Wiesel didn’t want to be separated from his father by staying behind in the hospital, so the Holocaust never happened. Impeccable logic as usual.
Bzzt… only in your mind. Once again you have ignored the relevant information about having to get the materials to burn the bodies, flatly stated your opinion as fact and then started spouting irrelevancies.
Gack you are willfully ignorant and obviously happy to stay that way.
Which, according to you, never happened. So the Nazis assigned people to the job of removing evidence of an event which hadn’t occurred?
And the reason why you believe it hadn’t occurred? Because there is not enough evidence. And the only possible conclusion that can be deduced from this lack of evidence is that the Holocaust never happened. Because it’s not like we know of anybody being assigned to remove all traces of the Holocaust in the east…
You’re losing this argument so badly, we can actually cite your own posts to show you’re wrong.
Gacking completed. The fire burned for 55 minutes, no significant damage done to the chicken, some of the skin is black, but for the most part the fire burned above the chicken. There is a significant amount of fluid in the bottom of the pan which I thought was gas but since the fire is out and the fluid is there I think it might be chicken fat.
So, the results are in. If you cover packed bodies (represented by chicken parts) with gasoline, even in a closed container which doesn’t leak out the gas, and then light it, the bodies are not cremated at all.
So, Blobel’s description of the cremation process is not viable, to put it mildly.
Having had it explained to you several times in several ways why your experiment was not in any way equivalent to the destruction of bodies in a mass grave, that your methodology was deeply flawed and that on top of everything it was potentially dangerous, you went and did it anyway. All you’ve thus demonstrated was wilful ignorance and a lack of basic understanding of the scientific method.
You’re taking one sentence of Blobel’s statement, reading it perfectly literally (“he didn’t mention wood, that means there wasn’t wood!”), and ignoring everything else. If there was additional fuel, like wood and/or trash, in between the bodies, Blobel still might have said what he said.
Once again, you’re just finding weak pebbles of “doubt” among mountains of evidence, and even failing with these. You’ve been lied to by fraudsters like the IHR, and it seems increasingly clear that you’re OK with that.