March 17, 1997

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Here is another bite-size "Holocaust Myth 101" ZGram.

In the traditions of our civilization we examine physical evidence where there has been a crime. Even in a case of a simple break-in, not to mention a murder, police forensic experts would be all over the scene of the crime, scouring it for evidence. Where an accused ends up in court, the call goes out for expert analysis. In other words, scientific evidence takes precedence over eye witness accounts - no matter how gory and graphic they may be.

Not so in Holocaustomania-Land. It is enough that you have "seen" the burning pits.

Let's take the burning pits. Were they, or were they not used to dispose of the incriminating evidence of "gassings"?

When we are dealing with "pits", we are asking whether screws can be driven in with a hammer. Perhaps it is possible, but why do such a thing?

There are problems with burning in pits that make this method impractical. Traditionally, open air cremations are done on a pyre, with wood most frequently used as fuel. A pit adds nothing but unnecessary work. It actually complicates the combustion process by severely restricting the flow of air to the bottom, which is essential for combustion. Holocaust propagandists should take a good look at a barbecue set. There are always holes at the bottom of the pan that holds the charcoal to allow air to come in.

It is often claimed that burning of bodies in pits in concentration camps was allegedly done throughout the year, which included winter months. In the warm climate of India it takes almost half a ton of dry wood to cremate a body, but in subzero temperatures of Poland in the winter months it would only be natural to assume that cremation would require even more energy than in India, to account for the fact that the rate of heat loss into the atmosphere would be considerably greater. It would take plenty of energy just to melt the ice on and in the bodies! Human bodies, as is well known, contain at least 60 percent of water.

Worse yet, the bulk of "cremations in the pits" has allegedly been performed at Birkenau, but that is simply impossible because of the high level of the ground water table, where it is often just a foot or two from the surface of the earth and the entire area is practically flooded when the snow begins to melt in the spring.

Filip Muller, a Jew who claims to have been a member of the Auschwitz prisoner working brigade and whose task included disposal of the dead, so he says, insists the pit cremations were done in spite of the water.

In the movie Shoah, Muller presents an even more absurd story in that a fire truck had to be used to pump the water out of a pit near Birkenau, so that the dead bodies could be cremated in it!

How absurd can the stories get?

They can get worse, believe me!

The subject of burning pits have been dealt with extensively during the first Great Holocaust Zundel Trial in 1985. An "eyewitness", Rudolph Vrba, claimed he "saw" them, so I am treating you today with an excerpt from his testimony under cross-examination by our splendid Battling Barrister, Doug Christie:

Q: Mm-hmmm. Would you say, sir, that you told us yesterday about burning pits?

A. Yes.

Q: Would you say that yesterday you told us there were pits that were six meters wide, six meters long and six meters deep?

A. I also made the remark that I didn't make a measurement with a tape, but it was my judgment of that measure.

Q. You gave us an example by referring to the panels on the wall, and you pointed up to, I think, the top of the first panel; didn't you?

A. Yes, that would be it.

Q. Mm-hmmm. Well, how do you explain the method by which the Germans could burn bodies under water in this marshy ground where the water level was about - well, you described it as marshy ground. Tell us how they did that.

A. Well, they didn't invite me for technical consultations. And if you accept that I'm not speaking only as a witness, I saw only when it was finished; but if you want my technical advice, I would think, without having seen how they have done it and without me having consulted how they have done it, that I could have to do it myself given three, four hundred slave laborers. There's no problem.

Q. Well, tell me how - you agree you described the ground all around there as marshy ground, or do you say otherwise?

A. The ground all around was marshy. This means as a countryside.

Q. Because it was between two rivers.

A. It was between two rivers, but as you probably have been in your life in a marshy countryside, you know that even in marshy countryside there are occasional visitors around and fishermen. So in marshy land I would say that there are some quite dried out, well-prepared pieces of land by the administration of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp which were not marshy or which were not to be considered too marshy especially when (it) was in winter 1942 it was heavy frost, and you know it was sort of solid earth.

Q. Mm-hmmm. It was frozen earth?

A. Frozen earth.

Q. Well, how does the fire keep the water from melting?

A. How does fire . . .?

Q. How is the fire arranged so that the water in this marshy ground did not melt and fill up the pit that was as high as that top panel on the wall over there? That's a long way down, isn't it?

A. Yes. Well, you are asking me again something which I do not know, neither from eye witness acount, nor have I consulted on technical problem, and I suppose that anybody with a slight technical education will explain to you that if you are in a marshy land and dry out that marsh on, say, one kilometer square, then you get completely different conditions within that kilometer square than in the rest of the marsh. I would think so . . .

Q: Six meters.

A. Yes. At the bottom of the pit.

Q: Six meters down?

A. Yes. But it was only four meters and not six meters. because I didn't have a tape, and my measures would be very sort of lost, and perhaps in view of the awesome situation it might have appeared to me bigger than it was, you see, within a meter or two.

Q. Within ---

A. I know you will blame me that I didn't use a yardstick, but it wasn't technically possible.

Q. No, I don't blame you at all. I am just asking you questions, and perhaps if you will answer them, that will be a good idea.

A. I will be pleased.

Q. So, if I understand you correctly, the six by six by six meters might be out by one or two meters?

A. Might be out by one or two meters.

Q. Mm-hmmm. You don't understand or know any reason why there would be no water in the bottom of this pit; you have no explanation for this at all.

A. Of course I have an explanation. If the pit was heated up, and if there was a lot of bodies burning, everything - and if it was not used once but many times, then the water from around would have long dried out.

Q: I see. Is it true that what you said earlier was the case that it was marshy ground?

A. The marshy ground was general around Auschwitz. In other words --

Q: Not around Birkenau?

A. Around Birkenau. In other words, how marshy Birkenau was, I, the first time realized only after I left Birkenau and had to cross the common camp area. In other words, Birkenau was built up in a marshy area, but Birkenau itself was not marshy any more.

Q. Oh, you say that it was built up above the level of the land.

A. I do not say that it was built above the level of the land, but proper and simple ameliorative measures were taken so that Birkenau and the Birkenau installations will not be succumbed by the swamps. The swamps were there, otherwise you will have to ask for the technical administration of Auschwitz camp house. I am not a builder, but I knew how to build things.

Q: What ameliorative measures do you say were taken?

A. Yes, ameliorative measures, which translated means measures to regulate unexpected flood of water. It is used quite frequently by great agricultural enterprises when they want a piece of their agricultural dry, and a piece wet. This is achieved by amelioration.

Q. What ameliorative measures do you say were taken to prevent water from being a problem in Auschwitz? Do you say that they raised the level of the land. . . ?"

Now, class. Compose yourselves!

The Revisionist point well worth pondering is that the nonsense above is rooted in dogmatism. The theological nature of this dogmatism is summarized in a declaration by 34 French "scholars" published in the French daily newspaper Le Monde on February 21, 1979, to their eternal shame, in which they stated thusly:

"The question of how technically such a mass murder was possible should not be raised. It was technically possible because it occurred. This is the necessary starting point for all historical investigation on the subject."

As Nila of Russia would say: "Well, Citizen. Imagine!"

It's very simple, really: To know that milk is sour, you do not have to drink a quart. It's quite enough to take a sip. You do not have to eat a lamb to know what mutton tastes like. It's quite enough that you consume a cutlet.

Ingrid

Thought for the Day:

"Over a period of almost 5 decades the act of 'Coming to Terms with the Past' has illuminated every nook and cranny of National-Socialist activity in war and peace.

There is however one phenomenon which, until today, has not been described nor explored, and this is that this cynical system managed to impose its own laws even on nature itself."

(Quote from a classical Revisionist article)

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the March 1997 ZGrams