The Return of MoT

Part 2, Part 3

Today I’m going to give the Museum of Tolerance (MoT) a chance to redeem themselves. Perhaps their argument from yesterday’s article was one of their weaker ones.

Let’s see what they have to say about Holocaust revisionists:

This is my response to that:

Holocaust affirmers have literally done everything MoT mentioned. By negating the following refutation by MoT I will demonstrate their guilt of doing some of those things.

To the casual Holocaust believer the following ‘proof’ seems like a lot of legitimate stuff. Why question it? Why ever question the war victor’s version of history?

MoT starts with witness testimony. Like the testimony from perpetrators that were tortured and cocericed. I have already written much about the testimony of the Sonderkommando (Jews who allegedly helped the Germans murder their fellow Jews) that conflicts with each other and also reality. Don’t worry though, MoT says that testimony from unreliable witnesses only constitutes part of the evidence. That’s good because testimony of a murder doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have physical evidence of the murder to back it up.

Next MoT says there were blueprints for the killing installations and orders for Zyklon B. The blueprints were for crematories and labeled as crematories. Below is the blueprint for Krema II. All four of the biggest alleged killing installations had a similar layout, in fact, Krema III was a mirror image of Krema II. You can not use these blueprints as evidence of homicidal gas chambers unless you have evidence of the Germans planning to use the crematoriums as killing facilities, which there is none. And of course Zyklon B was delivered to the camp. The Germans used it to delouse clothing and bedding to prevent the spread of typhus. Zyklon B was used to prevent death.

Since MoT brought up blueprints I’d like to take a moment to describe how the alleged gassing procedure was said to have worked (for Krema 2). You can follow along with the picture below. First, 2000 people would go downstairs to room 1, which was the undressing room. They would then have to go through a narrow corridor and turn right to get to the alleged gas chamber (room 2) that was allegedly disguised as a shower room. The alleged gas chamber was 210 square meters, which is 4/5 the size of a tennis court. Then after everyone was allegedly gassed and dead the Sonderkommando would drag them to a lift that had a minimum payload of about 660 pounds. That lift would take them to the crematorium ovens (room 3) located at ground level. There were 15 individual ovens (muffles) to burn the 2000 bodies. This is what Wikipedia calls an efficient, industrial process.

Next up are the photos taken in secret by inmates. Below is the photograph MoT is referring to. I have previously gone into detail about the series of secret photographs here and here. This photo was said to be taken from inside Krema V in 1944. What is it about this photo that show the bodies were taken from a gas chamber? Answer: Nothing. There is also no way to know what the corpses in the photo died from. There is more evidence of their death being from typhus than poisoning from cyanide gas. If you would like another detailed analysis of the photographs see pages 41-49 in Carlo Mattogno’s Book, Auschwitz: Open-Air Incinerations.

Next up we have the trial of Bruno Tesch and Karl Weinbacher, the owner and a major executive of a company that manufactured Zyklon B. MoT states that they “were sentenced to death after notes of their trips to Auschwitz disproved their contention that they were unaware that the poison was used to kill inmates.” What were these notes and where did they come from?

A transcript of the trial is available here. Let’s take a look. During the trial it was claimed that 4.5 million were gassed in Auschwitz/Birkenau. That didn’t age well.

Now let’s get to the relevant parts about the travel notes referred to by MoT:

So, Emil Sehm, who was Jewish, had said he seen the files of the accounts of Tesch’s business journeys. He claims to have written down ‘a note of these facts’. He then burned his notes on advice from a friend.

Erna Biagini claims to have read the notes. Anna Uenzelmann claims to have been told about the gassing by Tesch. The only evidence of these notes existing is the testimony of former employees.

The following is the evidence for the defense. Tesch denies that the travel notes existed. Weinbacher denies ever seeing any incriminating travel notes. Thus we have a case of ‘he said/she said’ when it comes to the travel notes.

The notes weren’t the only evidence used in the case. For a summary of the evidence see this thread on the CoDoH forum. For an in-depth account of the trial read this article. After studying this case I am of the opinion that Bruno Tesch and Karl Weinbacher were unjustly executed.

Good job, MoT, your example of so called evidence of homicidal gassing turned out to be example of the Allies playing fast and loose with the justice system instead.

In part two I address the matter of Jean-Claude Pressac.