If the Allies discovered ‘death camps using gas’why no leader wrote of it?

[Wahrheitssucher]

Q U E S T I O N:

DID ANY OF THE ALLIED LEADERS REPORT (OR EVEN COMMENT UPON) THE ALLEGED MASS KILLINGS BY ‘GAS’?

Did ANY of the War-Lords, Generals and political leaders of the Allied nations EVER speak or write about mass-gassings in ‘extermination-camps’?

• Churchill, Eisenhower, De Gaulle wrote memoirs but reputedly NEVER mention this. Why?

• The Red Cross — which actually visited Auschwitz — published a 1,600 page account of its visits and activities in camps during the war, yet made never a single mention, AT THE TIME, of evidence of ‘gassings’ in any report, not one. Why?

• The British Intelligence intercepted and decoded Third Reich communications — including at Auschwitz — due to breaking the Enigma code. No mention of mass-gassings.
Deciphered transcripts were released in 1997 (after the 50-year rule). Intercepted communications at the Auschwitz camp mentioned deaths, but illness was mentioned as the main cause of death, and other deaths referenced were executions by shooting and hanging.
There were no references in any decrypted communications to ‘gassings’.
Why?

• In the entire twenty-nine volumes of diaries of Joe Goebbels not a single mention or even hint of a mass-murder programme using poisonous gas. Why?

• In all the many tons of captured Third Reich communications, orders and plans not a single document on mass-murder by gas. Why?

Above all, why didn’t either Churchill, Eisenhower or De Gaulle write ANY THING AT ALL about the alleged ‘mass gassings’ in the allegedly discovered ‘extermination camps’ in their memoirs?

Is there any holocaust-narrative defender reading this who is willing and able to answer?

[bombsaway]

Churchill did include this letter in his memoir

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/ ... 0213_3.jpg

it doesn't mention gas, but rather the "the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe" this is in reference to Hungarian Jews being deported

there are gas related documents https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ts-on.html also see the FG report

[Wahrheitssucher]

Churchill did include this letter in his memoir

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/ ... 0213_3.jpg

it doesn't mention gas, but rather the "the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe" this is in reference to Hungarian Jews being deported

F A I L.
Again you appear to have not comprehended correctly. You have answered with a quote that is well-known to revisionists. And it was something very clearly NOT ASKED FOR.
Why did you fail to answer properly?
I again suggest you introspect.

1. Churchill did NOT mention ‘gas’. Can you concede that fact?
2. The quote you uncomprehendingly provided is not in his actual ‘memoir’ but is in the appendix of vol. 6. Can you concede that?
3. Why did no war-leader mention the core component of the now curriculum-compulsory and legally protected holocaust narrative? Do you have an honest and intelligent answer?

Ironically your reply inadvertently demonstrates the peculiar lacunae referred to.
Viz. why didn’t the largely ghost-written Churchill memoir mention mass-gassings?
I assume you not only have no answer, but apparently are unwilling to intelligently, objectively and honestly consider that quite extraordinary absence.

Also worth pondering is how can allegedly chucking insecticide pellets down non-existent roof holes into semi-subterranean morgues be fairly described as homicide “done by scientific machinery”?
Can you consider that and give an honest answer?

Summary:
That quote appears in a 1944 communication — published as part of the official War Cabinet minutes and correspondence — which Churchill allegedly wrote to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden.

• It's not in the text of the ‘memoir’.
• It does not mention killing by ‘gassings’
• It's from a letter claimed retroactively to have been written during the war, dated 11th July 1944, so is not part of his post-war memoirs.

[HansHill]

From Germar Rudolf in the Encyclopedia:

In contrast to all other Allied governments, the
Brits were in the enviable situation of having cracked
the SS’s radio encryption code between January
1942 and January 1943. Hence, the British managed
to intercept and decipher all radio traffic between
German concentration camps and their Oranienburg
headquarters (see the entry on British Radio Inter-
cepts). Therefore, they knew that there was no trace
of any extermination policy in these intercepts, no
trace of any homicidal gassing, and that the Poles
were exaggerating the numbers of deported, incar-
cerated, perished and murdered victims.
To hide that they knew better, and also because it
served their purpose of vilifying the Germans, the
British nevertheless spread this type of Polish propa-
ganda through their media channels. However, when
it came to official communications, they inevitably
revealed a bit of the truth.

In August 1943, Poland’s government-in-exile
lobbied the British and American governments to is-
sue a public statement condemning “German terror
in Poland.” A draft for such a statement included ref-
erences to mass execution in gas chambers. That is
where Britain’s psychological warfare experts
stepped on the brake, vetoing this with clear words,
and succeeded in getting all these references re-
moved. Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, the Chairman of
the Allied Joint Intelligence Committee, stated in this
regard:

“In my opinion it is incorrect to describe Polish
information regarding German atrocities as
trustworthy’. The Poles, and to a far greater ex-
tent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atroci-
ties in order to stoke us up. They seem to have
succeeded.
Mr Allen and myself have both followed Ger-
man atrocities quite closely. [This is the hint at
radio intercepts.] I do not believe that there is any
evidence which would be accepted in a Law Court
that Polish children have been killed on the spot
by Germans when their parents were being de-
ported to work in Germany, nor that Polish chil-
dren have been sold to German settlers.
As regards putting Poles to death in gas cham-
bers, I do not believe that there is any evidence
that this has been done. There have been many
stories to this effect, and we have played them up
in PWE rumours without believing that they had
any foundation. At any rate there is far less evi-
dence than exists for the mass murder of Polish
officers by the Russians at Katyn. On the other
hand, we do know that the Germans are out to de-
stroy Jews of any age unless they are fit for man-
ual labour.
I think that we weaken our case against the
Germans by publicly giving credence to atrocity
stories for which we have no evidence. These
mass executions in gas chambers remind me of
the stories of employment of human corpses dur-
ing the last war for the manufacture of fat, which
was a grotesque lie and led to the true stories of
German atrocities being brushed aside as being
mere propaganda.”

**Edit**

To surmise in my own words, the reason no world leader spoke of it in these terms WS, is because those people were not fools. Despicable perhaps, but not foolish. This exerpt shows us clearly what those high-IQ and competent Brits thought of their own propaganda. They knew choosing "gas chambers" as their hill to die on was beyond foolish, at least until after the war and victory was secured. Luckily they didn't need to, and the propaganda did its intended job with the lesser-IQ and lesser competents. Imagine a radio address where Churchill is ranting about Jew Soap or electrocution plates or what have you. He's not going to be that sloppy.

[Callafangers]

it doesn't mention gas, but rather the "the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe" this is in reference to Hungarian Jews being deported

Remember that in 1944, there were multiple types of 'machinery' which were alleged to have been used, from 'lime trains of death', to 'steam and vacuum chambers', 'trap door executions', 'electrocution chambers' and more. It would seem here that, at worst, Churchill was reflecting these general 'Germain villainy' claims which he seems to have not recognized any further. Moreover, as Wahrheitssucher mentioned, this was allegedly written during the war (July 1944), which means the information was even more saturated with false and hostile propaganda advocating for increased Allied morale (and certain military action) in the form of anti-German narratives.

None of this is a reflection of what Churchill ultimately thought, as would be evident from his post-war memoirs, once the "dust had settled".

[Wetzelrad]

Churchill did receive correspondence about gassings, like the report he received through Chaim Weizmann about Auschwitz having killed over 1.5 million Jews and gassing 60,000 more per day. Since current figures for Jewish deaths at Auschwitz put the total at slightly under 1 million and the peak rate at maybe 10k per day, this report was at the very least a gross exaggeration. Eden even told Churchill that 60k was probably an exaggeration.

Churchill could have included materials like that in his WWII history series but he didn't. Instead he only included his own words which were comparatively quite measured. Despite going into detail on much more remote topics, he doesn't mention gas anywhere. If "scientific machinery" is meant to be a description of gassings then it's a very poor one, because "machine" does not describe the act of dropping pellets on the ground. Perhaps Churchill was misinformed about what gassings entailed or would later come to entail. Whatever the case, Churchill seems to have been skeptical of the claims Jews were then making, which explains why no more direct, definitive accusation of gassings was made, even then at the publication date of 1953, eight years after the war.

In short, reasonable skepticism towards the gassing narrative is what prevented Churchill from writing about it.

More could be said about Churchill but I think it somewhat deviates from the topic. The problem is even worse with De Gaulle and Eisenhower. Why?

[Eye of Zyclone]

Churchill did receive correspondence about gassings, like the report he received through Chaim Weizmann about Auschwitz having killed over 1.5 million Jews

I think that nobody would still even try to claim that the 1st president of Israel was an objective & reliable source of truthful information regarding the Holohoax conspiracy theory, that is, Israel's founding myth. As accurate and factual as Israeli reports on Saddam's [nonexistent] weapons of mass destruction in 2003...

[HansHill]

If "scientific machinery" is meant to be a description of gassings then it's a very poor one, because "machine" does not describe the act of dropping pellets on the ground.

Absolutely - and this is compounded with "butcheries" in the very next sentence. A "butchery" invokes very different imagery than what the gassing story would eventually become.

[Eye of Zyclone]

Above all, why didn’t either Churchill, Eisenhower or De Gaulle write ANY THING AT ALL about the alleged ‘mass gassings’ in the allegedly discovered ‘extermination camps’ in their memoirs?

Leaders write memoirs for the posterity of their constructed good reputation. So they ususally avoid the too-obvious-or-easily-debunked lies like the plague in their own memoirs. After WWII, Churchill, Eisenhower and De Gaulle hadn't forgotten that the biggest atrocity lies of WWI --- including the gas-chamber atrocity story !!! --- had all been debunked and publicly exposed as falsities only a few years after the end of the war. Endorsing the gas-chamber hoax in their memoirs (by definition, writings still read long after the wartime official statements and newspaper articles have been forgotten) would have exposed those much-revered war leaders to a high risk of public humiliation and tarnished reputation, and nobody likes being caught in a lie.

[DavidM]

Churchill did include this letter in his memoir

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/ ... 0213_3.jpg

it doesn't mention gas, but rather the "the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe" this is in reference to Hungarian Jews being deported

there are gas related documents https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ts-on.html also see the FG report

On 11/7/1944 if Churchill or any allied leader actually believed the tales of "scientific machinery" they were quite
capable of doing something more than muttering threats.
In fact, Martin Gilbert's book Auschwitz and the Allies: A Devastating Account of How the Allies Responded to the News of Hitler's Mass Murder is all about the total lack of action by Churchill et al.

"When Hitler announced that the result of the war in Europe would be "the complete annihilation of the Jews," he did so in 1942, not only in public, but before an enormous crowd in Berlin. The Allies heard, but astonishingly, they did not listen."

So Wahrheitssucher is correct but more correctly actions speak louder than words.
Anytime they could have easily jammed the whole (alleged) Holocaust...
Any Allied power could have easily broadcast warnings to German occupied territories.
Don't show up for transport. Don't get on the trains. Don't walk to the gas chambers.

Remember the whole transport to and operation of the "scientific machinery" was based on deception both in getting of millions of people to show up and get on trains and then walk into the "showers."

Of course they could have also bombed the rail lines into Auschwitz very easily with no risk to Camp detainees.
So the question for Believers is why didn't any allied leader take any action to stop the "Holocaust"?

[Stubble]

Of course they could have bombed the rail lines into Auschwitz very easily with no risk to Camp detainees

That would have been bad. Look at Belsen as an example.

[DavidM]

Of course they could have bombed the rail lines into Auschwitz very easily with no risk to Camp detainees

That would have been bad. Look at Belsen as an example.

I am not sure why you make a reference to Belsen?

[Stubble]

No rails, no food. Belsen is kind of a case in point.

Of course, they didn't have running water either, but, not being able to ship food into the camp after the destruction of the rail lines didn't help the situation at all.

Even if you assume internees were getting gassed, more things that internees were bring shipped on the rails, was my point.

[DavidM]

No rails, no food. Belsen is kind of a case in point.

Of course, they didn't have running water either, but, not being able to ship food into the camp after the destruction of the rail lines didn't help the situation at all.

Even if you assume internees were getting gassed, more things that internees were bring shipped on the rails, was my point.

Of course you are correct No rails, no food but that does not address the failure to broadcasting warnings.
and
Supposedly Auschwitz-Birkenau (or, earlier, Treblinka, Majdanek, Sobibor) was an Extermination Factory. Bombing rail lines to these camps would have saved millions of lives even if it created shortages inside the camp. In May 1944 there is
no doubt that bombing these rail lines could have been done. In fact Auschwitz III-Monowitz the coal gasification plant
was bombed in April 1944...but not to stop the Holocaust but to stop production of gasoline.

[Stubble]

So were Kremas II and III apparently. Same bombing run. There are pictures and a survivor wrote about it in a memoir. (Sorry, different run, September 13th 1944 [it was a Wednesday] )

/shrug

Why bomb the rails instead of the Kremas? Other than the Kremas being danger close to the water treatment and the women's barracks, no good reason comes to mind.