Date: Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:15 PM +++ Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:33 PM
FPBergDear Mr Porter,
Thank you very much. I am so overworked that unfortunately I cannot reiterate here what I have said and written and shown with pictures so many times perhaps in English and certainly in French. As soon as you have read the 47 operations of the "Procedure Check List" (15 July 1958, revised 22 October 1975) of the Baltimore Penitentiary gas chamber (same model as in the 30s and 40s) and seen that impressive gas chamber as I saw it myself, you understand that to execute one man with HCN is a horribly difficult problem. Nothing to compare with a delousing or disinfection or disinfestation gas chamber for clothing or for the fumigation of a room, a building, a ship, etc., by a team of "exterminators" (American word).
Therefore an execution of thousands of human beings in any room would have ended up in a catastrophe. For days and days it would have been a terrible problem to get those poisoned bodies out of the room. There certainly would never have been a second execution!
Among the easy solutions to kill thousands of people in Auschwitz I, for one, remember having mentioned this one: knowing what a Polish winter is, at night you simply put the inmates outside and naked; the next morning you pick up the dead bodies.
It has been a pleasure for me to read your stuff about the whole question. As I see it, you received from Fritz Berg nearly the same treatment I received from him. As I did myself you kept your temper and he lost his. Congratulations. RF
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Le 2/01/10 8:23, « carlos porter » <carloswporter@
I was very surprised and pleased to hear from you and I hope you are well.
Thank you very much for you kind remarks. I have published the entire change under:
Actually, in my view, you are both right.
He is correct that IF the Nazis had wished to "gas people", THEN that is the way they would have done it.
You are quite correct that it still would not work. It would kill them, of course, but it would never be safe or efficient.
So back to the drawing board for the mass murderers.
I will go even further, and I think you will agree. Nobody would ever try to kill millions of people with cyanide gas in any form, because it is too unpredictable, too dangerous, and too uncertain. If you want to kill people, there are much easier ways to do it. Why bother with all these Rube Goldberg contraptions? There are other gases that are far safer and more effective (Why not phosgene? Works in the open air, even if they don't notice they've been gassed, and even if it doesn't work at once, they can still die of heart failure a day later. If not, just try again).
Cyanide, and, most particularly, cyanide gas, seems to kill by treachery, often when you least expect it. Other gases are more predictable. But still, to me, gas is not an effective means of mass murder.
The most obvious method is simply to shoot people in the back of the head, the method preferred by our good friends and allies, the Communists, and they are the world's past masters. That is obvious. Shoot them, bury them. Then build a highway or something over the burial site. Or better yet, as was done during the Spanish Civil War, shoot them on the beach at low tide, let the tide come in, and presto! No fuss, no muss. Feed the fish.
A nuotare con i pesci, as the Italians would say.
Or suffocate them? There's no air after a while anyway, if they're all inside, 2,000 people, crammed together? Who needs a gas? After all, if we hate them so much, why bother making them comfortable at great risk and inconvenience to ourselves?
Another objection, to me, one of the most obvious, is that the Germans are decent people and would simply never do something like that. But I know it's not an argument.
Mr Berg is obviously very frustrated. He is not the only one, but it is a mistake to let it show, particularly when dealing with one's friends. We must be like Cyrano de Bergerac. Cool, calm, collected, witty, even at our own expense, then... "When I end the refrain... Thrust home!"
I am a bit shocked that he would practically assault you physically. I wonder what his problem is? A strange person.
Best wishes,
CARLOS
NOW AN AMAZON KINDLE BOOK ON YOUR PC, iPHONE OR KINDLE DEVICE
Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides By Thomas Dalton
In this remarkable, balanced book, the author skillfully reviews and compares "traditional" and "revisionist" views on the "The Holocaust."
On one side is the traditional, orthodox view -- six million Jewish casualties, gas chambers, cremation ovens, mass graves, and thousands of witnesses. On the other is the view of a small band of skeptical writers and researchers, often unfairly labeled "deniers," who contend that the public has been gravely misled about this emotion-laden chapter of history.
The author establishes that the arguments and findings of revisionist scholars are substantive, and deserve serious consideration. He points out, for example, that even the eminent Jewish Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg acknowledged that there was no budget, plan or order by Hitler for a World War II program to exterminate Europe's Jews.
This book is especially relevant right now, as "Holocaust deniers" are routinely and harshly punished for their "blasphemy," and as growing numbers of people regard the standard, Hollywoodized "Holocaust" narrative with mounting suspicion and distrust.
The author of this book, who writes under the pen name of "Thomas Dalton," is an American scholar who holds a doctoral degree from a major US university.
This is no peripheral debate between arcane views of some obscure aspect of twentieth century history. Instead, this is a clash with profound social-political implications regarding freedom of speech and press, the manipulation of public opinion, how our cultural life is shaped, and how power is wielded in our society.
http://www.amazon.
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@
No comments:
Post a Comment