The Museum of Tolerance (MoT) has one more card up it’s sleeve to ‘prove’ that Nazis employed homicidal gas chambers, the T-4 Euthanasia program. MoT calls it an order to make it sound like big bad evil Hitler was ordering doctors to kill their patients, but that is not the case.
The Euthanasia program was not an order to kill people at all. It was a measure which gave doctors the choice to end the suffering of incurable patients.
Carbon monoxide gas was used because it was determined to be the most humane method of euthanizing adults.
The euthanasia program was not popular with the public. In response to this Hitler ordered a stop to the program in August of 1941. Because I live in current year America I can hardly imagine the government responding to the wishes of the people. Despite promises made there is no immigration control, there is no student loan forgiveness. So much for democracy, but I digress.
If you’ll recall MoT framed the question thusly, “There is no proof whatsoever that the Nazis ever murdered anyone in gas chambers.” By doing so they could bring up the euthanasia program and have their ‘proof’. Although euthanasia is not technically murder. To imply that this program is evidence of homicidal gas chambers in the labor camps is misleading at best.
Now let’s go back to this section that I mentioned in part one and see what offenses MoT and their sources have commited.
Flawed research, biased statements and, in many cases, deliberately falsified evidence- Every statement MoT makes is biased because they have an agenda. That agenda is to uphold the official Holocaust narrative. Everything thing they say is based on the premise that the Holocaust happened and there is no room for any other alternative. Deliberately falsified evidence? You mean like presenting blueprints of a crematorium as evidence that the Nazis gassed Jews? Pretending that deliveries of Zyklon B to a facility that used it to kill disease spreading vermin automatically implies sinister intentions? Maybe that’s not called falsifying evidence, maybe it’s just lying.
Denial of the authenticity of documents, eyewitness testimonies, films and photos that historians have concluded to be authentic- The testimony of Bruno Tesch and Karl Weinbacher must mean nothing to MoT. The two defendants testified that the incriminating travel notes did not exist. There was no proof of the note’s existence aside from the testimony of others. Whose side did MoT take? The side that agreed with their preconceived notion, of course. And just because historians have concluded that a document is authentic doesn’t mean you can’t question their findings. Especially for such a controversial subject. When it comes to the Holocaust historians will be blacklisted for not toeing the line. And in some countries they could even fact legal issues.
“Holocaust Revisionists often copy the practices of genuine scholars by holding their own conventions or citing the works of other Holocaust deniers -as if they were facts- all in the attempt to deceive the public”– Why are ‘Holocaust deniers’ not genuine scholars, MoT? Is it because that academic institutions abuse their power by barring anyone with dissenting views on the Holocaust from getting a degree? All the more convenient for the Holocaust narrative. Orthodox Holocaust historians cite works from other orthodox Holocaust historians all the time. The act of referencing someone in your own camp does not necessarily mean the argument or citation is invalid. However, as we learned in part two, Jean-Claude Pressac avoids the issue altoughter by providing no references or citations at all!
I could give more examples from other Holocaust promoters but that would take a whole article (stay tuned).
Anyhow, I consider MoT’s refutation of Holocaust deniers to be negated. Perhaps we shall one day meet again, MoT.