David Irving

Wibbs

Mister Trebus wrote: »

So let me ask you how many tonnes of soap were made from humans and how many lampshades were made from skin?

And the refutation of these stories had nada to do with deniers. Those stories were being questioned by historians and researchers long before the modern denier demographic came along. IIRC back in the 70's/80's it was an American Jew, an amateur historian who was among the first to question the lampshade story. He had heard these stories from people and went looking for examples(human skin bound books were another item in the meme) and could find none, nor no evidence that satisfied him they ever existed. It was always third hand "oh a friend of an uncle saw them" kind of thing. The human soap story was known to be very dubious by the 1970's.

In the wider public mind however...

Wibbs

I'd add that IMHO anyway, internet sites on the subject can be variable to say the least. Too often extremes on both sides. Books would be your better bet, though maybe that's my age talking.

Reekwind

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

Ok, I'm obviously in over my head and I dont mean to harp on but this is rather confusing.

The figure of 6 million hasn't been altered despite the fact that the Auschwitz 4 million is officially down to 1 million?

Can someone explain to me how this is so?

There's a few reasons. The first is that the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jews. It's never really been in question that approx 1m Jews died at the site. The issue was the Communist regime in Poland used a figure of 4m, arguing that, in addition to the Jews, millions of Poles and Soviet POWs had also been murdered there. That figure, AFAIK, was never widely accepted outside of the Eastern Bloc, with Western historians directly contradicting it from the 1970s, at the latest

So the 'drop' wouldn't affect the 6m figure (which, remember, is only Jews killed) but, more to the point, it just reflects the fact that the original 4m figure was dodgy to begin with

Mister Trebus wrote:

So let me ask you how many tonnes of soap were made from humans and how many lampshades were made from skin?

Interestingly, it's been recently suggested that the Germans did indeed make soap from human fat, albeit on a far smaller scale than previously thoughts. But that's by the by and, like your response, has absolutely nothing to do with my previous query.

So let me answer for you: deniers had nothing to do with scrapping lampshade/soap myths. That was the work of historians operating working to their own pace, ie without the need for shrill liars to draw attention to a topic. Which brings us back to you needing to show how the lies of deniers are in any way constructive

Wibbs wrote:

Passersby reading that might conclude, yep genuinely reliable source, but subsequent historical research has proven it's inaccurate on more than a few scores. Numbers involved are tripled, the chronology of the camp is wildly out(by a whole year) and the operation of the gas chambers is muddled and contradictory, never mind the tearing apart of children by guards and genital biting dogs(the latter is at least physically possible).

I thought I said this a few pages back: Grossman was a journalist writing immediately after the event. I stand by the notion that he is a reliable source (ie not a rabid propagandist) but as a journalist. His is not a work of academic history.

To stick with the Russian theme, John Reed's Ten Days is an essential read for any student of the 1917 Revolution. Yet it is a work of journalism and - despite Reed himself witnessing many of the events - contains a number of factual inaccuracies and misunderstandings. Yet Reed is a reliable source, one of the key such sources for those October days. Again: not a work of academic history

Mister Trebus

Wibbs wrote: »

. IIRC back in the 70's/80's it was an American Jew, an amateur historian who was among the first to question the lampshade story. He had heard these stories from people and went looking for examples(human skin bound books were another item in the meme) and could find none, nor no evidence that satisfied him they ever existed. It was always third hand "oh a friend of an uncle saw them" kind of thing. The human soap story was known to be very dubious by the 1970's.

..in 1948 the American military governor, General Lucius Clay, reviewed her case and determined that, despite testimony produced at her trial, Frau Koch could not be related to the lampshades and other articles which were "discovered" (i.e. planted) in the Buchenwald commandant's residence when the camp was captured in 1945. For one thing, she had not lived there since her husband's, and her own, arrest in 1943. Also her "family journal," said to be bound in human skin, and which was one of the major accusations against her, was never located, and obviously never existed.



https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/skin.html

Wibbs

Reekwind wrote: »

I stand by the notion that he is a reliable source (ie not a rabid propagandist) but as a journalist.

I just can't get my head around this RK. How can someone(or something) be a reliable source if they get so many things wrong? For a start how can one gauge the veracity of the rest of the source material? Some of it has been subsequently corroborated(not least by a Nazi guard in the place, secretly filmed for the film Shoah).

Again I'll use my Hiroshima analogy. Would you consider it a reliable source if a journalist report got the casualty number wrong by a factor of 3, described 5 different bombs, described US planes strafing the street and got the date wrong by a year and they were in Tokyo at the time? I seriously doubt it.

I don't doubt Grossman himself. He was trying to piece together something unimaginable and got the gist of it, from hearsay and from second hand sources.

Even more impressively so as we can easily forget how unimaginable and fantastic it must have been to hear such stories at that time. Today unless you've lived under a rock you will have been exposed to books, documentaries, films about the subject. Even so it still shocks and as the deniers prove it still sounds almost too fantastical to be true(if the evidence wasn't deep and wide in time and documentation). Imagine putting yourself in the shoes of someone hearing about this for the first time carried in whispers and rumour in the wind of war. Even with anti Nazi propaganda you would be well forgiven for thinking "ah c'mon, pull the other one". Even some heavy duty Nazi's struggled to believe it*. To his credit he didn't.

TL;DR? I'd consider him a source, a good source from the early days on investigation into these crimes, but a reliable one? My jury would still be out on that one. Maybe it's me being a semantics nazi. Better yet RK we'll agree to disagree and put it to bed We can at least agree he was a source and a bloody important one.







*Hanna Reitsch, woman test pilot, only female winner of the iron cross, a very well connected Nazi and an admirer of Hitler to her dying day, didn't believe it when first she heard the whispers. Confronted Himmler about it and he denied it/skirted around the issue. In the end when the evidence of the horror was clear to even the blindest, she considered it a stain on the German people, but blamed it entirely on Himmler and believed her dear Adolf had no knowledge of such a crime.

Mister Trebus

Reekwind wrote: »

So let me answer for you: deniers had nothing to do with scrapping lampshade/soap myths. That was the work of historians operating working to their own pace, ie without the need for shrill liars to draw attention to a topic. Which brings us back to you needing to show how the lies of deniers are in any way constructive

Ok so I will stand corrected, I must admit as far as I was aware it was lack of evidence that killed off that myth, I was unaware that historians had uncovered this. Can you direct me to this on the web as I would be interested in learning more about this area and their research into it. Everyday is a school day isn't it?

GideonMcGrane

Mister Trebus wrote: »

There are plenty if sites around to look up this subject from general ones to fairly in-depth ones

Try Nizkor
http://www.nizkor.org

Also if you are on Facebook a really good site to "friend" is the Auschwitz site , there is some excellent stuff there to get you going and it is pretty easy to get some info from.


You will have to decide if you want to visit sites that are more on the denial side, I would think it is important to do so, as it is important to get as much info as you can to see what's what so to speak.

So you're saying look up 'Denier' sites, aren't these sites from neo-Nazis who for some unfathomable reason still like Adolf Hitler.

In saying that I dont see how the figures add up, there were 6 million, you take away 3 and you're still left with 6, surely even a child can see there is a problem with that?

Mister Trebus

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

So you're saying look up 'Denier' sites, aren't these sites from neo-Nazis who for some unfathomable reason still like Adolf Hitler.

In saying that I dont see how the figures add up, there were 6 million, you take away 3 and you're still left with 6, surely even a child can see there is a problem with that?

I would think it is important to view these sites and get their side and view, this way you can understand where deniers come from, the arguments they use, their conspiracy theories etc.
Yes there are neo-nazis, there are also deniers, people who have a problem with the accepted version of the Holocaust, conspiracy theorists, anti-Semites, etc etc etc.
if nothing else it will lead you to do your own research on this and maybe uncover things you didn't know prior to this....

Mister Trebus

Reekwind wrote: »

. Show me an example of where popular misconceptions around the Holocaust have been dispelled following denialist allegations.

Well as I said, I stand corrected on the soap and skin, as I thought lack of evidence and later denier highlighting this led to that myth being quashed, and not historians sorting this out as you say, perhaps a better and more credible one is when the Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow, undertook a comprehensive examination (in 1994) of Krema; against the Leuchter report.
Also what are your views on Mattogno's approach and the typhus, fuel consumpation and capacity, wasnt he discredited too?

jonniebgood1

Mister Trebus wrote: »

I would think it is important to view these sites and get their side and view, this way you can understand where deniers come from, the arguments they use, their conspiracy theories etc.
Yes there are neo-nazis, there are also deniers, people who have a problem with the accepted version of the Holocaust, conspiracy theorists, anti-Semites, etc etc etc.
if nothing else it will lead you to do your own research on this and maybe uncover things you didn't know prior to this....

I do not see why you think " it is important to view these sites and get their side and view". Can you explain this.

You might as well go the whole hog and recommend a few racist sites, maybe some homophobic sites, it really seems a ridiculous idea that you need to understand these peoples point of view.

A better idea I would say is to read up on the actual events of WWII, without need for the warped views of these events which you are suggesting should be read.

Mister Trebus

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I do not see why you think " it is important to view these sites and get their side and view". Can you explain this.

You might as well go the whole hog and recommend a few racist sites, maybe some homophobic sites, it really seems a ridiculous idea that you need to understand these peoples point of view.

A better idea I would say is to read up on the actual events of WWII, without need for the warped views of these events which you are suggesting should be read.

Why would I recommend other sites when the issue here is holocaust denial. Do you not think it is important to look and study their viewpoint? Why not get both views, what's the big deal?
You are entitled to your opinion, I happened to hold a different one!

As for actual events....we'll history is written by the victors isn't it?

jonniebgood1

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Why would I recommend other sites when the issue here is holocaust denial. Do you not think it is important to look and study their viewpoint? Why not get both views, what's the big deal?
You are entitled to your opinion, I happened to hold a different one!

You have consistently refused to back up your opinion. You say whats the big deal, well whats the big deal about racism or homophobia as per my points in last post. The problem is that these are all issues that are a big deal including holocaust denial.

Mister Trebus wrote: »

As for actual events....we'll history is written by the victors isn't it?

This does not hold water in this case. There are plenty of German accounts of the holocaust.

Mister Trebus

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You have consistently refused to back up your opinion. You say whats the big deal, well whats the big deal about racism or homophobia as per my points in last post. The problem is that these are all issues that are a big deal including holocaust denial.


This does not hold water in this case. There are plenty of German accounts of the holocaust.

Where have I not backed up my opinion?
We are not talking about racism or homophobia here we are talking about holocaust denial, so where have I not backed up my view.
It is important to get the view of those you disagree with....simply so you understand what it us you are disagreeing with in the first place, either that or you are simply a sheep ! There is that backing up my view enough for you?


It absolutely does hold water, there may be accounts from Germans on the holocaust but from which side? Are they the view of one side only...do you not believe in free speech or freedom of thought and expression?
Do you think German law on freedom of expression is right... What a joke, plenty of German accounts, if that's what you believe then you are sadly misinformed.

GideonMcGrane

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Where have I not backed up my opinion?
We are not talking about racism or homophobia here we are talking about holocaust denial, so where have I not backed up my view.
It is important to get the view of those you disagree with....simply so you understand what it us you are disagreeing with in the first place, either that or you are simply a sheep ! There is that backing up my view enough for you?


It absolutely does hold water, there may be accounts from Germans on the holocaust but from which side? Are they the view of one side only...do you not believe in free speech or freedom of thought and expression?
Do you think German law on freedom of expression is right... What a joke, plenty of German accounts, if that's what you believe then you are sadly misinformed.

What have you read of the deniers, which of them provides the best account from their pov?

jonniebgood1

Mister Trebus wrote: »

We are not talking about racism or homophobia here we are talking about holocaust denial, so where have I not backed up my view

By virtue of my comparison I have introduced both racist and homophobic websites as parallels to your proposal that people should check out holocaust denial websites. It is absurd to suggest that someone should visit racist websites to get an alternative point of view. It is equally absurd to suggest visiting some of the extremist holocaust denial websites.

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Where have I not backed up my opinion?
.

Your opinion is that we should visit holocaust denier websites to "get their side and view, this way you can understand where deniers come from, the arguments they use".
You have not backed this up with any logic or examples of what good it would do.

Mister Trebus

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

What have you read of the deniers, which of them provides the best account from their pov?

Perhaps just google holocaust denial, you will get plenty of choice, from the full on neo-nazi types to those who have conspiracy theories etc . The a David Icke forum has a section dedicated to this and some other stuff and you get both sides there so that might be a start for you.

If like me you start off from a position of belief , when you read denier views it, I feel , makes you research more and dig a bit deeper than perhaps you would before, and if like me you do , it might just make your belief stronger, but it will certainly add to your overall knowledge if this huge subject.

Mister Trebus

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

By virtue of my comparison I have introduced both racist and homophobic websites as parallels to your proposal that people should check out holocaust denial websites. It is absurd to suggest that someone should visit racist websites to get an alternative point of view. It is equally absurd to suggest visiting some of the extremist holocaust denial websites.


Your opinion is that we should visit holocaust denier websites to "get their side and view, this way you can understand where deniers come from, the arguments they use".
You have not backed this up with any logic or examples of what good it would do.

Homophobia or racism is not under the same scrutiny as holocaust denial so the comparison is borderline strawman.
It is far from absurd to get the view of those you are in disagreement with....otherwise how can you argue something you have no idea about or where your adversary gets his world view....it is absolutely absurd to debate something when you do not know what the other persons view is....this makes no sense at all!

As to your second paragraph , it has been answered in my last reply to you and in the paragraph above ......

You cannot debate something until you know what you are debating...I find it incredible that someone cannot grasp this!


I see you have not addressed the issue of German views on the holocaust.
You said there are plenty of German accounts on the holocaust.
So please give your opinion on my questions to you .

Wibbs

For me, the worst thing about the bloody "deniers" is that they have made it damn near impossible to actually ask any questions about any points within this period of history without looking like one of their number by association. And that's a right pain in the arse.

GideonMcGrane

Wibbs wrote: »

For me, the worst thing about the bloody "deniers" is that they have made it damn near impossible to actually ask any questions about any points within this period of history without looking like one of their number by association. And that's a right pain in the arse.

Surely if you have questions you shouldn't be afraid to ask, print and be damned

Mister Trebus

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

Surely if you have questions you shouldn't be afraid to ask, print and be damned

This is a good point, and one I agree with.
For me it had forced me to research more into this and increased my understanding of this period in history, thus affording me the ability to debate and argue my view not merely from a humanitarian side but also from a historical and "scientific" if that's the right word side.
Deniers are not just deniers of the holocaust, but there are also anti Semites who use the holocaust for their world view or to back it up and conspiracy theories or their political view of Zionism or Israel etc.
But then there are deniers who are a bit more methodical in their approach and have to be dealt with in that manner, and it is vital to understand this approach and method so as to disprove and show the errors in their stand.
It certainly is a mine field and there us a huge amount if information and misinformation out there ...,you job is to sift through the crap and find the truth (as you see it )

Mister Trebus

Wibbs wrote: »

For me, the worst thing about the bloody "deniers" is that they have made it damn near impossible to actually ask any questions about any points within this period of history without looking like one of their number by association. And that's a right pain in the arse.

Indeed, but that is the other persons problem.
Of course someone like me saying to another poster to go an visit denier sites may raise eyebrows, or make dome question mt motives but I couldn't give a **** about their opinions, I still maintain it is important to understand this view so you can debate it.... even if this view is repugnant to you.
And I agree with your point regarding association with them, but again that would be the others' issue not mine. I know where I come from and having as much knowledge as I can retain, while all the time being educated by others and myself, is important to me.

One thing I would stress to anyone starting out on this journey of learning is always ask for proof of the persons view, some people have opinions based on someone else's opinion or popular myths and have no concrete facts to back them up when questioned on it.
Get links, facts, actual proper details before accepting any point as a fact, this will leave you less open to being proved wrong .
Also if someone can give you "proof" of what they are saying then research it as much as you can. Do not simply accept it as fact!

I think this is where Gideon is at now , he obviously had an opinion on how many were gassed and now knows that this is untrue ...,probably based on popular belief...., this is an opportunity to research and fact find....it is an exciting time for him because I can guarantee that there will be plenty of times when he will say "I never knew that happened!!!" ...
Take the view that Hitler was backed by Jewish bankers and the Rothchilds, a popular one with many people.... what would think about that ? Do you believe it? Do you think it could be possible ?

Why where there Jewish soldiers in the German army at the time of Hitler's reign...how could Jews serve in the Whermacht? Do you think this was true? We're they full Jews, half Jews, were they Jewish at all , what ranks did they rise to?


What about Prussian blue? What about krema capacity and so on....

Another aspect I found intriguing was why did they move from bullets to gas, initially carbon monoxide. I wont ruin the surprise , but it just proves even further the view the Nazis had of undesirables...

What about Aktion T4...another interesting area for research


And plenty more... this is the start of an exciting journey for Gideon and just think of the amount of data he will have , in say a year with which to argue his point, methodically and clearly?

Never take someone else's fact as a fact.... find out for yourself and stuff those who disagree with you!!!!!

Wibbs

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

Surely if you have questions you shouldn't be afraid to ask, print and be damned

I have few enough and I have no questions concerning the clear and widespread Nazi aim of annihilation of what they saw as "undesirables" in their sphere of influence, nor do I have any questions regarding the results of that aim.

One question I have concerns the disposal of the bodies(and hiding of the crime). The concentration/work camps, from the "model" reeducation camps for more public consumption, to the Belsons of the world, all had crematoria. Even if there wasn't a concerted effort to kill people, the conditions were going to result in a high death rate so this was practical.

However at the extermination camps of Treblinka, Sobibor and Bełżec, camps designed from the outset to murder as many people as possible, as "quietly" and as far away from the good burghers of Germany as possible, there were none. This makes no sense to me. If you've organised the building of these death factories, have created the extensive transportation mechanism to get the people to them, yet no real provision is made for the results of this abomination? Burial in pits was the quite haphazard solution, then exhumation and burning on open air pits. The only explanation I can grasp at is that they didn't plan/expect how successful one part of the murder production line was going to be. Still it seems weird.

GideonMcGrane

Wibbs wrote: »

I have few enough and I have no questions concerning the clear and widespread Nazi aim of annihilation of what they saw as "undesirables" in their sphere of influence, nor do I have any questions regarding the results of that aim.

One question I have concerns the disposal of the bodies(and hiding of the crime). The concentration/work camps, from the "model" reeducation camps for more public consumption, to the Belsons of the world, all had crematoria. Even if there wasn't a concerted effort to kill people, the conditions were going to result in a high death rate so this was practical.

However at the extermination camps of Treblinka, Sobibor and Bełżec, camps designed from the outset to murder as many people as possible, as "quietly" and as far away from the good burghers of Germany as possible, there were none. This makes no sense to me. If you've organised the building of these death factories, have created the extensive transportation mechanism to get the people to them, yet no real provision is made for the results of this abomination? Burial in pits was the quite haphazard solution, then exhumation and burning on open air pits. The only explanation I can grasp at is that they didn't plan/expect how successful one part of the murder production line was going to be. Still it seems weird.

One thing that occurs to me about it is that capital punishment was normal then and a soldier asked to shoot partizans (or civilians he is told are partizans or collaborators) has a degree of legitimacy on his side; 1. he is following orders 2. the persons being killed are paying for their crime, so all quite normal.

The problem with gassing (or shooting) kids, and to an extent women, is that that legitimate "protection" is now gone. Now the soldier is in unknown or even illegal territory, no longer can this be described as legitimate capital punishment.

While we can say Hitler was mad, and even his immediate followers were mad, how far can we extend this madness? And on what basis can we say such madness became widespread?

So today we are in the EU with a Germany that basically controls the Euro economy, was this the same nation that was capable of falling into a state of madness that so many of them went along willingly and even enthusiastically with genocide?

Mister Trebus

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

While we can say Hitler was mad, and even his immediate followers were mad, how far can we extend this madness? And on what basis can we say such madness became widespread?

Check out the dark charisma of Adolf Hitler by Laurence Rees...this may shed some light on this subject for you...I think the book is serialised on youtube too.
(just checked it is on your tube..but I suggest you buy the book)

And dont forget the importance of the Nuremburg Laws in all this, and the part it played .

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

So today we are in the EU with a Germany that basically controls the Euro economy, was this the same nation that was capable of falling into a state of madness that so many of them went along willingly and even enthusiastically with genocide?

Dont forget there were plenty of willing accomplices too, from other nations.

GideonMcGrane

Mister Trebus wrote: »

Check out the dark charisma of Adolf Hitler by Laurence Rees...this may shed some light on this subject for you...I think the book is serialised on youtube too.
(just checked it is on your tube..but I suggest you buy the book)

And dont forget the importance of the Nuremburg Laws in all this, and the part it played .

Dont forget there were plenty of willing accomplices too, from other nations.

I must read that, sounds interesting.

I suppose I am trying to put myself in the position of a German soldier; if we can say they were just as moral etc as British or US soldiers to begin with (otherwise we are saying there is something wrong with Germans :eek: ), how did such men accept gassing, murdering children by the thousand?

Mister Trebus

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

I must read that, sounds interesting.

I suppose I am trying to put myself in the position of a German soldier; if we can say they were just as moral etc as British or US soldiers to begin with (otherwise we are saying there is something wrong with Germans :eek: ), how did such men accept gassing, murdering children by the thousand?

Yeah it certainly is an interesting issue. But we must make sure that things are set straight here...you say German Soldier, and this is not the case, German Soldiers were not involved with this type of thing, einsatzgruppen, some of the SS branches, but not the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine etc or ordinary enlisted men. It is important to differentiate here.

On an earlier post I said that the reasons behind moving from bullets to gassing,at the early stages, was a very interesting point.
Well the reason was, according to SS officials, that the enlisted men of einsatzgruppen, for example, found it very distressing to have to kill so many people, eye to eye, so to speak.



There were apparently psychological issues arising it from it (surprise surprise) and they pushed for a different way to save the men from the psychological trauma associated with such things. Of course not giving a single moments thought to the poor victims I hasten to add.
This led to the initial gassings. Which in turn led to darker things yet to come.

Of course that was in the field, the camps is a different setup alltogether, in terms of the psychology of guards and the things they saw or did or witnessed.
You might even say that female guards, (women supposedly being more maternal by nature) were worse than their male counterparts for their part in it.

Google Oskar Gröning, an SS camp guard who talks about his time in Auschwitz, if you wish to get a slight insight into the mind of a camp guard....well, the mind of the camp guard as he it later.

Oskar Groening who insisted repeatedly and seemingly shamelessly that it hadn't been so bad, he'd enjoyed his work, before finally blurting out his reasons for agreeing to be filmed. He had always refused to talk about Auschwitz even to his own family but now he wanted to give witness against the Holocaust deniers, such as friends at his local philately club, who had insisted the camps were all a lie. That was why he said on film: "I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections took place. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened, because I was there."


Even more horrific, it that can be true, was the earlier T4 program....here is some info on that:
From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4#Gassing


At first patients were killed by lethal injection, the method established for killing children. The method was soon considered too slow and inefficient for killing adults, who needed larger doses of increasingly scarce and expensive drugs, and who were more likely to need restraint. Hitler recommended to Brandt that carbon monoxide gas be used.[60] At his trial, Brandt described this as a "major advance in medical history".[61] The first gassings took place at Brandenburg Euthanasia Centre in January 1940, under the supervision of Widmann, Becker, and Christian Wirth, a Kripo (criminal police) officer who was later to play a prominent role in the "final solution" extermination of the Jews. Viktor Brack was head of these operations. [62]
Once the efficacy of this method was established, it became standardised and was instituted at a number of centres across Germany. In addition to Brandenburg, these included Grafeneck Castle in Baden-Württemberg (10,824 dead), Schloss Hartheim near Linz in Austria (over 8,000 dead), Sonnenstein Euthanasia Centre in Saxony (15,000 dead), Bernburg Euthanasia Centre in Saxony-Anhalt and Hadamar Euthanasia Centre in Hesse (14,494 dead). These centres were also used to kill prisoners transferred from concentration camps in Germany and Austria.
Patients were transferred from their institutions to the killing centres in buses, called the Community Patients Transports Service, operated by teams of SS men wearing white coats, to give an air of medical care.[63] To prevent the families and doctors of the patients from tracing them, the patients were often first sent to transit centres in major hospitals where they were supposedly assessed. They were moved again to "special treatment" (Sonderbehandlung) centres. Families were sent letters explaining that owing to wartime regulations, it was not possible for them to visit relatives in these centres. Most of these patients were killed within 24 hours of arriving at the centres, and their bodies cremated.[60] For every person killed, a death certificate was prepared, giving a false but plausible cause of death. This was sent to the family along with an urn of ashes (random ashes, since the victims were cremated en masse). The preparation of thousands of falsified death certificates took up most of the working day of the doctors who operated the centres.[64]

jonniebgood1

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

I suppose I am trying to put myself in the position of a German soldier; if we can say they were just as moral etc as British or US soldiers to begin with (otherwise we are saying there is something wrong with Germans :eek: ), how did such men accept gassing, murdering children by the thousand?

The morals of all sides can be questioned in WWII depending on where you look.

Mister Trebus

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The morals of all sides can be questioned in WWII depending on where you look.

The japanese treatment of prisones of war is very much overlooked in the west, but their treatment of the Chinese was abhorrent

GideonMcGrane

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The morals of all sides can be questioned in WWII depending on where you look.

So are you saying they were all as bad as each other

jonniebgood1

GideonMcGrane wrote: »

So are you saying they were all as bad as each other

Not even close imo