John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Post Reply
Werd
Posts: 10714
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Werd »

https://codoh.com/library/document/sond ... olocau/en/


“Sonderkommando Eyewitness” Testimony to the Holocaust
By John Wear
Published: 2020-12-21

This document is part of a periodical (Inconvenient History).

Promoters of the Holocaust story inevitably raise eyewitness testimony as “proof” of the genocide of European Jewry during World War II. A pro-Holocaust supporter told me that witnesses such as Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal and Viktor Frankl are not relied upon by historians to prove the “Holocaust” happened. Instead, testimony from Sonderkommandos who actually worked at the alleged homicidal gas chambers constitutes the most-reliable eyewitness testimony. A Sonderkommando was an inmate who aided the German camp authorities with disposing of the bodies of inmates who had died in the camps. Many of them were Jews, and all the “eyewitness” testimony comes from Jews, some of whom claim that all Sonderkommando members were Jews.

This article discusses the credibility of several prominent Sonderkommandos mentioned frequently in the pro-Holocaust literature.

Henryk Tauber

Henryk Tauber stated in his deposition of May 1945 that he worked in the crematoria at Birkenau from February 1943 to October 1944. Pro-Holocaust researcher Robert Jan van Pelt refers to Sonderkommando Henryk Tauber as “an almost-ideal witness” and states “we do well to attach the highest evidentiary value” to Tauber’s testimony.[1] Jean-Claude Pressac stated: “The testimony by Henryk Tauber is the best that exists on the Birkenau Krematorien. Being 95% historically reliable, it stands head-and-shoulders above the rest.”[2] An analysis of Tauber’s testimony, however, shows that it is utterly dubious.

Tauber said in his deposition: “Generally speaking, we burned four or five corpses at a time in one muffle, but sometimes we charged a greater number of corpses. It was possible to charge up to eight ‘muselmanns’ [Camp slang for emaciated inmates]. Such big charges were incinerated without the knowledge of the head of the crematorium during air-raid warnings in order to attract the attention of airmen by having a bigger fire emerging from the chimney. We imagined that in that way it might be possible to change our fate.”[3]

As is common knowledge and has been pointed out many times, crematorium chimneys do not emit flames. It is also impossible to push eight corpses into a cremation muffle whose door is just two feet wide and two feet high. And apart from that, before Tauber and his co-workers would have been able to push eight corpses into each muffle and get a huge blaze going, any plane of whose approach they claim to have heard would have long since flown away. Such testimonies are, to use Pressac’s words, “nothing but downright lies and pure invention.”[4]

Tauber testified in his deposition: “During the incineration of such [not-emaciated] corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat. On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the corpse began to burn the other corpses would catch light themselves…Later on, as cremations succeeded one another, the furnaces burned thanks to the embers produced by the combustion of the corpses. So, during the incineration of fat bodies, the fires were generally extinguished.”[5]

These claims are false. The thousands of crematories around the world consuming large amounts of energy are the best proof that cremation of bare bodies cannot be started, sustained nor completed from the combustion of body fat from the corpses.[6]

Tauber’s testimony becomes even more afactual when he says that the Birkenau crematories were shut down in 1944 because cremation trenches are more-efficient than crematories. Tauber testified: “It was realized that the pits burned the corpses better (than the furnaces), so the Krematorien closed down one after the other after the pits came into operation.”[7] Germar Rudolf comments on Tauber’s testimony: “As for trench burning in comparison to cremation, the energy loss through radiation and convection, along with the problem of incomplete burning, is so gigantic that further commentary is really not needed.”[8]

Tauber also said in his testimony: “Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, five to seven minutes was allowed to burn one corpse in a muffle.”[9] This is impossible even today, and using 1940s technology it took at least an hour to incinerate a corpse. No plan for any actual crematorium indicates otherwise.

Tauber also estimated that 4 million people were gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenau: “During my time in Auschwitz, I was able to talk to various prisoners who had worked in the Krematorien and the Bunkers before my arrival. They told me that I was not among the first to do this work, and that before I came another 2 million people had already been gassed in Bunkers 1 and 2 and Krematorium I. Adding up, the total number of people gassed in Auschwitz amounted to about 4 million.”[10] Today no credited historian estimates that 4 million people were gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenau. Tauber was merely repeating the Soviet propaganda extant at the time.

More Incongruities in Tauber’s Testimony

Henryk Tauber said in his deposition: “The people going to be gassed and those in the gas chamber damaged the electrical installations, tearing the cables out and damaging the ventilation equipment.”[11]

Ventilating the alleged homicidal gas chambers would have been prevented after the ventilation equipment had been damaged by the inmates. If Tauber’s statement was true, the Germans would have had to repair the wiring and ventilation ducts in the gas chambers on a regular basis. Tauber and the other Sonderkommandos would not have been able to clear the gas chambers of dead bodies when the ventilation system was not working. Thus, the daily mass gassings in the homicidal gas chambers could not have occurred as Tauber alleged.[12]

Tauber also stated in his deposition that the Sonderkommandos carried the bodies to the crematorium muffles. Tauber makes no mention that the Sonderkommandos used special protection to carry the bodies.[13] A body that has been killed with hydrocyanic acid (HCN) cannot be safely touched by any person without protection. Dr. Robert Faurisson said in regard to HCN poisoning: “Hydrocyanic acid penetrates into the skin, the mucous membranes, and the bodily fluids. The corpse of a man who has just been killed by this powerful poison is itself a dangerous source of poisoning, and cannot be touched with bare hands. In order to enter the HCN-saturated chamber to remove the corpse, special gear is needed, as well as a gas mask with a special filter.”[14] The danger of touching someone killed with Zyklon B gas is confirmed in the scientific literature.[15]

Bill M. Armontrout, the warden of Missouri State Penitentiary, testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial as to the operation of the Missouri homicidal gas chamber:

After the execution, the ammonia was released and the gas expelled out of the chamber. All staff and witnesses were removed from the area. The ventilation fan ran for approximately an hour before two officers equipped with Scott air-packs (self-contained breathing apparatus which firemen use to enter smoke-filled buildings) opened the hatch of the gas chamber and removed the lead bucket containing the cyanide residue. The two officers wore rubberized disposable clothing and long rubber gloves. They hosed down the condemned man’s body in the chair, paying particular attention to the hair and the clothing because of the cyanide residue, then removed him and placed him on a gurney where further decontamination took place. The officers then hosed the entire inside of the gas chamber with regular cold water. [16]

The Sonderkommandos at Auschwitz/Birkenau would have had to wear something similar to Scott air-packs to remove the dead bodies from the homicidal gas chambers. There is simply no way around it. Otherwise, the alleged homicidal gassing operations would not have worked, and Tauber would not have lived to tell his story.

Tauber stated in his deposition concerning the alleged gas chambers: “The roof of the gas chamber was supported by concrete pillars running down the middle of its length. On either side of these pillars there were four others, two on each side. The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid, there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the pellets from which the gas had evaporated.”[17]

Germar Rudolf writes in regard to Tauber’s testimony: “Several hundred people, locked into a cellar with a very small surface area, anticipating death, would panic and attempt to escape, damaging everything that stood in their way…If these columns actually existed, their outer framework would have to have been of solid steel, but certainly not of fragile wire mesh construction.”[18] Tauber’s testimony concerning wire mesh in the gas chambers is simply not credible.

Abraham and Shlomo Dragon

Brothers Abraham and Shlomo Dragon claim to have been Sonderkommandos stationed at Birkenau. Shlomo recalled his first encounter with dead bodies at a cottage known as Bunker 2: “As [SS officer Otto] Moll opened the door of the house, bodies fell out. We smelled gas. We saw corpses of both sexes. The whole place was full of naked people on top of each other falling out.”[19]

Shlomo Dragon said that the cottage was “a little house with a thatched roof” that served as a gas chamber. When asked how the SS threw the gas into the cottage, Shlomo replied: “There was a little window in the side wall.” Dragon stated that he “could sense the sweetish taste of the gas.” According to Dragon, the Sonderkommandos dragged the bodies out of the alleged gas chamber “by the hands,” and then “threw them into the carts, lugged them to the pits, and threw them into the pits.”[20]

Shlomo Dragon’s testimony is phony for many reasons. First, Dragon claims that the sexes were not separated before entering the alleged gas chambers. This is not credible because:

1) This procedure is contrary to the procedures followed during disinfestation, where according to eyewitnesses the sexes were invariably separated.

2) Since there were always two alleged “gas chambers” of each type available in Birkenau (in Crematorium II and III, or IV and V, or Bunkers I and II), there is no apparent reason why the victims could not have been separated by sex.

3) The claims were repeatedly made that the victims were made to believe that they were going to shower or undergo disinfestation. These procedures would have necessarily separated the populace on the basis of sex, if only because of the need for deception.

4) Particularly in the 1940s, large numbers of people could only have been made to disrobe completely with others of the opposite sex if they had been threatened with force and violence. This would, however, have nullified all the other measures of deception.[21]

Dragon’s statement that he could smell the sweetish taste of the gas also is not credible. Hydrogen-cyanide gas actually smells of bitter almonds. There is nothing "sweetish" about it.[22]

As previously stated, it is also not survivable to enter “gas chambers” and then drag and carry the dead bodies with bare hands with only a gas mask as a protective measure. Germar Rudolf states: “It should not be forgotten here that hydrogen cyanide is a contact poison. Transporting corpses, on whose skin huge, possibly lethal amounts of hydrogen cyanide are absorbed, [would have] required that the special commands dealing with these corpses had to wear protective clothes.”[23]

Dragon’s description of Bunker 2 as a little house with a little window in the side wall where gas was introduced is also not credible. Genuine homicidal gas chambers require advanced engineering and construction. Homicidal gas chambers cannot be made out of existing cottages where poison gas is introduced through a little window in a side wall. Furthermore, no documentary evidence has ever been found indicating that Bunker 2 at Birkenau functioned as an extermination facility.[24]

Shlomo and Abraham Dragon claim they lived to tell their stories only because Shlomo got sick. All the other 200 Sonderkommandos in their group allegedly were transferred to Lublin and gassed. So instead of being gassed, Shlomo stayed at Birkenau, received medical treatment, convinced the SS to keep his brother with him, and both brothers lived to tell their story of mass murder at Birkenau. Like many Holocaust survivors, they both claim to have survived Birkenau through a miracle.[25]

Shlomo Venezia

Shlomo Venezia arrived in Auschwitz/Birkenau on April 11, 1944 and soon began work with the Sonderkommandos.[26] Venezia’s work initially involved carrying bodies removed from Bunker 2 to nearby ditches. Venezia said: “The ditches sloped down, so that, as they burned, the bodies discharged a flow of human fat down the ditch to a corner where a sort of basin had been formed to collect it. When it looked as if the fire might go out, the men had to take some of that liquid fat from the basin, and throw it onto the fire to revive the flames. I saw this only in the ditches of Bunker 2.”[27]

Shlomo Venezia’s story is ludicrous. The ignition temperature of human fats is far lower than the ignition temperature of the light hydrocarbons which form as a result of the gasification of the bodies and of the seasoned wood used in the fire. The human fat is the first thing that burns on a corpse located in a fire. The human fat could not possibly have flowed down to a corner of the ditch as Venezia described—it would all have burned away before it could do so. Also, if by some miracle any human fat had flowed to the corner of the ditch, the Sonderkommandos would have had to collect it from within an immense fire raging with a temperature of at least 600° C. No human being could have withstood such intense heat.[28]

Venezia later worked at Crematorium III in Birkenau. He said that it took about 10 to 12 minutes for the people to be killed by the gas, and another 20 minutes to exhaust the poison gas. Venezia described bringing the corpses out of the gas chamber: “A terrible, acrid smell filled the room. We couldn’t distinguish between what came from the specific smell of the gas and what came from the smell of the people and the human excrement.”[29]

Venezia never mentioned that he used a gas mask during his work. Without a gas mask, Venezia and the other Sonderkommandos would have been killed in turn. The ventilators could not have completely exhausted the gas from the alleged gas chambers in only 20 minutes. More important, there would always have been residues of the toxic gas among the bodies that would be released as they were moved. A gas mask would have been required for the Sonderkommandos to remove the corpses from the homicidal gas chambers without being gassed themselves.[30]

Conclusion

This article documents only a small portion of the absurdities, inconsistencies and outright lies of the testimony of self-styled Sonderkommandos. Similar to other eyewitnesses to the so-called Holocaust, the putative surviving Sonderkommandos have failed to provide credible evidence that Germany built and operated homicidal gas chambers to conduct a program of genocide against European Jewry during World War II.

Endnotes



[1] Van Pelt, Robert Jan, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2002, pp. 188, 204-205.

[2] Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, New York: The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989, p. 481. See http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0481.shtml.

[3] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[4] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C., The Barnes Review, 2011, pp. 188-189.

[5] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[6] Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, 3rd edition, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, p. 456.

[7] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[8] Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust, 2nd edition, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2011, p. 387.

[9] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, pp. 111-112.

[13] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[14] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, pp. 217-218. See also http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p14_Faurisson.html.

[15] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=1141&tid=249.

[16] Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian `False News' Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, p. 352.

[17] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[18] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C., The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 111.

[19] Greif, Gideon, We Wept without Tears: Testimonies of the Jewish Sonderkommando from Auschwitz, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2005, p. 133.

[20] Ibid., pp. 134-136.

[21] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, pp. 204-205.

[22] Mattogno, Carlo, The Bunkers of Auschwitz: Black Propaganda versus History, Chicago: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2004, p. 130. See http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tboa.pdf.

[23] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 218.

[24] Mattogno, Carlo, The Bunkers of Auschwitz: Black Propaganda versus History, Chicago: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2004, p. 48. See http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tboa.pdf.

[25] Greif, Gideon, We Wept without Tears: Testimonies of the Jewish Sonderkommando from Auschwitz, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2005, p. 147.

[26] Veneziz, Shlomo, Inside the Gas Chambers: Eight Months in the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz, Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2009, p. xi.

[27] Ibid., pp. 59-60.

[28] Mattogno, Carlo, “The Truth about the Gas Chambers”?, Inconvenient History, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010.

[29] Veneziz, Shlomo, Inside the Gas Chambers: Eight Months in the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz, Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2009, p. 69.

[30] Mattogno, Carlo, “The Truth about the Gas Chambers”?, Inconvenient History, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010.

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


Turnagain
Posts: 9553
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Turnagain »

More cock and bull stories from so-called witnesses. Where's Nessie to shriek, "It's true, it's true!" Suuuuure it is. Not even an over abundance of "coulda/woulda/shoulda" can turn these fantasies into real life events.

Werd
Posts: 10714
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Werd »

Turnagain wrote:
Sat Dec 26, 2020 1:14 am
More cock and bull stories from so-called witnesses. Where's Nessie to shriek, "It's true, it's true!" Suuuuure it is. Not even an over abundance of "coulda/woulda/shoulda" can turn these fantasies into real life events.
Fallacy of incredulity. :lol:

Turnagain
Posts: 9553
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Turnagain »

Werd wrote:
Fallacy of incredulity. :lol:
Indeed, if I were to say that I don't believe that the moon is made of green cheese, Nessie would claim that I'm committing a fallacy of incredulity.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30693
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Fri Dec 25, 2020 10:53 pm
https://codoh.com/library/document/sond ... olocau/en/


“Sonderkommando Eyewitness” Testimony to the Holocaust
By John Wear
Published: 2020-12-21

This document is part of a periodical (Inconvenient History).

Promoters of the Holocaust story inevitably raise eyewitness testimony as “proof” of the genocide of European Jewry during World War II.
The actual evidence to prove the Holocaust is from multiple corroborating sources, of which eye witness evidence is only one part, plus that lack of any evidenced alternative. The claim eye witnesses are proof is misleading, so Wear is getting off to a bad start. I hope he was not as bad an accountant as he is at history.
A pro-Holocaust supporter told me that witnesses such as Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal and Viktor Frankl are not relied upon by historians to prove the “Holocaust” happened. Instead, testimony from Sonderkommandos who actually worked at the alleged homicidal gas chambers constitutes the most-reliable eyewitness testimony. A Sonderkommando was an inmate who aided the German camp authorities with disposing of the bodies of inmates who had died in the camps.
Correct, that is the difference between hearsay and eye witness evidence that so many deniers struggle with.
Many of them were Jews, and all the “eyewitness” testimony comes from Jews, some of whom claim that all Sonderkommando members were Jews.
Not all of the eye witness evidence comes from Jews. Many were German or Ukrainians who were not Jewish. Wear does not know the basics.
This article discusses the credibility of several prominent Sonderkommandos mentioned frequently in the pro-Holocaust literature.

Henryk Tauber

Henryk Tauber stated in his deposition of May 1945 that he worked in the crematoria at Birkenau from February 1943 to October 1944. Pro-Holocaust researcher Robert Jan van Pelt refers to Sonderkommando Henryk Tauber as “an almost-ideal witness” and states “we do well to attach the highest evidentiary value” to Tauber’s testimony.[1] Jean-Claude Pressac stated: “The testimony by Henryk Tauber is the best that exists on the Birkenau Krematorien. Being 95% historically reliable, it stands head-and-shoulders above the rest.”[2] An analysis of Tauber’s testimony, however, shows that it is utterly dubious.

Tauber said in his deposition: “Generally speaking, we burned four or five corpses at a time in one muffle, but sometimes we charged a greater number of corpses. It was possible to charge up to eight ‘muselmanns’ [Camp slang for emaciated inmates]. Such big charges were incinerated without the knowledge of the head of the crematorium during air-raid warnings in order to attract the attention of airmen by having a bigger fire emerging from the chimney. We imagined that in that way it might be possible to change our fate.”[3]

As is common knowledge and has been pointed out many times, crematorium chimneys do not emit flames. It is also impossible to push eight corpses into a cremation muffle whose door is just two feet wide and two feet high. And apart from that, before Tauber and his co-workers would have been able to push eight corpses into each muffle and get a huge blaze going, any plane of whose approach they claim to have heard would have long since flown away. Such testimonies are, to use Pressac’s words, “nothing but downright lies and pure invention.”[4]

Tauber testified in his deposition: “During the incineration of such [not-emaciated] corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat. On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the corpse began to burn the other corpses would catch light themselves…Later on, as cremations succeeded one another, the furnaces burned thanks to the embers produced by the combustion of the corpses. So, during the incineration of fat bodies, the fires were generally extinguished.”[5]

These claims are false. The thousands of crematories around the world consuming large amounts of energy are the best proof that cremation of bare bodies cannot be started, sustained nor completed from the combustion of body fat from the corpses.[6]

Tauber’s testimony becomes even more afactual when he says that the Birkenau crematories were shut down in 1944 because cremation trenches are more-efficient than crematories. Tauber testified: “It was realized that the pits burned the corpses better (than the furnaces), so the Krematorien closed down one after the other after the pits came into operation.”[7] Germar Rudolf comments on Tauber’s testimony: “As for trench burning in comparison to cremation, the energy loss through radiation and convection, along with the problem of incomplete burning, is so gigantic that further commentary is really not needed.”[8]

Tauber also said in his testimony: “Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, five to seven minutes was allowed to burn one corpse in a muffle.”[9] This is impossible even today, and using 1940s technology it took at least an hour to incinerate a corpse. No plan for any actual crematorium indicates otherwise.

Tauber also estimated that 4 million people were gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenau: “During my time in Auschwitz, I was able to talk to various prisoners who had worked in the Krematorien and the Bunkers before my arrival. They told me that I was not among the first to do this work, and that before I came another 2 million people had already been gassed in Bunkers 1 and 2 and Krematorium I. Adding up, the total number of people gassed in Auschwitz amounted to about 4 million.”[10] Today no credited historian estimates that 4 million people were gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenau. Tauber was merely repeating the Soviet propaganda extant at the time.

More Incongruities in Tauber’s Testimony

Henryk Tauber said in his deposition: “The people going to be gassed and those in the gas chamber damaged the electrical installations, tearing the cables out and damaging the ventilation equipment.”[11]

Ventilating the alleged homicidal gas chambers would have been prevented after the ventilation equipment had been damaged by the inmates. If Tauber’s statement was true, the Germans would have had to repair the wiring and ventilation ducts in the gas chambers on a regular basis. Tauber and the other Sonderkommandos would not have been able to clear the gas chambers of dead bodies when the ventilation system was not working. Thus, the daily mass gassings in the homicidal gas chambers could not have occurred as Tauber alleged.[12]

Tauber also stated in his deposition that the Sonderkommandos carried the bodies to the crematorium muffles. Tauber makes no mention that the Sonderkommandos used special protection to carry the bodies.[13] A body that has been killed with hydrocyanic acid (HCN) cannot be safely touched by any person without protection. Dr. Robert Faurisson said in regard to HCN poisoning: “Hydrocyanic acid penetrates into the skin, the mucous membranes, and the bodily fluids. The corpse of a man who has just been killed by this powerful poison is itself a dangerous source of poisoning, and cannot be touched with bare hands. In order to enter the HCN-saturated chamber to remove the corpse, special gear is needed, as well as a gas mask with a special filter.”[14] The danger of touching someone killed with Zyklon B gas is confirmed in the scientific literature.[15]

Bill M. Armontrout, the warden of Missouri State Penitentiary, testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial as to the operation of the Missouri homicidal gas chamber:

After the execution, the ammonia was released and the gas expelled out of the chamber. All staff and witnesses were removed from the area. The ventilation fan ran for approximately an hour before two officers equipped with Scott air-packs (self-contained breathing apparatus which firemen use to enter smoke-filled buildings) opened the hatch of the gas chamber and removed the lead bucket containing the cyanide residue. The two officers wore rubberized disposable clothing and long rubber gloves. They hosed down the condemned man’s body in the chair, paying particular attention to the hair and the clothing because of the cyanide residue, then removed him and placed him on a gurney where further decontamination took place. The officers then hosed the entire inside of the gas chamber with regular cold water. [16]

The Sonderkommandos at Auschwitz/Birkenau would have had to wear something similar to Scott air-packs to remove the dead bodies from the homicidal gas chambers. There is simply no way around it. Otherwise, the alleged homicidal gassing operations would not have worked, and Tauber would not have lived to tell his story.

Tauber stated in his deposition concerning the alleged gas chambers: “The roof of the gas chamber was supported by concrete pillars running down the middle of its length. On either side of these pillars there were four others, two on each side. The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid, there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the pellets from which the gas had evaporated.”[17]

Germar Rudolf writes in regard to Tauber’s testimony: “Several hundred people, locked into a cellar with a very small surface area, anticipating death, would panic and attempt to escape, damaging everything that stood in their way…If these columns actually existed, their outer framework would have to have been of solid steel, but certainly not of fragile wire mesh construction.”[18] Tauber’s testimony concerning wire mesh in the gas chambers is simply not credible.

Abraham and Shlomo Dragon

Brothers Abraham and Shlomo Dragon claim to have been Sonderkommandos stationed at Birkenau. Shlomo recalled his first encounter with dead bodies at a cottage known as Bunker 2: “As [SS officer Otto] Moll opened the door of the house, bodies fell out. We smelled gas. We saw corpses of both sexes. The whole place was full of naked people on top of each other falling out.”[19]

Shlomo Dragon said that the cottage was “a little house with a thatched roof” that served as a gas chamber. When asked how the SS threw the gas into the cottage, Shlomo replied: “There was a little window in the side wall.” Dragon stated that he “could sense the sweetish taste of the gas.” According to Dragon, the Sonderkommandos dragged the bodies out of the alleged gas chamber “by the hands,” and then “threw them into the carts, lugged them to the pits, and threw them into the pits.”[20]

Shlomo Dragon’s testimony is phony for many reasons. First, Dragon claims that the sexes were not separated before entering the alleged gas chambers. This is not credible because:

1) This procedure is contrary to the procedures followed during disinfestation, where according to eyewitnesses the sexes were invariably separated.

2) Since there were always two alleged “gas chambers” of each type available in Birkenau (in Crematorium II and III, or IV and V, or Bunkers I and II), there is no apparent reason why the victims could not have been separated by sex.

3) The claims were repeatedly made that the victims were made to believe that they were going to shower or undergo disinfestation. These procedures would have necessarily separated the populace on the basis of sex, if only because of the need for deception.

4) Particularly in the 1940s, large numbers of people could only have been made to disrobe completely with others of the opposite sex if they had been threatened with force and violence. This would, however, have nullified all the other measures of deception.[21]

Dragon’s statement that he could smell the sweetish taste of the gas also is not credible. Hydrogen-cyanide gas actually smells of bitter almonds. There is nothing "sweetish" about it.[22]

As previously stated, it is also not survivable to enter “gas chambers” and then drag and carry the dead bodies with bare hands with only a gas mask as a protective measure. Germar Rudolf states: “It should not be forgotten here that hydrogen cyanide is a contact poison. Transporting corpses, on whose skin huge, possibly lethal amounts of hydrogen cyanide are absorbed, [would have] required that the special commands dealing with these corpses had to wear protective clothes.”[23]

Dragon’s description of Bunker 2 as a little house with a little window in the side wall where gas was introduced is also not credible. Genuine homicidal gas chambers require advanced engineering and construction. Homicidal gas chambers cannot be made out of existing cottages where poison gas is introduced through a little window in a side wall. Furthermore, no documentary evidence has ever been found indicating that Bunker 2 at Birkenau functioned as an extermination facility.[24]

Shlomo and Abraham Dragon claim they lived to tell their stories only because Shlomo got sick. All the other 200 Sonderkommandos in their group allegedly were transferred to Lublin and gassed. So instead of being gassed, Shlomo stayed at Birkenau, received medical treatment, convinced the SS to keep his brother with him, and both brothers lived to tell their story of mass murder at Birkenau. Like many Holocaust survivors, they both claim to have survived Birkenau through a miracle.[25]

Shlomo Venezia

Shlomo Venezia arrived in Auschwitz/Birkenau on April 11, 1944 and soon began work with the Sonderkommandos.[26] Venezia’s work initially involved carrying bodies removed from Bunker 2 to nearby ditches. Venezia said: “The ditches sloped down, so that, as they burned, the bodies discharged a flow of human fat down the ditch to a corner where a sort of basin had been formed to collect it. When it looked as if the fire might go out, the men had to take some of that liquid fat from the basin, and throw it onto the fire to revive the flames. I saw this only in the ditches of Bunker 2.”[27]

Shlomo Venezia’s story is ludicrous. The ignition temperature of human fats is far lower than the ignition temperature of the light hydrocarbons which form as a result of the gasification of the bodies and of the seasoned wood used in the fire. The human fat is the first thing that burns on a corpse located in a fire. The human fat could not possibly have flowed down to a corner of the ditch as Venezia described—it would all have burned away before it could do so. Also, if by some miracle any human fat had flowed to the corner of the ditch, the Sonderkommandos would have had to collect it from within an immense fire raging with a temperature of at least 600° C. No human being could have withstood such intense heat.[28]

Venezia later worked at Crematorium III in Birkenau. He said that it took about 10 to 12 minutes for the people to be killed by the gas, and another 20 minutes to exhaust the poison gas. Venezia described bringing the corpses out of the gas chamber: “A terrible, acrid smell filled the room. We couldn’t distinguish between what came from the specific smell of the gas and what came from the smell of the people and the human excrement.”[29]

Venezia never mentioned that he used a gas mask during his work. Without a gas mask, Venezia and the other Sonderkommandos would have been killed in turn. The ventilators could not have completely exhausted the gas from the alleged gas chambers in only 20 minutes. More important, there would always have been residues of the toxic gas among the bodies that would be released as they were moved. A gas mask would have been required for the Sonderkommandos to remove the corpses from the homicidal gas chambers without being gassed themselves.[30]

Conclusion

This article documents only a small portion of the absurdities, inconsistencies and outright lies of the testimony of self-styled Sonderkommandos. Similar to other eyewitnesses to the so-called Holocaust, the putative surviving Sonderkommandos have failed to provide credible evidence that Germany built and operated homicidal gas chambers to conduct a program of genocide against European Jewry during World War II.

Endnotes



[1] Van Pelt, Robert Jan, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2002, pp. 188, 204-205.

[2] Pressac, Jean-Claude, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, New York: The Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989, p. 481. See http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... 0481.shtml.

[3] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[4] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C., The Barnes Review, 2011, pp. 188-189.

[5] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[6] Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust: Controversial Issues Cross-Examined, 3rd edition, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, p. 456.

[7] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[8] Rudolf, Germar, Lectures on the Holocaust, 2nd edition, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2011, p. 387.

[9] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, pp. 111-112.

[13] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[14] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, pp. 217-218. See also http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p14_Faurisson.html.

[15] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id=1141&tid=249.

[16] Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian `False News' Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, p. 352.

[17] http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82890.

[18] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C., The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 111.

[19] Greif, Gideon, We Wept without Tears: Testimonies of the Jewish Sonderkommando from Auschwitz, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2005, p. 133.

[20] Ibid., pp. 134-136.

[21] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, pp. 204-205.

[22] Mattogno, Carlo, The Bunkers of Auschwitz: Black Propaganda versus History, Chicago: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2004, p. 130. See http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tboa.pdf.

[23] Rudolf, Germar, The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 218.

[24] Mattogno, Carlo, The Bunkers of Auschwitz: Black Propaganda versus History, Chicago: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2004, p. 48. See http://vho.org/dl/ENG/tboa.pdf.

[25] Greif, Gideon, We Wept without Tears: Testimonies of the Jewish Sonderkommando from Auschwitz, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2005, p. 147.

[26] Veneziz, Shlomo, Inside the Gas Chambers: Eight Months in the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz, Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2009, p. xi.

[27] Ibid., pp. 59-60.

[28] Mattogno, Carlo, “The Truth about the Gas Chambers”?, Inconvenient History, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010.

[29] Veneziz, Shlomo, Inside the Gas Chambers: Eight Months in the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz, Malden, Mass.: Polity Press, 2009, p. 69.

[30] Mattogno, Carlo, “The Truth about the Gas Chambers”?, Inconvenient History, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010.
Wear is repeating the arguments from incredulity that he has read from other deniers. He presents nothing original. He ignores the elephant in the room and that total lack of evidence from inside the kremas to prove something else happened. Such is the very poor standard of denier investigation. Present an essay like that as part of a history degree and the result would be a fail.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30693
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Sat Dec 26, 2020 3:13 am
Turnagain wrote:
Sat Dec 26, 2020 1:14 am
More cock and bull stories from so-called witnesses. Where's Nessie to shriek, "It's true, it's true!" Suuuuure it is. Not even an over abundance of "coulda/woulda/shoulda" can turn these fantasies into real life events.
Fallacy of incredulity. :lol:
Yes. Merely raising doubts about a few of the witnesses does not disprove the homicidal gassings. Only denial uses that method of enquiry. No university teaches the study of history, whereby a few witnesses are ridiculed and that is considered sufficient evidence to prove something.

If Wear handed in that essay as part of a degree study, he would be failed.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30693
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Nessie »

Deniers just do not understand that it is not evidence to find incredibilities in eye witness statements. It may mean that the witness can be discounted as unreliable, but that does not mean something else has been evidenced to have happened. Wear fails to understand that.

Notably, deniers concentrate on Jewish testimony. They tend to leave German testimony alone. Wear does that. He even incorrectly alleges there is only Jewish testimony about the gassings. It is also worth noting that no denier has interviewed a witness or conducted any study of what is to be expected when interviewing witnesses.

Basically, deniers are clueless about historical research and like Wear, are amateurs who have fallen for logical fallacies, thinking that they can act as a substitute for evidence.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30693
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Nessie »

“Sonderkommando Eyewitness” Testimony to the Holocaust
John Wear

https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/3/7562

"Conclusion
This article documents only a small portion of the absurdities, inconsistencies and outright lies of the testimony of self-styled Sonderkommandos. Similar to other eyewitnesses to the so-called Holocaust, the putative surviving Sonderkommandos have failed to provide credible evidence that Germany built and operated homicidal gas chambers to conduct a program of genocide against European Jewry during World War II."

The flaws in the conclusion;

1 - it claims all the other eye witness testimony has similar problems with absurdities etc and that can be determined by only examining some eye witness evidence. It cannot. All the eye witness evidence has to be examined before any conclusion can be made about all of that evidence. At best Wear has shown that some of the witness evidence is inconsistent and incredible, but that in itself does not mean that evidence is false and a lie.

2 - it ignores the other evidence from documents etc for homicidal gassings, that took place inside the Kremas. The only credible way to examine the witness evidence is to look at all the evidence and crucially what is not evidence, at the same time. Picking out part of the evidence and examining only that, is not a credible method of study.

3 - it ignores that to prove that something else happened, evidence needs to be produced as to what did happen. It is not good enough to claim no gassings and not go on to evidence what did happen. That lack of an evidenced conclusion, whilst suggesting a conclusion can be reached, is erroneous thinking. The only credible way to evidence no gassings is to evidence what did happen inside the kremas. Some deniers have tried that, claiming the Vergassungskellers were air raid shelters, morgues or delousing chambers at various times. But that is their suggestion, it is not backed up by any evidence. Then the elephant in the room is ignored. If no one was gassed then where did the Nazis accommodate all those people? A-B was big, but not big enough to accommodate the c900,000 supposedly not gassed there.

4 - the Nazi policies regarding Jews cannot be determined merely from a tiny part of the evidence. The mass gassings at A-B was only a part of what happened, which was not only a program of genocide. The Nazis stripped Jews and others of their rights, their property and then forced them into camps and ghettos, whilst allowing some to buy their freedom (but that policy stopped in 1941) and even turning a blind eye to escapes, most notably the Danish Jews in 1943. Many Jews were used as slave labour. Jews who were arrested towards the end of the war were often kept alive to use as hostages, or again allowed to buy their freedom, such as happened with rich Hungarians in 1944. There was no single consistent policy throughout the war as to what happened. Policies and actions varied from country to country and over time.

Wear is a retired accountant who has shown great naivety and ignorance as to the study of history. That is regurgitating of old denier arguments is being published and held up as an example of denier work, proves deniers are clueless as to how to study, evidence and prove what happened.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30693
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Nessie »

From Wear's own website;

https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018/06/ ... s/#respond

"Holocaust Eyewitnesses: Their Contradictory, Shifting & Evasive Testimony Is Protected From Questioning To Justify The Genocide Of Germans"

First of all, it is assumed that when witnesses give contradicting, shifting or evasive evidence, that means they are lying. That is not necessarily the case. Contradictions are often caused by witnesses not witnessing exactly the same thing or poor memory or are due to a turn of phrase and are not contradictory at all. Shifting evidence can be explained by time and what questions the witness was asked and what other information they have gained about the event. Evasive evidence can be explained by shame or not being asked key questions. If two witnesses say they saw the same shooting, but they vary as to what gun was used and then one witness changes his mind and agrees with the other witness when they hear what that witness had said, that does not mean the witnesses are liars. If they are evasive about parts of the shooting, that may be because they were also involved in the shooting.

Wear has never investigated an event by interviewing witnesses. He has no idea how witnesses behave and how to evidence what happened. In his article he goes on to say;

"I will analyze the eyewitness accounts of probably its three most famous survivors:
Elie Wiesel,
Simon Wiesenthal, and
Viktor Frankl."

He fails to say how his analysis is reliable and credible. He fails to show how his methods are used in any academic discipline and why his opinion is worthy.

The three people he names were at various concentration camps, but none were eye witnesses to gassings. They are merely repeating hearsay and rumour about mass killings at the camps. Their evidence is hearsay and of minor practical, historical use. They have gained fame through their other work and that fame has given them a certain authority, but their testimony is of little evidential value.

Wear goes on to say "Another eyewitness who did not see any evidence of genocide of the Jews is Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich. Dr. Stäglich...". Only a fool thinks that every single person who was in a concentration camp saw everything as to what was happening. A-B was huge and made up of many camps. Only those who worked inside the Kremas actually saw what was happening to the people sent there.

Wear is a fool, who has no idea about the fair and accurate investigation of what happened and how to accurately assess witness evidence.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 10714
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Sat Dec 26, 2020 9:31 am
Werd wrote:
Sat Dec 26, 2020 3:13 am
Turnagain wrote:
Sat Dec 26, 2020 1:14 am
More cock and bull stories from so-called witnesses. Where's Nessie to shriek, "It's true, it's true!" Suuuuure it is. Not even an over abundance of "coulda/woulda/shoulda" can turn these fantasies into real life events.
Fallacy of incredulity. :lol:
Yes.
Called it.
Merely raising doubts about a few of the witnesses does not disprove the homicidal gassings.
By using the scientific method of checking data and repeating experiments, we know Tauber was talking out of his ass about the supposedly super powerful coke fired ovens.
Tauber’s testimony becomes even more afactual when he says that the Birkenau crematories were shut down in 1944 because cremation trenches are more-efficient than crematories. Tauber testified: “It was realized that the pits burned the corpses better (than the furnaces), so the Krematorien closed down one after the other after the pits came into operation.”[7] Germar Rudolf comments on Tauber’s testimony: “As for trench burning in comparison to cremation, the energy loss through radiation and convection, along with the problem of incomplete burning, is so gigantic that further commentary is really not needed.”[8]
Game. Set. Match.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests