The case against gassing compared to shooting.

[Nessie]

viewtopic.php?p=2812#p2812

Now, the case against gassings is abundant, against shootings not so much...

Is that opinion due to a stronger acceptance of the evidence for shootings, than gassings? Or do revisionists genuinely believe that they have the evidence to prove there were no gas chambers, but they accept that there were at least some mass shootings?

How is the case against gassing abundant? What makes up the case?

[Keen]

viewtopic.php?p=2812#p2812

Now, the case against gassings is abundant, against shootings not so much...

Is that opinion due to a stronger acceptance of the evidence for shootings, than gassings? Or do revisionists genuinely believe that they have the evidence to prove there were no gas chambers, but they accept that there were at least some mass shootings?

How is the case against gassing abundant? What makes up the case?

Look at the mentally ill pathologically lying POS HC cult member run away from all the "huge mass grave" lies it's been caught in.

Why are you running from this:

viewtopic.php?p=24672#p24672

and this:

viewtopic.php?p=24673#p24673

you coward?

[Keen]

The mentally ill pathologically lying POS HC cult member nesserto:

I do not avoid discussing the empirical evidence.

I have never had any issue with accepting the burden of proof.

[Archie]

Shootings are common during war. Mass executions in gas chambers are not. The latter requires special planning, engineering, and equipment. Hard evidence for these gas chambers has never been produced. The mainstream history is a conspiracy theory that alleges that routine rooms were secretly converted into gas chambers and then dismantled after the war.

[Wetzelrad]

It's bizarre that you would even ask this. The strength of the case for shootings is one of the best revisionist arguments against the case for gassings. Why did the Nazis extensively document shooting executions but not gassings?

Dozens of examples of Einsatzgruppen documents proving shootings are reproduced in Mattogno's The Einsatzgruppen. He repeatedly makes the point that, if mass gassings also occurred, they should be likewise documented.

The importance of the matter in question is made obvious by the fact that enormous numbers of victims are attributed to the Einsatzgruppen’s “gas vans.” Thus, referring to the related article in the Enzyklopädie des Holocaust,[255] Achim Trunk declared that “half of the estimated 500,000 gas-van victims – that is, 250,000” perished “in these mobile murder chambers in the Soviet Union” (Trunk, fn 4, p. 24). If assuming an average of 75 victims per gassing batch,[256] this means that some 3,333 gassings are proposed to have been carried out using these vehicles. If this is so, the allegation should have found abundant confirmation in the extremely rich surviving documentation relating to the activities of the Einsatzgruppen. (p.293)

It should be noted that the Einsatzgruppen have left an enormous quantity of documents on their activities. The “Ereignismeldungen UdSSR” amount to “more than 2,900 typewritten pages” (Krausnick/Wilhelm, p. 333). To these should be added the other hundreds of pages of the “Reports from the Occupied Eastern Territories” and the “Activity and Situation Reports of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the USSR.” In addition to these three series, there are extremely numerous individual documents. Notwithstanding all this, in this documentation, the “gas vans” are never even mentioned (with the sole exception mentioned earlier), and not one single victim ever appears to have been killed with a “gas van.” (p.324)

The enormous mass of British intercepts of German messages contains not a single mention of “gas vans,” [...] Since the British intercepts contain multiple references to shootings of Jews in the East, it is impossible to believe that the absence of any mention of “gas vans” is attributable to secrecy. (p.374)

Nevertheless, no document relating to “Aktion 1005” was found in the archives of the Gestapo. We must therefore believe that the SS considered this operation so secret that all the related documentation had to be destroyed, but at the same time they left all the Einsatzgruppen reports (except for one); hence we may deduce that for the SS the exhumation and cremation of Jewish cadavers was much more secret than shooting the Jews in the first place! (p.466)

[Keen]

It's bizarre that you would even ask this.

It's not bizarre. It's simply the mentally ill pathologically lying POS HC cult member's lame attempt to run away from all the "huge mass grave" lies it's been caught in.

Starting new threads is what it always does to distract revisionists and avoid accepting its burden of proof when it gets cornered, like here:

viewtopic.php?p=24672#p24672

and here:

viewtopic.php?p=24673#p24673

[Nessie]

Shootings are common during war. Mass executions in gas chambers are not. The latter requires special planning, engineering, and equipment.

Mass shootings also require planning, it is odd that you fail to accept that. Engineering a gas chamber is not complicated, so it is odd so many revisionists make false comparisons, thinking it is the equivalent to witchcraft!

Hard evidence for these gas chambers has never been produced.

That is the lie that revisionists use to fool themselves into believing the Holocaust denial hoax. It is a choice made, to believe there is no evidence, an odd choice, when all we discuss is that very evidence.

The mainstream history is a conspiracy theory that alleges that routine rooms were secretly converted into gas chambers and then dismantled after the war.

A few buildings were also specifically built as gas chambers and dismantled during, not after the war. You know that, because of ..... the evidence!

[Nessie]

It's bizarre that you would even ask this. The strength of the case for shootings is one of the best revisionist arguments against the case for gassings. Why did the Nazis extensively document shooting executions but not gassings?

How is that question, part of your best case? A best case, is an evidenced one, not a doubt expressed as a question. That you bring only doubts expressed as questions, rather than evidence, to the debate, is evidence your best case is a very weak one indeed.

Dozens of examples of Einsatzgruppen documents proving shootings are reproduced in Mattogno's The Einsatzgruppen. He repeatedly makes the point that, if mass gassings also occurred, they should be likewise documented.

In 1941, the EG felt secure shooting Eastern European Jews. They had total control of the territory and a lot of local cooperation and support. The Nazis were already euthanising the disabled by gassing, but by 1942, they had to officially stop due to objections. They also knew that many in the West would object to killing Western Jews, so gassing operations needed a higher level of security. It is ironic that you then link to evidence of gassing operations;

The importance of the matter in question is made obvious by the fact that enormous numbers of victims are attributed to the Einsatzgruppen’s “gas vans.” Thus, referring to the related article in the Enzyklopädie des Holocaust,[255] Achim Trunk declared that “half of the estimated 500,000 gas-van victims – that is, 250,000” perished “in these mobile murder chambers in the Soviet Union” (Trunk, fn 4, p. 24). If assuming an average of 75 victims per gassing batch,[256] this means that some 3,333 gassings are proposed to have been carried out using these vehicles. If this is so, the allegation should have found abundant confirmation in the extremely rich surviving documentation relating to the activities of the Einsatzgruppen. (p.293)

It should be noted that the Einsatzgruppen have left an enormous quantity of documents on their activities. The “Ereignismeldungen UdSSR” amount to “more than 2,900 typewritten pages” (Krausnick/Wilhelm, p. 333). To these should be added the other hundreds of pages of the “Reports from the Occupied Eastern Territories” and the “Activity and Situation Reports of the Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and the SD in the USSR.” In addition to these three series, there are extremely numerous individual documents. Notwithstanding all this, in this documentation, the “gas vans” are never even mentioned (with the sole exception mentioned earlier), and not one single victim ever appears to have been killed with a “gas van.” (p.324)

The enormous mass of British intercepts of German messages contains not a single mention of “gas vans,” [...] Since the British intercepts contain multiple references to shootings of Jews in the East, it is impossible to believe that the absence of any mention of “gas vans” is attributable to secrecy. (p.374)

The higher level of secrecy over gassing operations, and that the British were concentrating on U-boat intercepts, not what was happening in obscure camps in Poland, in 1942-3, is the reason why they decoded so little. It was not until 1944 that technological advances at Bletchley, meant that the British were decoding the majority of transmissions and then they concentrated on D-Day.

Nevertheless, no document relating to “Aktion 1005” was found in the archives of the Gestapo. We must therefore believe that the SS considered this operation so secret that all the related documentation had to be destroyed, but at the same time they left all the Einsatzgruppen reports (except for one); hence we may deduce that for the SS the exhumation and cremation of Jewish cadavers was much more secret than shooting the Jews in the first place! (p.466)

There was a variation in how well documents were destroyed. The EG OSRs and Auschwitz Construction Office documents were times when they missed large numbers. In others, they have been very officiant. You would think that a conspiracy by the West would mean they would have "found" lots of documents specifically referring to gassings.

[HansHill]

What even is this argument.

Shootings: Mundane, common, replicable.
Gassings: Exotic, uncommon, non-replicable.

Its beyond obvious that the latter would be subjected to more critical analysis on process and operation than the former.

This is embarrassing.

[Nessie]

What even is this argument.

Shootings: Mundane, common, replicable.
Gassings: Exotic, uncommon, non-replicable.

Its beyond obvious that the latter would be subjected to more critical analysis on process and operation than the former.

This is embarrassing.

You are admitting that you rely on your opinion, rather than evidence. You find shooting to be more believable than gassing, so you believe the shooting claims and dismiss the gassing ones. What you call critical analysis, is just your opinion. To be truly analytical, you should rely on the evidence and put your opinion to one side.

There is corroborating evidence from multiple sources for both shooting and gassing. The motive, ability, opportunity and conduct after the crime, is the same for both. Even the timeline, the shift from shooting to gassing and why that happened is evidenced.

[HansHill]

You are admitting that you rely on your opinion, rather than evidence. You find shooting to be more believable than gassing, so you believe the shooting claims and dismiss the gassing ones. What you call critical analysis, is just your opinion. To be truly analytical, you should rely on the evidence and put your opinion to one side.

There is corroborating evidence from multiple sources for both shooting and gassing. The motive, ability, opportunity and conduct after the crime, is the same for both. Even the timeline, the shift from shooting to gassing and why that happened is evidenced.

Reported for distorting and ignoring arguments, and arguing in bad faith.

I didn't say gassing is more believable, i said gassing is:

Gassings: Exotic, uncommon, non-replicable.

Stop distorting arguments and arguing in bad faith. This is why you are contained to your slop bin.

[Nessie]

You are admitting that you rely on your opinion, rather than evidence. You find shooting to be more believable than gassing, so you believe the shooting claims and dismiss the gassing ones. What you call critical analysis, is just your opinion. To be truly analytical, you should rely on the evidence and put your opinion to one side.

There is corroborating evidence from multiple sources for both shooting and gassing. The motive, ability, opportunity and conduct after the crime, is the same for both. Even the timeline, the shift from shooting to gassing and why that happened is evidenced.

Reported for distorting and ignoring arguments, and arguing in bad faith.

I didn't say gassing is more believable, i said gassing is:

Gassings: Exotic, uncommon, non-replicable.

Stop distorting arguments and arguing in bad faith. This is why you are contained to your slop bin.

If something is exotic, uncommon, non-replicable, is it not more unbelievable than something that is mundane, common, replicable? I would say yes it is. If you disagree, why not explain why that is, rather than an asserted accusation?

The evidence for shootings is as strong as it is for gassings. Both have corroboration from eyewitnesses, documents etc. The only thing that shootings have over gassings, are photos and film of the action taking place.

This topic is about the supposed case against gassings, compared to shootings. What is the "case"? What does it consist of? My argument is that the revisionist "case" is based on belief, opinion, rather than evidence. Hence, you say gassings are exotic and shooting is mundane, rather than gassings are not evidenced and shootings are. You don't use evidence.

[Wetzelrad]

It's bizarre that you would even ask this. The strength of the case for shootings is one of the best revisionist arguments against the case for gassings. Why did the Nazis extensively document shooting executions but not gassings?

How is that question, part of your best case? A best case, is an evidenced one, not a doubt expressed as a question. That you bring only doubts expressed as questions, rather than evidence, to the debate, is evidence your best case is a very weak one indeed.

You are now denying that evidence is evidence while avoiding a very simple question.

Why did the Nazis extensively document shooting executions but not gassings?

In 1941, the EG felt secure shooting Eastern European Jews. They had total control of the territory and a lot of local cooperation and support. The Nazis were already euthanising the disabled by gassing, but by 1942, they had to officially stop due to objections. They also knew that many in the West would object to killing Western Jews, so gassing operations needed a higher level of security.

So, in your opinion, what the Nazis chose to document and retain documents of was a matter of how secure they felt and how much local support they got. In that case, euthanasia gassings would be a perfect case for something that should have been documented, but it wasn't!

Further, if a feeling of security and the cooperation of locals are the relevant factors in documentation, then there is no reason why the Nazis would not have documented countless other alleged killings and gassings in 1941 and 1942, including those at Auschwitz. Where are all these documents?

Alternatively, you might suggest documents would be destroyed after the feeling of security was lost. But if so, we return to the original problem of all these documents attesting to shootings being preserved 3-4 years later. They did not burn the incriminating documents.

In sum, your explanation is totally incoherent, nonsensical, and contradicted by the evidential record.

[Wetzelrad]

The evidence for shootings is as strong as it is for gassings. Both have corroboration from eyewitnesses, documents etc. The only thing that shootings have over gassings, are photos and film of the action taking place.

Insane behavior. You've already confirmed by your argument upthread that gassings don't appear in the radio messages or in the EMs, but numerous shootings do in both. The contrast between the two is stark.