Comments on other threads.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Read any history of the camp, from online summaries by USHMM and Wikipedia to Dachau, The Official History and you will find that the evidence has been gathered, assessed and insufficient corroborating evidence was found to establish any claims of mass gassing at the camp.

This is a narrative that was concocted after the retractation of the Dachau gas chamber(s) in order to justify the retractation and avoid damaging the credibility of the unretracted fake gas chambers. Pure late damage control. Read any Allied newspaper and official statement from 1945 to 1960 (and even many years later) and you will see that the Dachau gas chamber(s) was (were) described as an undeniable established fact as evidenced as any other alleged Nazi gas chamber. In reality, the Dachau gas chamber used to be the best-proven & most notorious gas chamber of the entire Holohoax myth!! It was even the only "gas chamber" seen in the famous horror movie screened at the Nuremberg show trial in 1945!

Evidence was found, primarily from SS camp staff, that there were euthanasia gassings at those camps.

Yes, I know. "Confessing" all kinds of untrue things at the mock trials held by the almighty victors for propaganda purposes was the best defense strategy at that time...

[Nessie]

Read any history of the camp, from online summaries by USHMM and Wikipedia to Dachau, The Official History and you will find that the evidence has been gathered, assessed and insufficient corroborating evidence was found to establish any claims of mass gassing at the camp.

This is a narrative that was concocted after the retractation of the Dachau gas chamber(s) in order to justify the retractation and avoid damaging the credibility of the unretracted fake gas chambers. Pure late damage control. Read any Allied newspaper and official statement from 1945 to 1960 (and even many years later) and you will see that the Dachau gas chamber(s) was (were) described as an undeniable established fact as evidenced as any other alleged Nazi gas chamber. In reality, the Dachau gas chamber used to be the best-proven & most notorious gas chamber of the entire Holohoax myth!! It was even the only "gas chamber" seen in the famous horror movie screened at the Nuremberg show trial in 1945!

...

The reason for the retraction, was because war crimes investigators and historians failed to find sufficient evidence to support the original claims and rumours. The camp staff were primarily tried by the Americans, and those staff denied mass gassings.

https://www.expostfacto.nl/dtrr/dtrrintro.html

"From 1945 to 1948, U.S. Army Courts (military commissions and special or general military courts) tried 1672 individuals in 489 proceedings."

According to you, for the hoax you allege to work, the Americans could not get the SS at Dachau to make false confessions to mass gassings at Dachau, but the British who tried Hoess and the Germans and Poles who tried the A-B SS camp staff, were able to get false confessions from them.

Or, the simpler, evidenced reason is that the gas chambers at Dachau were not used, whereas the ones at A-B were.

Evidence was found, primarily from SS camp staff, that there were euthanasia gassings at those camps.

Yes, I know. "Confessing" all kinds of untrue things at the mock trials held by the almighty victors for propaganda purposes was the best defense strategy at that time...

That is an odd way to run a hoax. You would think that no confession would be exposed as false. In fact, the confessions that were proved, were the ones that were corroborated, and the confessions exposed as false were the ones not corroborated, or there was evidence they were false. You don't do evidence, so you do not understand how evidence determines truthfulness and accuracy.

[Keen]

Go and watch the Innocence Project and you will see that testimonies and even confessions don't prove crimes and that testimonies are just series of words without the slightest intrinsic probative value.

And never forget:

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Read any history of the camp, from online summaries by USHMM and Wikipedia to Dachau, The Official History and you will find that the evidence has been gathered, assessed and insufficient corroborating evidence was found to establish any claims of mass gassing at the camp.

This is a narrative that was concocted after the retractation of the Dachau gas chamber(s) in order to justify the retractation and avoid damaging the credibility of the unretracted fake gas chambers. Pure late damage control. Read any Allied newspaper and official statement from 1945 to 1960 (and even many years later) and you will see that the Dachau gas chamber(s) was (were) described as an undeniable established fact as evidenced as any other alleged Nazi gas chamber. In reality, the Dachau gas chamber used to be the best-proven & most notorious gas chamber of the entire Holohoax myth!! It was even the only "gas chamber" seen in the famous horror movie screened at the Nuremberg show trial in 1945!

...

The reason for the retraction, was because war crimes investigators and historians failed to find sufficient evidence to support the original claims and rumours. The camp staff were primarily tried by the Americans, and those staff denied mass gassings.

Wrong. Or else you would have provided some investigation reports and trial transcripts showing that and you haven't. Tells it all...

As I said in my previous post :

the Dachau gas chamber(s) was (were) described as an undeniable established fact as evidenced as any other alleged Nazi gas chamber. In reality, the Dachau gas chamber used to be the best-proven & most notorious gas chamber of the entire Holohoax myth!!

"From 1945 to 1948, U.S. Army Courts (military commissions and special or general military courts) tried 1672 individuals in 489 proceedings."

According to you, for the hoax you allege to work, the Americans could not get the SS at Dachau to make false confessions to mass gassings at Dachau, but the British who tried Hoess and the Germans and Poles who tried the A-B SS camp staff, were able to get false confessions from them.

Or, the simpler, evidenced reason is that the gas chambers at Dachau were not used, whereas the ones at A-B were.

It's not that the Americans could not get the SS at Dachau to make false confessions to mass gassings at Dachau. It's that it was unnecessary. The Americans didn't even try to make the SS do that, what didn't prevent Uncle Sam's mock trials from securing a 100% conviction rate at the Dachau camp trial and at the Mauthausen-Gusen trial held at Dachau. The Americans secured these super high conviction rates by utilizing the legal concept of a "common design," which allowed prosecutors to hold camp personnel responsible for the alleged systematic brutality of the concentration camp system as a whole, without needing to prove a specific defendant's involvement in an individual murder. Extracting false confessions from the defendants was not needed at those revolting parodies of justice.

That being said...

Evidence was found, primarily from SS camp staff, that there were euthanasia gassings at those camps.

Yes, I know. "Confessing" all kinds of untrue things at the mock trials held by the almighty victors for propaganda purposes was the best defense strategy at that time...

That is an odd way to run a hoax. You would think that no confession would be exposed as false. In fact, the confessions that were proved, were the ones that were corroborated, and the confessions exposed as false were the ones not corroborated, or there was evidence they were false. You don't do evidence, so you do not understand how evidence determines truthfulness and accuracy.

No confessions were exposed as false. Some of the tricks used to extract those false confessions were briefly mentioned by a few people afterwards, but it changed nothing because academic historians and mainstream journalists never speak about it in their cherry-picking job of state-sponsored propagandists.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Go and watch the Innocence Project and you will see that testimonies and even confessions don't prove crimes and that testimonies are just series of words without the slightest intrinsic probative value.

Thanks, Keen!

And never forget:

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

A perfect demonstration. Undeniably true. Couldn't be repeated too often.

[Nessie]

This is a narrative that was concocted after the retractation of the Dachau gas chamber(s) in order to justify the retractation and avoid damaging the credibility of the unretracted fake gas chambers. Pure late damage control. Read any Allied newspaper and official statement from 1945 to 1960 (and even many years later) and you will see that the Dachau gas chamber(s) was (were) described as an undeniable established fact as evidenced as any other alleged Nazi gas chamber. In reality, the Dachau gas chamber used to be the best-proven & most notorious gas chamber of the entire Holohoax myth!! It was even the only "gas chamber" seen in the famous horror movie screened at the Nuremberg show trial in 1945!

...

The reason for the retraction, was because war crimes investigators and historians failed to find sufficient evidence to support the original claims and rumours. The camp staff were primarily tried by the Americans, and those staff denied mass gassings.

Wrong. Or else you would have provided some investigation reports and trial transcripts showing that and you haven't. Tells it all...

You agree with me that there was no evidence to support the claims made by some prisoners on liberation, that there had been mass gassing at Dachau. I have linked to a source for the Dachau trails, here it is again;

https://www.expostfacto.nl/dtrr/dtrrintro.html

You go on to include a quote I used from that site....

"From 1945 to 1948, U.S. Army Courts (military commissions and special or general military courts) tried 1672 individuals in 489 proceedings."

According to you, for the hoax you allege to work, the Americans could not get the SS at Dachau to make false confessions to mass gassings at Dachau, but the British who tried Hoess and the Germans and Poles who tried the A-B SS camp staff, were able to get false confessions from them.

Or, the simpler, evidenced reason is that the gas chambers at Dachau were not used, whereas the ones at A-B were.

It's not that the Americans could not get the SS at Dachau to make false confessions to mass gassings at Dachau. It's that it was unnecessary. The Americans didn't even try to make the SS do that, what didn't prevent Uncle Sam's mock trials from securing a 100% conviction rate at the Dachau camp trial and at the Mauthausen-Gusen trial held at Dachau. The Americans secured these super high conviction rates by utilizing the legal concept of a "common design," which allowed prosecutors to hold camp personnel responsible for the alleged systematic brutality of the concentration camp system as a whole, without needing to prove a specific defendant's involvement in an individual murder. Extracting false confessions from the defendants was not needed at those revolting parodies of justice.

Fact is that no evidence was produced to prove mass gassings at Dachau, from eyewitness who worked at the chambers or documents pertaining to their operation or any other evidential source. The only evidence as such, was hearsay and rumours repeated by some of the prisoners.

Evidence was produced to prove the use of gas chambers and Mauthausen and of mass gassings at A-B. That proves the various trials were evidence based and that confessions were not false, as they were corroborated by evidence.

That being said...

Evidence was found, primarily from SS camp staff, that there were euthanasia gassings at those camps.

Yes, I know. "Confessing" all kinds of untrue things at the mock trials held by the almighty victors for propaganda purposes was the best defense strategy at that time...

The majority of the death camp SS staff trials were conducted by German prosecutors, in Germany.

That is an odd way to run a hoax. You would think that no confession would be exposed as false. In fact, the confessions that were proved, were the ones that were corroborated, and the confessions exposed as false were the ones not corroborated, or there was evidence they were false. You don't do evidence, so you do not understand how evidence determines truthfulness and accuracy.

No confessions were exposed as false. Some of the tricks used to extract those false confessions were briefly mentioned by a few people afterwards, but it changed nothing because academic historians and mainstream journalists never speak about it in their cherry-picking job of state-sponsored propagandists.

You have just linked to evidence of the exposing of false confessions!

According to you, this bizarre conspiracy allowed some camp staff to deny the existence of gas chambers when tried by the Allies, and others, with no evidence of coercion, to admit to their existence, in trails conducted by Germans in Germany. A study of the trials shows that SS camp staff were convicted where there was corroborating evidence, such as at A-B and not convicted when there was no such evidence, such as at Dachau.

You unevidenced assertions all the trials were part of a massive hoax, is driven by a desire to believe in a mass conspiracy that would have been impossible to pull off.

[Eye of Zyclone]

You agree with me that there was no evidence to support the claims made by some prisoners on liberation, that there had been mass gassing at Dachau.

Yes, I agree with you that there was no evidence to support the claims made by some prisoners that there had been mass gassing at Dachau, and I add that it's also true for all the Nazi camps and that no solid evidence was ever requested (see articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter of August 1945) nor provided to prove by modern-era standards that there had been mass gassing at any Nazi camp. Seeming compelling with nothing probative is just the magic of foregone convictions (and foregone conclusions in general) and court theatrics for propaganda purposes.

I have linked to a source for the Dachau trails, here it is again;

https://www.expostfacto.nl/dtrr/dtrrintro.html

Your link is 100% useless regarding the gas-chamber debate. The word "gas" is not even mentioned in it.

Fact is that no evidence was produced to prove mass gassings at Dachau, from eyewitness who worked at the chambers or documents pertaining to their operation or any other evidential source. The only evidence as such, was hearsay and rumours repeated by some of the prisoners.

Fact remains that testimonies, hearsay or not, are not solid evidence (mere series of words with no intrinsic probative value) and nothing else was ever provided to prove the existence of mass gassing at any Nazi camp. Who needs any evidence at all to prove "facts of common knowledge" like the Holohoax conspiracy theory anyway ?

Evidence was produced to prove the use of gas chambers and Mauthausen and of mass gassings at A-B. That proves the various trials were evidence based and that confessions were not false, as they were corroborated by evidence.

Nope. No evidence was produced to prove the use of gas chambers at Mauthausen, Auschwitz-Birkenau or any other Nazi camp. Testimonies, confessions and horror pictures of typhus victims are impressive, but they're not evidence of mass gassings.

No confessions were exposed as false. Some of the tricks used to extract those false confessions were briefly mentioned by a few people afterwards, but it changed nothing because academic historians and mainstream journalists never speak about it in their cherry-picking job of state-sponsored propagandists.

You have just linked to evidence of the exposing of false confessions!

I've just linked to statements exposing the procedure that was used to produce false confessions, but not to specific confessions exposed as false. Nuance.

According to you, this bizarre conspiracy allowed some camp staff to deny the existence of gas chambers when tried by the Allies, and others, with no evidence of coercion, to admit to their existence, in trails conducted by Germans in Germany.

No conspiracy is needed to make victors secure false confessions and false testimonies at show trials. That's a common practice of psychological warfare and propaganda.

A study of the trials shows that SS camp staff were convicted where there was corroborating evidence, such as at A-B and not convicted when there was no such evidence, such as at Dachau.

Nope. And repeating it like a monomaniac parrot on cocaine won't make it true or help prove it. Sorry.

You unevidenced assertions all the trials were part of a massive hoax, is driven by a desire to believe in a mass conspiracy that would have been impossible to pull off.

No intertwined & multilayered grand conspiracy was ever needed to make some regimes successfully secure false testimonies and false confessions at mock trials. It was even a standard procedure of conviction and propaganda in the Soviet Union. Andrei Vyshinksy, the head of the Soviet prosecutors at the Nuremberg show trials, was an expert in securing such impressive non-evidence.

[Nessie]

You agree with me that there was no evidence to support the claims made by some prisoners on liberation, that there had been mass gassing at Dachau.

Yes, I agree with you that there was no evidence to support the claims made by some prisoners that there had been mass gassing at Dachau, and I add that it's also true for all the Nazi camps...

Wrong. For example, all the Topf & Sons and Construction Office documents that corroborate the eyewitnesses to gassings in the Kremas and the archaeological finds of huge areas of disturbed ground containing at the AR camps.

... and that no solid evidence was ever requested (see articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter of August 1945) nor provided to prove by modern-era standards that there had been mass gassing at any Nazi camp. Seeming compelling with nothing probative is just the magic of foregone convictions (and foregone conclusions in general) and court theatrics for propaganda purposes.

Please prove that the trails conducted by German prosecutors, in West, East and unified Germany, have lacked corroborating evidence that confirms the claims made by both witnesses and accused, were false.

I have linked to a source for the Dachau trails, here it is again;

https://www.expostfacto.nl/dtrr/dtrrintro.html

Your link is 100% useless regarding the gas-chamber debate. The word "gas" is not even mentioned in it.

If you go through the list of camp staff, you will find no reference to gas, because none were convicted of working at the gas chambers, since there was no corroborating evidence to prove mass gassings.

https://www.expostfacto.nl/dtrr/dtnames01.html

It is bizarre that you claim a trial run by the USA, that had no SS admitting to gas chambers and mass gassings, is evidence of a conspiracy to frame Nazis for mass gassings.

Fact is that no evidence was produced to prove mass gassings at Dachau, from eyewitness who worked at the chambers or documents pertaining to their operation or any other evidential source. The only evidence as such, was hearsay and rumours repeated by some of the prisoners.

Fact remains that testimonies, hearsay or not, are not solid evidence (mere series of words with no intrinsic probative value) and nothing else was ever provided to prove the existence of mass gassing at any Nazi camp. Who needs any evidence at all to prove "facts of common knowledge" like the Holohoax conspiracy theory anyway ?

Please link me to evidence that witness testimonies are "not solid evidence", since all courts, historians and journalists think that it is and use that type of evidence constantly to prove claims. The Holocaust was a "fact of common knowledge" because of the evidence of imprisonment, slave labour and mass murders. It meant that the Holocaust trials proceeded after the crime was proven by the evidence. One of the major reasons for that, was the accused did not deny the crime.

Evidence was produced to prove the use of gas chambers and Mauthausen and of mass gassings at A-B. That proves the various trials were evidence based and that confessions were not false, as they were corroborated by evidence.

Nope. No evidence was produced to prove the use of gas chambers at Mauthausen, Auschwitz-Birkenau or any other Nazi camp. Testimonies, confessions and horror pictures of typhus victims are impressive, but they're not evidence of mass gassings.

That is what makes you a Holocaust denier, as you deny all the evidence from documents, archaeology etc that together corroborates and proves the murders that took place at the camps, using gas chambers.

No confessions were exposed as false. Some of the tricks used to extract those false confessions were briefly mentioned by a few people afterwards, but it changed nothing because academic historians and mainstream journalists never speak about it in their cherry-picking job of state-sponsored propagandists.

You have just linked to evidence of the exposing of false confessions!

I've just linked to statements exposing the procedure that was used to produce false confessions, but not to specific confessions exposed as false. Nuance.

You have linked to articles about false confessions.

Holocaust-U-S-Congressional-Record-April-1949-German-war-crimes-trials-false-confessions
Holocaust-From-Weimar-to-the-Wall-1999-Weizsacker-IMT-Nuremberg-false-confessions-perj
Holocaust-Nuremberg-Trials-IMT-Rudolf-Brandt-false-confessions-seagate

How do exposes of false confessions, support your claim of a hoax? It proves that historians and journalists have been aware not all claims can be trusted and that some made false confessions. It is a bizarre hoax, when those supposedly responsible for it, will also expose false claims!

According to you, this bizarre conspiracy allowed some camp staff to deny the existence of gas chambers when tried by the Allies, and others, with no evidence of coercion, to admit to their existence, in trails conducted by Germans in Germany.

No conspiracy is needed to make victors secure false confessions and false testimonies at show trials. That's a common practice of psychological warfare and propaganda.

Germans were not the victors.

A study of the trials shows that SS camp staff were convicted where there was corroborating evidence, such as at A-B and not convicted when there was no such evidence, such as at Dachau.

Nope. And repeating it like a monomaniac parrot on cocaine won't make it true or help prove it. Sorry.

It is true that there was no evidence to corroborate claims about gas chambers at Dachau and there was for A-B. Prentending otherwise is deluded Holocaust denial.

You unevidenced assertions all the trials were part of a massive hoax, is driven by a desire to believe in a mass conspiracy that would have been impossible to pull off.

No intertwined & multilayered grand conspiracy was ever needed to make some regimes successfully secure false testimonies and false confessions at mock trials. It was even a standard procedure of conviction and propaganda in the Soviet Union. Andrei Vyshinksy, the head of the Soviet prosecutors at the Nuremberg show trials, was an expert in securing such impressive non-evidence.

...

What about the French who convicted French people for their role in the Holocaust? Can you evidence those French people forced their countrymen to make false confessions that were of great embarrassment and shame to France? I can substitute most European countries into that question, including Germany.

[Archie]

You agree with me that there was no evidence to support the claims made by some prisoners on liberation, that there had been mass gassing at Dachau. I have linked to a source for the Dachau trails, here it is again;

There was evidence (or supposed evidence) for Dachau gassings. Earlier posters have noted the testimony of Dr. Blaha which you continue to ignore. The Americans investigated the room and claimed it was a gas chamber.

[Nessie]

You agree with me that there was no evidence to support the claims made by some prisoners on liberation, that there had been mass gassing at Dachau. I have linked to a source for the Dachau trails, here it is again;

There was evidence (or supposed evidence) for Dachau gassings. Earlier posters have noted the testimony of Dr. Blaha which you continue to ignore. The Americans investigated the room and claimed it was a gas chamber.

There were claims and rumours, by some camp prisoners and the American liberators, but not sufficient corroborating evidence to prove gas chambers at Dachau.

Why, when this was all supposed to be a hoax, were the staff at Dachau not coerced into making false claims about mass gassings there? How were the SS camp staff able to push back against the early claims and rumours, so that mass gassings at Dachau were accepted as false?

[Keen]

Please prove that the trails conducted by German prosecutors, in West, East and unified Germany, have lacked corroborating evidence that confirms the claims made by both witnesses and accused, were false.

cor·rob·or·ation

Evidence which confirms - OR - supports a statement or theory

Why are you using the word "corroboration" in the same sentance that you use the word "confirm"?

Why do you disingenuously and steadfastly use the word "corroboration" / "corroborating" when "confirms" and "supports" are clear and concise?

If you want evidence that confirms, then why did you even include the word corroborating? As usual, you are trying to create and compound complication and confusion. That is of course, because you are a pathological liar and sniveling coward who is afraid to engage in honest debate.

[Keen]

There were claims and rumours, by some camp prisoners and the American liberators, but not sufficient corroborating evidence to prove gas chambers at Dachau.

cor·rob·or·ation

Evidence which confirms - OR - supports a statement or theory

Why are you using a word that has a double meaning if you are not purposely trying to create and compound complication and confusion?

You are making a judgment call on the "sufficiency" of "corroborating evidence," which is a tacit admission that just because someone thinks that there is "corroborating evidence" for something, it is open to interpretation as to its evidentiary value.

Ie. - claiming that something has been "corroborated" is meaningless in and of itself.

Thanks retard!

[Eye of Zyclone]

You agree with me that there was no evidence to support the claims made by some prisoners on liberation, that there had been mass gassing at Dachau.

Yes, I agree with you that there was no evidence to support the claims made by some prisoners that there had been mass gassing at Dachau, and I add that it's also true for all the Nazi camps...

Wrong. For example, all the Topf & Sons and Construction Office documents that corroborate the eyewitnesses to gassings in the Kremas and the archaeological finds of huge areas of disturbed ground containing at the AR camps.

There are no Topf & Sons and Construction Office documents that corroborate the eyewitnesses to gassings. Pressac's laughable criminal traces were all debunked by Holocaust revisionists and quietly dropped by embarrassed Holocaust believers.

I have linked to a source for the Dachau trails, here it is again;

https://www.expostfacto.nl/dtrr/dtrrintro.html

Your link is 100% useless regarding the gas-chamber debate. The word "gas" is not even mentioned in it.

If you go through the list of camp staff, you will find no reference to gas, because none were convicted of working at the gas chambers, since there was no corroborating evidence to prove mass gassings.

https://www.expostfacto.nl/dtrr/dtnames01.html

It is bizarre that you claim a trial run by the USA, that had no SS admitting to gas chambers and mass gassings, is evidence of a conspiracy to frame Nazis for mass gassings.

I didn't claim that the Dachau trial is evidence of a conspiracy to frame Nazis for mass gassings.
I said that the mass gassing hoax was a called a "fact of common knowledge" and treated accordingly before any so-called war crime trial had even begun. And what court needs confessions and testimonies or even real evidence with the trick of "judicial notice" in its arsenal anyway (see Mel Mermelstein's scam for more info on this) ?

Fact is that no evidence was produced to prove mass gassings at Dachau, from eyewitness who worked at the chambers or documents pertaining to their operation or any other evidential source. The only evidence as such, was hearsay and rumours repeated by some of the prisoners.

Fact remains that testimonies, hearsay or not, are not solid evidence (mere series of words with no intrinsic probative value) and nothing else was ever provided to prove the existence of mass gassing at any Nazi camp. Who needs any evidence at all to prove "facts of common knowledge" like the Holohoax conspiracy theory anyway ?

The Holocaust was a "fact of common knowledge" because of the evidence of imprisonment, slave labour and mass murders. It meant that the Holocaust trials proceeded after the crime was proven by the evidence. One of the major reasons for that, was the accused did not deny the crime.

Wrong. It was depicted as a "fact of common knowledge" by claiming that the horrific pictures of the big health disaster caused by the Allied obliteration bombings in the last operational concentration camps of the collapsing 3rd Reich were undeniable graphic evidence of mass murder in Nazi camps. In reality, the U.S. army even withheld the results of the investigations conducted at Nazi camps because those results contradicted the atrocity propaganda of the Allies.

[Nessie]

Yes, I agree with you that there was no evidence to support the claims made by some prisoners that there had been mass gassing at Dachau, and I add that it's also true for all the Nazi camps...

Wrong. For example, all the Topf & Sons and Construction Office documents that corroborate the eyewitnesses to gassings in the Kremas and the archaeological finds of huge areas of disturbed ground containing at the AR camps.

There are no Topf & Sons and Construction Office documents that corroborate the eyewitnesses to gassings. Pressac's laughable criminal traces were all debunked by Holocaust revisionists and quietly dropped by embarrassed Holocaust believers.

There are documents to corroborate the witnesses, deniers have not debunked that and historians have not dropped anything about the narrative of usage of the Kremas. Your false assertion is merely evidence of how you have fallen for the denial hoax.

Your link is 100% useless regarding the gas-chamber debate. The word "gas" is not even mentioned in it.

If you go through the list of camp staff, you will find no reference to gas, because none were convicted of working at the gas chambers, since there was no corroborating evidence to prove mass gassings.

https://www.expostfacto.nl/dtrr/dtnames01.html

It is bizarre that you claim a trial run by the USA, that had no SS admitting to gas chambers and mass gassings, is evidence of a conspiracy to frame Nazis for mass gassings.

I didn't claim that the Dachau trial is evidence of a conspiracy to frame Nazis for mass gassings.

That is because it is evidence that there was not a mass framing of Nazis for gassings. That flys in the face of your believe that there was such a conspiracy.

I said that the mass gassing hoax was a called a "fact of common knowledge" and treated accordingly before any so-called war crime trial had even begun. And what court needs confessions and testimonies or even real evidence with the trick of "judicial notice" in its arsenal anyway (see Mel Mermelstein's scam for more info on this) ?

If that was the case, which it is not, why were the Dachau Nazis not all charged and convicted of mass gassings? You claim there was an assumption the gassings were true, and then produce evidence of that not being the case and a camp alleged to have had gas chambers, that none of the staff were tried for.

Fact is that no evidence was produced to prove mass gassings at Dachau, from eyewitness who worked at the chambers or documents pertaining to their operation or any other evidential source. The only evidence as such, was hearsay and rumours repeated by some of the prisoners.

Fact remains that testimonies, hearsay or not, are not solid evidence (mere series of words with no intrinsic probative value) and nothing else was ever provided to prove the existence of mass gassing at any Nazi camp. Who needs any evidence at all to prove "facts of common knowledge" like the Holohoax conspiracy theory anyway ?

The Holocaust was a "fact of common knowledge" because of the evidence of imprisonment, slave labour and mass murders. It meant that the Holocaust trials proceeded after the crime was proven by the evidence. One of the major reasons for that, was the accused did not deny the crime.

Wrong. It was depicted as a "fact of common knowledge" by claiming that the horrific pictures of the big health disaster caused by the Allied obliteration bombings in the last operational concentration camps of the collapsing 3rd Reich were undeniable graphic evidence of mass murder in Nazi camps. In reality, the U.S. army even withheld the results of the investigations conducted at Nazi camps because those results contradicted the atrocity propaganda of the Allies.

Gassings were not a fact of common knowledge, as each camp's trial had to produce evidence of the use of gas chambers. Such evidence was produced for A-B and TII, but not for Dachau or Bergen-Belsen.

No evidence has ever been produced to show an Allied bomb hit a supply transport to a camp, that explains why only Jews in the camps starved to death and not any of the other prisoners. It was Nazi policy to withhold food from the Jews.

Why would you expect autopsies performed on corpses in 1945, when gassings ended in 1944 and those corpses were cremated, to find evidence of gassed corpses? How could a gassed corpse from 1944 survive to 1945, to be autopsied? Of course declining camp conditions caused many deaths, but it was SS camp staff policy to starve Jews and not the other prisoners, such as POWs.

[Eye of Zyclone]

There are documents to corroborate the witnesses, deniers have not debunked that

Yes, they have debunked that. But why would you waste time reading the books and papers of people you call "deniers" ?

and historians have not dropped anything about the narrative of usage of the Kremas. Your false assertion is merely evidence of how you have fallen for the denial hoax.

I didn't say that they did. I said that they no longer even try to use Pressac's so-called "criminal traces" to support the assertion that the morgues of Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria were turned into homicidal gas chambers at some point. They just reverted back to their only-testimonies methodology, like mere Ufologists and ghost hunters.

That is because it is evidence that there was not a mass framing of Nazis for gassings. That flys in the face of your believe that there was such a conspiracy.

If that was the case, which it is not, why were the Dachau Nazis not all charged and convicted of mass gassings? You claim there was an assumption the gassings were true, and then produce evidence of that not being the case and a camp alleged to have had gas chambers, that none of the staff were tried for.

I've provided enough evidence showing that the mass gassing at Dachau was regarded and portrayed as an established fact before the Dachau show trial had even begun! The "common design" trick and the "judicial notice" trick just made the use of false confessions to mass gassing at Dachau superfluous. No surprise. Who needs more bogus evidence of a so-called fact of common knowledge after all ? Unnecessary to get a 100% conviction rate and sell a "good versus evil" narrative, as the future has vastly demonstrated in the following years and decades. In 1945, the U.S. military didn't need the gas-chamber story more than all the other atrocity stories the Allied propagandists were telling abou the Enemy to strengthen the fictive moral high ground of the Allies and divert public attention away from the appaling results of their own bombing policy. They didn't need to focus on the gas-chamber story more than Netanyahu needs to focus on the decapitated-babies story to keep ethnically cleasing the lands singled out for future Jewish colonization. A general impression of good Allies versus evil Nazis & Japs was enough for that.

Gassings were not a fact of common knowledge, as each camp's trial had to produce evidence of the use of gas chambers. Such evidence was produced for A-B and TII, but not for Dachau or Bergen-Belsen.

You're lying. In 1945, all the Nazi camps were labelled as "death camps." That's why horror pictures of typhus victims at Buchenwald, Belsen and Dachau were so easily sold as undeniable graphic evidence of a Nazi extermination policy.

No evidence has ever been produced to show an Allied bomb hit a supply transport to a camp, that explains why only Jews in the camps starved to death and not any of the other prisoners. It was Nazi policy to withhold food from the Jews.

A big liar caught with his pants (on fire) down once again...

Destroying the Reich's transport system was a primary military goal of the Allies.







Why did you think that Allies performed a big starvation experiment in Minnesota if they were not starving Europe with their obliteration bombing policy ?

Why would you expect autopsies performed on corpses in 1945, when gassings ended in 1944 and those corpses were cremated, to find evidence of gassed corpses? How could a gassed corpse from 1944 survive to 1945, to be autopsied?

That's the late narrative. In 1945, Allied propagandists claimed that the Anglo-American armies had just captured Nazi extermination camps and that the horror pictures of emaciated camp inmates were the undeniable proof that all the Nazi camps had been mass murder factories ("so it was true," as they put it).