You can watch the Cole video with the official guide to see that the guides did not admit anything of the sort then, and as I understand it, do not admit anything now unless challenged. See the scrapbook pages discussion for verification. So, after 50 years the authorities began to admit the Auschwitz gas chamber was a ‘reconstruction’, by which they meant the holes in the roof had been added. This is all explained in detail in the Cole video by the director of Auschwitz.
No one claims that the Majdanek gas chamber is a reconstruction.
Besides, what difference does it make if we call it a reconstruction or a hoax. They are the same thing if not admitted, and no serious person claims that the Auschwitz reconstruction was admitted before the 1990’s.
Forgive me if I repeat myself. What kind of evidence would you accept? Would you agree that if there were an official meeting, where it was discussed on how to kill all the Jews in Europe, that this would be sufficient evidence to establish that this was their intent?
Actually, I remember hearing about that as well (well, not the plaque specifically, but the fact that Auschwitz, while a key location for the Holocaust, was not where most of the Jewish victims actually died). It actually makes the whole thing worse in a way, because rather than Auschwitz being some kind of black hole where Jews could disappear and arguably, maybe, many Germans and collaborators could claim lack of knowledge, most Jewish victims were just being killed at the local level, in cities and towns conquered by Nazis and with the full knowledge (and sometimes the active cooperation) of local citizens.
Well, much of the rhetoric is that a new Holocaust is desired by people who want Jews driven into the sea and whatnot. Strangely, it’s not Jews who are expressing this sentiment.
How thick are those glass windows, anyway? Seems to me inch-thick glass (well within the capabilities of 1940s technology) would be sufficient against people without weapons being overcome by poison gas. In the interest of conducting one’s own research, I invite you to try to break an inch-thick glass panel with your bare hands (well, wear gloves for safety) while holding your breath. Seems to me that for glass windows to be counter-evidence, you’d have to demonstrate that they could easily be broken. Without data on this thickness and composition of said glass, the argument is meaningless, and that’s assuming the material even is glass. There are acrylic materials that would do the job even better. While expensive, these were also available in 1940s Europe.
I promise I won’t ridicule or evade and I’m not afraid of anything.
Well, first we’d have to establish that they (“they” referring to the original structures, not any post-war reconstructions) are a hoax. One one side are numerous eyewitness accounts of the chambers being used, photographs of corpses, industrial-sized ovens for mass disposals, etc. On the other, so far, are some windows that may or may not be glass, and may or may not be of sufficient thickness.
The latter does not meet the burden. What else do you have?
It involves recognizing the Palestinians as people who have as much right if not more to be in Israel then the Israelis, unifying the territories, and having elections in all of Palestine.
Assuming, arguendo, that everything else you have said so far is completely true (which I don’t believe for an instant), the above statement is still nonsense. Based on your description of the events at Belsen, the Nazis had a simple alternative which would have been guaranteed to prevent outbreaks of typhus at that camp, or any other:
DON’T ROUND UP INNOCENT PEOPLE AND SEND THEM TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS!
I apologize for the caps - but my God, man, doesn’t sending innocent people to concentration camps, for no reason other than their religion/sexual orientation/ethnicity/the Fuhrer’s birthday strike you as a monstrously evil thing? If the only result of this program were that it led to massive, deadly plagues - even if all this were true, how could you then say “the Nazis did everything in their power”?
Actually, no, I would say those two words mean very different things. A reconstruction tells us only what occurred, and provides no motivation for why it was done. A hoax, on the other hand, implies that the perpetrators set out to deliberately decieve. I think it’s a quite significant difference that means we must be careful as to which word is used.
You are evading. The doors are unsealed wooden office doors, the window is just typical window glass. This gas chamber is an obvious hoax. If you cannot recognize this easy fact, I cannot convince you of anything.
The scrapbook pages guy asked the guard … “Why didn’t the prisoners break the glass” … the guard responded … “Because a guard was stationed at the outside of the door with a gun.”
Correct. My parents could never believe all the anti-communist language in the States or work up the required hatred for the USSR simply for this reason. Although they recognized the problems in the USSR, including treatment of Jews, they still remember the Soviet soldiers who liberated them.
I think I need to unsubscribe to this thread. I placed my parents’ story here in a previous post. I have nothing more to add, and so much to be bothered by.
On further reflection, it occurs to me that I am perhaps mistaken about the significance of the glass windows. Are these windows in buildings constructed after the war, or are they evident in pictures taken in Auschwitz during the war? If the former, then I don’t understand their relevance, any more than than a Civil War re-enactor wearing a digital watch proves the Civil War never happened.
I appreciate the point of this anecdote, but very few if any GIs ever saw Auschwitz-Birkenau, which was liberated by the Red Army.
Anyway, to the OP, what the hell do you think was going on at Bergen-Belsen then? Here’s a page with an excerpt from a 15th April 1945 radio broadcast by Richard Dimbleby of the BBC, who was one of the first inside the camp. Falsified, do you think?
Forgive me if I request a clarification - are these features of buildings constructed (or repaired/renovated) on the Auschwitz site after 1945, or are these the original features of the original buildings?