Scrapbookpages Blog

July 8, 2016

the famous letter from Sigman Rascher to Himmler

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust — Tags: , , , — furtherglory @ 3:14 pm

A letter written by Sigman Rascher to Heinrich Himmler is used by Holocaust True Believers to prove that there was a homicidal gas chamber at Dachau.

The letter is quoted below, first in German and then in English.

Esteemed Reichsführer! [Himmler]

Wie Sie wissen, wird im KL Dachau dieselbe Einricht[ung] wie in Linz gebaut. Nachdem die “Invalidentransporte” sowieso in bestimmten Kammern enden, frage ich, ob nicht in diesen Kammern an der sowieso dazu bestimmten Personen dieWirkung unserer verschiedenen Kampfgase erprobt werden kann? Bis jetzt liegen nur Tierversuche bezw. Berichte ueber Unfaelle bei Herrstellung dieser Gase vor. Wegen dieses Absatzes schicke ich den Brief als “Geheimsache.”
(signed)
S. Rascher 28

The English translation of the body of the letter is as follows:

As you know, the same installation as in Linz [Austria] is to be built in Dachau. As the ‘invalid transports’ terminate in the special chambers [in Linz] anyway I wondered if it would be possible to test the effects of our combat gases in these chambers [in Dachau] using the persons who are destined for those chambers anyway. The only reports which are available so far are for experiments on animals or of accidents in the manufacture of these gases.

149 Comments »

  1. ß

    Gasan provides a link to a previous post on this blog about the Rascher letter — this comment there is worth noting: I just read the original letter (photo 43), and I am quite horrified. There are several typos (for instance, “Wie Sie wißen” instead of “Wie Sie wissen”) in this very short letter, and it certainly has not been typed by a secretary, or by a person who has the title of a doctor. However, it has been typed on a German typewriter.

    The only way to absolutely prove a forgery is for the forger to admit it — or for someone who witnessed, or knows of, the forgery, to give believable testimony — neither is going to happen in this case — so all that can be done is to provide indications that a doc may not be genuine — the goal of that is to impeach the doc to the point that it will be seen as not having any probative value.

    Gasan has said the letter is not written in the style one would expect given the (alleged) author (a well-educated man, a doctor), and the addressee — I agree.

    My first reaction upon seeing the letter was…wtf? — its style is poor, to say the least — not appropriate at all for any kind of formal communication, especially one addressed to a person of Himmler’s importance — the issue of wissen v “wißen” has gotten a lot of attention — one thing that must be made clear: while any German would recognize that what is meant is wissen, “wißen” is a misspelling, and a rather egregious one, considering the addressee — the word “sowieso” also appears in the letter — follow the link, and you will see that it is described as “umgangssprachlich” — this means colloquial — in reality, it is so umgangssprachlich that it would never normally appear in any kind of formal communication — but not only does it appear, it appears 2x in the same sentence, which is ridiculous — also questionable/very unusual is the use of “bezw” as an abbreviation for beziehungsweise — this is simply not the common abbreviation — bzw is the common abbreviation.

    All that said, I am agnostic about whether it is authentic — but per above, it has no value as evidence (of anything) — no probative value — it is too easily impeached.

    Comment by eah — July 10, 2016 @ 2:42 pm

    • At one time, I was working with a fellow who was planning to write a book about Sigmund Rascher. That’s why I did a lot of research on the subject and wrote about it on my website at
      http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/RascherExecution.html

      The man who are planning to write the book had a blog on which he was writing about his project. That’s how I first learn that there was such a thing as a blog, which I had never heard of before.

      Comment by furtherglory — July 10, 2016 @ 3:01 pm

    • Its already been explained. wißen can be wissen. ß is also a double S when located within a word, and this could have just been a user choice in writing. There are writing rules to a double S but your “german and russian” speaker still hasn’t provided any reason of why such spelling is incorrect.

      When saying:

      ““wißen” is a misspelling, and a rather egregious one, considering the addressee”

      In what way is it a misspelling? ß is able to be placed within the middle of a word and act as a double S.

      As well mind that Dr. Rascher is “HALF ENGLISH”. This may be the issue for his choice of wording.

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 10, 2016 @ 4:29 pm

      • wißen can be wissen

        No, it can’t — not if you want to spell wissen correctly.

        In what way is it a misspelling?

        How many ways are there? — what about the concept of correct v incorrect spelling of a word is not clear to you? — “ß” is not “ss” — they are not the same; they are not interchangeable — there are rules for when “ß” is used (correctly), and rules for when “ss” is used (correctly) — part (but only part) of the Rechtschreibreform was meant to clarify exactly when “ß” is used, and when “ss” is used — the verb wissen is spelled “wissen” — it is not spelled “wißen” — “wißen” is simply incorrect — that ought to be clear now, even to you.

        Just as English has multiple forms of There

        Those “multiple forms” (homonyms) have completely different meanings, and different spellings — there is only one correct spelling of each — with this idiotic example, you are trying to say there is more than one correct spelling of wissen, but both have the same meaning — this is simply false — but you are apparently too stupid to see that.

        I read and site my sources Jim.

        Most people cite sources — I guess you site them — you know, from what I’ve seen of your comments here, you have a lot of fucking nerve denigrating someone else’s IQ — geh weg you obnoxious little prick.

        Comment by eah — July 11, 2016 @ 5:16 am

        • Rah newer rules do not apply to German from the 1940’s. The modern clarification may have been used.

          It’s also not so much an idiotic example as the system of writing has changed for german. Your did mention the reform clarified when the word was used.

          From what the Germans I have asked on the matter have said that the

          Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 7:04 am

        • *From the Germans I have spoken to they say modern rules would restrict it but that they were not sure about pre-reform German. I do know that SS is used for short vowels within the modern reform but from before that it’s not so much clear on the matter.

          For example the writing for kiss used to be Kuß, which after the reform its ending was changed to ss so it is now spelled Kuss.

          Watery used to be spelled wäßrig but now it’s spelled Wasser (water).

          During the war wissen is the proper spelling but it doesn’t mean there isn’t an alternative to its spelling. Even if it is the sharp s. ß had rather loose usage compared to the modern age.

          Though thank you for your ‘pleasant’ welcome. The issue with his logic though was he was playing a Jim, which means continuously making claims without evidence. Which is something you seem to correct.

          Mind also that our suspect is from an English German relationship. This may be a cause for his spelling, or even he could have just been poor on the usage of ß.

          Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 7:28 am

      • “Most people cite sources — I guess you site them — you know, from what I’ve seen of your comments here, you have a lot of fucking nerve denigrating someone else’s IQ — geh weg you obnoxious little prick.”

        This is eah’s way of welcoming you to the blog, Click.
        Though, I’m not sure what “geh weg” means.

        Comment by Jeff K. — July 11, 2016 @ 5:21 am

        • You wrote: “I’m not sure what “geh weg” means.”

          “geh weg” means go away in German. That’s what you say when a rabid dog, that is foaming at the mouth, approaches you. The words sound something like “gay veck” with the emphasis on veck.

          Comment by furtherglory — July 11, 2016 @ 5:35 am

          • “geh weg” means go away in German. That’s what you say when a rabid dog, that is foaming at the mouth, approaches you. The words sound something like “gay veck” with the emphasis on veck.”

            Ah, thank you.
            I find eah’s habit of randomly slipping into German strange.

            Comment by Jeff K. — July 11, 2016 @ 5:38 am

            • You wrote: “I find eah’s habit of randomly slipping into German strange.”

              Usually, when a person randomly slips into German, it means that they are Jewish.

              Comment by furtherglory — July 11, 2016 @ 6:23 am

              • “Usually, when a person randomly slips into German, it means that they are Jewish.”

                😆😆😂😂😆😆😂😂

                Comment by Jeff K. — July 11, 2016 @ 6:43 am

                • Random slips into Hebrew generally means someone is from Switzerland.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 7:38 am

                • LOL

                  You’ll get used to eah. He (or she) reminds me of the grumpy grandpa who yells at kids to get off his lawn. Only eah has a fouler mouth.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — July 11, 2016 @ 7:41 am

                • Good, then the two of us should get along just fine. As he seems like he will commonly insult in another language.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 7:45 am

                • Eah is a bit full of himself.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — July 11, 2016 @ 7:50 am

                • I can be full of it as well. That’s just human nature, but I admit where I don’t have the answer, but right now I’m trying to record down information. And Eah is helping.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 8:11 am

                • Miss Click. Do what I would do. Shine em on. Run some lyrics by them from that old Hendrix song . ” I know you’ll probably scream and cry,that your little world won’t let you go,but who in your measley little world,are you trying prove that,you’re made out of gold and can’t be sold”. That’ll leave a person scratching their head

                  Comment by Tim — July 11, 2016 @ 5:13 pm

                • Sorry, most just in a rush as I had some comments to respond to.

                  So dependent on if its a camp or ghetto the rules would be different. Ghettos would have a local staff which runs it that will create a Jewish counsel. That Counsel in basics runs the ghetto. The Ghettos would generally have minimal rations going into them. The camp has a commandant who will be given a labor force who supplies the war front. The Government would then supply them with money for these resources. Such management of sending supplies would have been left to some like Kurt Gerstein and Eichmann. Its mostly down to the guards that there is always someone who is connected. Its all a pyramid which leads up to Hitler.

                  Does this make more sense?

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 5:40 pm

                • Yes mam,but you reminded me of something else. I saw something one time. They were trying to nail some jew in the ghettos or prisons. He was in one of those places. He was working with the nazis. I’m not saying the nazis liked him. This guy would’ve been something along the lines of a prison (or ghetto) elder. They said he was selling out his own people to save his ass. There was another reason they said he did it. It wasn’t nothing diabolical. I can’t recall if they ever put a case in him or not. I know history said he spent a lot of time trying to explain his actions. You ever heard of this person?

                  Comment by Tim — July 11, 2016 @ 8:04 pm

                • The actions do not sound familiar a name may be needed.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 8:07 pm

                • I’m lost at what the guys name was. It was on a show on history channel called,”nazi collaborators”. I just checked on their site,but this episode was not mentioned with the other episodes

                  Comment by Tim — July 11, 2016 @ 8:28 pm

                • Ah, I generally skip on history channel.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 8:37 pm

                • You wrote: “Blaha testified at the IMT causing an absolute sensation with his testimony that incriminated almost everyone in the dock.”

                  No one knows what you are talking about because you don’t say to what you are replying. To understand your comment, the reader has to read the previous comment. It takes twice as long to read the comments when this happens. You have taken over the comment section on my blog, so you should comment correctly.

                  Comment by furtherglory — July 12, 2016 @ 6:35 am

                • “I’m lost at what the guys name was. It was on a show on history channel called,”nazi collaborators”. I just checked on their site,but this episode was not mentioned with the other episodes”

                  I think you are talking about this man, Tim:

                  http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/terrible_choice/ter005.html

                  His name was Chaim Rumkowski, the head of the Judenrat in the Lodz Ghetto.

                  He’s a controversial figure. On the one hand he kept the ghetto in existence far longer than the other ghettos in Poland by making the inhabitants indispensable due to their work for the Wehrmacht. On the other hand he was a dictatorial figure who had his enemies and rivals deported to death camps. There are darker allegations about him, it’s possible he was a pedophile with teenage Jewish girls. He used his influence to get the girls to submit. I’ve only seen that in one source, Rees’ book on Auschwitz, but reading about him makes me believe this to be the case.
                  In the end the collaboration didn’t save his life, he died at Birkenau in 1944.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — July 13, 2016 @ 10:02 am

                • I can’t recall his name,but everything they described about him,fit perfect. He somewhat had a “robbing Peter to pay Paul ” type attitude.

                  Comment by Tim — July 13, 2016 @ 11:09 am

        • I’m not sure what “geh weg” means

          If so, then what business do you have commenting on German usage? — as you did in this thread — do you also find it “strange” that someone with so little knowledge of German gives opinions on correct usage?

          So ein mieses Arschloch.

          Comment by eah — July 11, 2016 @ 5:43 am

          • You wrote: “do you also find it “strange” that someone with so little knowledge of German gives opinions on correct usage?”

            The German people think that it is very important to use correct usage of German. If you go to Germany, you should speak English. Everyone in Germany speaks English; they might even correct your usage of English.

            Comment by furtherglory — July 11, 2016 @ 5:53 am

          • “If so, then what business do you have commenting on German usage? — as you did in this thread — do you also find it “strange” that someone with so little knowledge of German gives opinions on correct usage?”

            Well, when a denier makes an unfounded accusation of forgery, including stating that the forger was a Jewish immigrant, I can look up how the word is used.

            Which I did. This is what I found:

            The verb wissen is a stem-changing verb. That is to say, the infinitive’s stem vowel i changes to ei in all the singular present tense forms (weiß), and to u in the past participle (gewusst). In many ways, as we said above, it behaves like a modal verb. Except for ihr wisst (formerly wißt), spelling reform has not affected wissen, so you should note that its singular forms are still spelled with an ess-zett (ß, except in Swiss German), while the plural forms use a double-s (ss).

            “As you know” is singular so the word is spelled correctly.

            Click then checked and from a GERMAN source and found that is the correct spelling. Click also did additional research and found additional examples that both show she is correct.

            Gasan also stated that the forger was a Jewish immigrant. He said this with so much conviction that I asked him what the name of the forger was. Instead of answering, he behaved like a dick, which means he didn’t know what he was talking about.

            Also, the rabbit believes the document is genuine. Now, for a denier the rabbit is an excellent researcher so I trust his judgment on this.

            “So ein mieses Arschloch.”

            Funny. Naturally, because you are a gutless bitch, you curse at me in German.

            I’ve missed you, eah. Your random prom queen bitchiness makes my day.

            Comment by Jeff K. — July 11, 2016 @ 6:21 am

        • Works for me

          Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 7:29 am

  2. Two outright idiots Ёж (hedgehog) and Jeff K are teaching me German and Russian languages with the help of “Google Translate”.
    How fanny is that!

    Comment by Gasan — July 9, 2016 @ 10:08 pm

    • “Two outright idiots Ёж (hedgehog) and Jeff K are teaching me German and Russian languages with the help of “Google Translate”.
      How fanny is that!”

      How “fanny?”

      Talk about a retarded Ivan.

      I thought you ran off when you realized you had no evidence of forgery.

      What a shame, I guess it’s easy to make pronouncements but when called on to prove your nonsense you run.
      Perhaps you should leave this to the adults.

      Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 10:17 pm

      • Watch the video I have provided… It fixes the issue completely… and proves my entire claim that Gasan has an IQ only slightly higher then Forrest Gump.

        “So what are the spelling rules of Eszett vs the double s? A rule that is very easy to remember is that the Eszett as used to be at the end of words. *While the Double S was placed in the middle of words.* But because we Germans like to change out rules and make up new rules, and so since 1996 and since the spelling reform the Eszett is only used after long vowels and diphthongs.”

        So according to my map

        Eßen = Essen

        Since the symbol is in the middle of the word.

        Which would mean that Wißen is Wissen.

        Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 10, 2016 @ 3:38 am

      • I don’t have the full grasp on it but the best story that can be given is that hes most likely working off from 1996 German.

        Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 10, 2016 @ 3:42 am

      • You wrote regarding Gasan: “Talk about a retarded Ivan.”

        Please don’t insult Gasan. I am indebted to him for providing much information for my blog and my website.You may call Gasan a genius, if you like.

        Comment by furtherglory — July 10, 2016 @ 8:14 am

        • “Please don’t insult Gasan. I am indebted to him for providing much information for my blog and my website.You may call Gasan a genius, if you like.”

          Sorry. If Gasan wants to play nice, I will. If he insults me that will be met with insults.

          He also hasn’t answered my question, which means he doesn’t have an answer. That calls into question his “genius.”

          Comment by Jeff K. — July 10, 2016 @ 8:31 am

    • I find it funny that somehow you provided the name “hedgehog”. Sorry to say bud but your wrong. In fact its hardly the only source provided that I have used.

      In this case ß is used in the case of a double S. Which would mean that Wißen is Wissen. As for a person who speaks German you haven’t shown it at all.

      The lack of evidence you have presented shows quite well an IQ of 85. Even Black rabbit has said the document is genuine and it appears that even googles robot knows more about German then Gasan. Who claims to be able to speak both “German and Russian”.

      Google was only 1 source. In fact I have even given the map above, which reads “Essen” Even if it is spelled as Eßen. I have contacted every simple source that is within a short reach and have contacted a friend who has german family. He confirmed this as well that ß can be used in the case of SS.

      Here Is even a German video confirming this. When ß is placed in the middle of a word it acts as a double s. Starting at 1:18.

      “So what are the spelling rules of Eszett vs the double s? A rule that is very easy to remember is that the Eszett as used to be at the end of words. *While the Double S was placed in the middle of words.* But because we Germans like to change out rules and make up new rules, and so since 1996 and since the spelling reform the Eszett is only used after long vowels and diphthongs.”

      So much for speaking German Gasan. I starred out the point for you to read you lying idiot. Exactly why you have an IQ of 85.

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 10, 2016 @ 3:34 am

  3. Rasher’s letter is genuine; I took the trouble and expense to track down a microfilm copy of the full two page letter in the NARA archives. The original letter is in the Bundesarchiv, Berlin-Lichterfelde.

    How anyone is sure that Rascher was talking about that particular room in Barrack X is something of a mystery.

    Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 9, 2016 @ 6:14 am

    • The evidence the the Dachau “gas chamber” ceiling was not lower [recall that Dachau was liberated on 29 April 1945]:

      1. 17 March 1942 letter [NO-3863] states that “Room 8 is provided with an intermediary ceiling of reinforced concrete.”
      2. 23 May 1942 architectural plan [NO-3886] shows that the room was to have a low, thick ceiling
      3. 2 May 1945, the photo Senators Wherry, Brooks, Richards and Representative Vorys in the “gas chamber” which has the same ceiling it does today
      4. 3 May 1945, the film footage shot in the “gas chamber” [PS-2430] showing the same ceiling which is there today
      5. 5 May 1945, Captain Fribourg inspected the room and stated in his 25 May 1945 report that the ceiling was two metres high

      The *evidence* it was lowered:

      1. The estimate of the ceiling height in the Congressional Report [also submitted to the IMT as L-159] which was written AFTER the Congressmen arrived back in Washington DC; the same report massively overestimates [virtually doubles] the sizes of the two rooms adjoining the “gas chamber”.
      2. Dachau survivor Eugene Seybold/Seibold claimed a new ceiling was installed, according to Mattogno.

      The ceiling was not lowered, the evidence is overwhelming: A German plan and a letter about its construction; a photograph and film footage shot on known dates within days of Dachau’s liberation, plus the earliest official report on the “gas chamber” based on an inspection just days after liberation.

      Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 9, 2016 @ 7:03 am

      • You wrote: “Dachau survivor Eugene Seybold/Seibold claimed a new ceiling was installed, according to Mattogno.”

        Eugen Seybold was a former prisoner in the Dachau camp. In the trial of the SS men at Dachau, Seybold was the prosecution witness who identified Dr. Hintermayer as one of the SS doctors at Dachau. Dr. Hintermayer was one of the accused men on trial. Dr. Hintermayer claimed that he hd been coerced into signing a confession by American Lt. Guth.

        Eugen Seybold was one of the Kapos at Dachau; he was one of the workers in the crematorium whose job it was to put the dead bodies into the cremation ovens. He could potentially have been among the accused himself if he had not agreed to testify for the prosecution as a paid witness, as one of the defense attorneys pointed out during the trial.

        Comment by furtherglory — July 9, 2016 @ 8:15 am

    • I think Mazal is quite justified to connect it with the ‘shower room’ inside of Barrack X. The question as to what other room in Dachau the letter could be referring to seems more important. If its referring to the disinfection chambers, then we have a rather huge issues. As these do not appear to be created for homicidal purposes. Regardless from what is known by testimony this gas chamber which Rasher refers to is quite unable to kill on a mass level, and that people die at different points in time. With the disinfection chambers this seems inaccurate as those rooms seem small and compact, and the people inside would die rather fast. The larger ‘shower room’ seems the be the best bet. It would take the gas a long time to release in that room, especially with only an individual or small group inside that room.

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 9, 2016 @ 3:13 pm

      • There are five delousing chambers on the SW end of Barrack X, but only 4 of them were ever fitted with the Degesch Zyklon B machines. Perhaps Rascher wanted to do gassing experiments in that.

        Did Mazal write anything about no one realising that the flaps/bins had anything to do with the gassing process until 1968?

        Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 10, 2016 @ 8:05 pm

        • “There are five delousing chambers on the SW end of Barrack X, but only 4 of them were ever fitted with the Degesch Zyklon B machines. Perhaps Rascher wanted to do gassing experiments in that.”

          Hmm, Maybe. Hard to really be sure, as this would conflict with Captain Best.

          “and the greatest trouble had been taken to design a gas chamber so camouflaged that its purpose would not be apparent, and to regulate the flow of the lethal gas so that the patients might fall asleep without recognizing that they would never wake. Unfortunately, Rascher said, they had never quite succeeded in solving the problem caused by the varying resistance of different people to the effects of poison gases, and always there had been a few who lived longer than others and recognized where they were and what was happening.”

          Hes a lot more trustworthy then Mazals 2nd witness Father Sales Hess.

          “Did Mazal write anything about no one realising that the flaps/bins had anything to do with the gassing process until 1968?”

          Hmm, which report would this be? I am curious as he didn’t give any mention of this 1968 report. I generally always just relied on The Chavez Report (2430-PS) for the existence of the bins… The report though if I remember correctly doesn’t say the bins were used for gassing. If the Bins were not claimed to have been used till 1968 wouldn’t this mean the early Dachau museum relied on the side vent to be the spot which the gas entered?

          Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 10, 2016 @ 8:20 pm

          • >>> “Hmm, Maybe. Hard to really be sure, as this would conflict with Captain Best”

            Hearsay, written years after the war. Payne-Best also effectively said Sachsenhausen commandant Anton Kaindl was the nicest man anyone could hope to meet in a very long letter he wrote in defence of Kaindl in Jan 1946. He also made no mention of Rascher nor the Dachau gas chamber in this letter.

            >>> “Hmm, which report would this be? I am curious as he didn’t give any mention of this 1968 report.”

            Mazal didn’t mention it because he was just another crap researcher. I’m referring to the Otto Kohlhofer report, 24 July 1967, which contains the earliest mention in writing of the flaps/bins being critical to the gassing process.

            >>> “I generally always just relied on The Chavez Report (2430-PS) for the existence of the bins.”

            LOL you don’t know what you’re talking about!
            – 2430-PS is the film Nazi Concentration Camps, not the Chavez report
            – The flaps/bins are not mentioned at all in the sections on the “gas chamber” in the Chavez report
            – They do appear in Fribourg’s May 1945 report, you probably meant that as you might have seen my posts on CODOH about a sketch of one of the flaps/bins appearing in Fribourg’s report. Although he assigned no purpose to them at all

            Yes, FG is wrong to claim the flaps/bins were installed by the Americans, they were put-in by the Germans but probably after construction as they do not appear in any of the architectural plans for the building, and severe damage caused to the wall by one attempt to install an opening into that wall is visible in photos taken in the days after liberation.

            Why they were installed is of course open to debate. If the room was planned and built as a Zyklon-B gas chamber, why was there any need to retro fit them at all? Pressac claimed they were installed in 1944 to provided fresh air when the extractors were to be switched on. Pressac didn’t believe it was a Zyklon B HGC but a GC for testing different gases.

            Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 11, 2016 @ 8:20 am

            • Captain Best’s testimony does have more things backing it up. I could quote Thomas from IH.

              Mazal was trying to write an essay based on more modern conclusions. It should be important to note that he was a chemist… Not a historian. Nor was Pressac. As well I do not believe Mazal was writing his essay just so he could search out for Otto Kohlhofers report. Though this is good information and thank you for sharing it.

              As for Chavez report. I would direct you to FG’s website. 3rd paragraph below the modern photograph of the fumigation chambers.

              http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/history01.html

              I do agree though that it does appear the Germans added them at a later point in time, but I have yet to finish the Rodoh thread that you have created.

              As for your post on Codoh, I have yet to see it. I did see your post on the scratched in writing on the Auschwits wagon.

              As for Pressac though… I am not so sure about his conclusion on the bins. They lock and a grate wouldn’t seem needed if they were created as some addition to the ventilation process. This seems it would call for the claimed peephole to be the place the gas was inserted, unless he wishes to claim it was the side vent like the museum used to say.

              Also Pressac concluded similar claims about Majdanek, but Kranz still believes the holes in the ceiling of gas chamber I and II to have been purposes with inserting Zyklon B. It’s a safe note that Pressac is a raw researcher. It also seems though that one could argue the same with Mazal. It appears though more people agree with Mazal, and not Pressac. This is more so an illogical way to settle it but the consensus in the modern era says Mazal is right

              Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 10:33 am

              • You wrote: “the consensus in the modern era says Mazal is right”
                I don’t agree that the consensus is that Mazal is right. I blogged about Mazal at

                https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/harry-w-mazal/

                Comment by furtherglory — July 11, 2016 @ 10:49 am

                • Most modern writers seem to write that the bins were constructed for the purpose of gassing with Zyklon-B. Pressac, while a great researcher doesn’t always have everything correct. His writings are far from valuable and could be considered priceless. Mazal seems correct though about the air intake.

                  ““drawing fresh air through a small hatchway located above the bins” is referring to the previous clause “sending the poisonous fumes into the atmosphere[sic]” (atmosphere in the room of course, not airing out as you conclude – although it could be used for that as well I suppose). There are 2 vents in the ceiling you know.”

                  -Blake

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 11:03 am

                • You wrote: “Most modern writers seem to write that the bins were constructed for the purpose of gassing with Zyklon-B.”

                  Most modern writers are wrong. I am not a “modern writer.” My website was put up in 1998, back in the dark ages.

                  When the Dachau camp was surrendered to the Americans, under a white flag of truce, the wall where the bins were constructed later, was hidden behind a wooden screen. The American liberators constructed the holes, so that they could claim that the Dachau shower room was really a gas chamber. I have blogged about this until I am blue in the face.

                  Comment by furtherglory — July 11, 2016 @ 11:10 am

                • This again is outside the original point made FG. As I already said consensus (general agreement) is that the bins were used for gassing with Zyklon. Most (non-revisionist) modern museums, and authors (which I have had access to) say the gas used was Zyklon-b.

                  I am glad to hear your site is a medium which has been around for a long time. The thing though is you do not appear to be part of the consensus definition above… As you have said before, you are a revisionist.

                  As well the newer coating around the bins may have been cause of repairs… The Chimney at Dachau was replaced, and I would believe it to have been replaced most likely due to wear and tear. I have seen it and in all honest it appears way to new for even something which would have been added in 1945.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 11:24 am

                • You wrote: “As I already said consensus (general agreement) is that the bins were used for gassing with Zyklon.”

                  I think that you mean that the “general consensus” among TRUE BELIEVERS is that the bins were used for gassing the Jews with Zyklon-B.

                  The general consensus among Holocaust deniers is that the bins were not there when the American liberators arrived at Dachau. The wall was hidden behind a wooden screen. The holes were constructed by the Americans. Anyone can see that this sloppy construction was not done by Germans.

                  Comment by furtherglory — July 11, 2016 @ 11:45 am

                • I understand that, and I do not dispute it. But documents point to the bins being on that wall by the time of 1945. The Chavez Report (according to your website) aka also named ps-2430 (also according to your website) mentions the bins existed (again according to your website). Another report named by Rabbit also says the bins existed. So far I have one acclaimed source and one source which mentions the bins were there… These indicate the Americans didn’t add them.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 12:21 pm

                • The following quote is from my website: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/interior04.html

                  “After Dachau was liberated on April 29, 1945, a team of U. S. Seventh Army officers investigated the camp for two days before releasing their official report which stated that the gas was introduced into the gas chambers at Dachau through shower heads suspended from the ceiling of the shower room in Baracke X, the crematory building. It was only later learned that the gas was in the form of pellets which were poured into the gas chamber through two openings on the east wall, which are shown in the photo below.”

                  So it was 2 days before the Americans looked behind the wooden screen and found that there were holes in the wall through which the gas pellets were poured? I don’t think so.

                  Comment by furtherglory — July 11, 2016 @ 12:01 pm

                • They never claimed that FG…. Look at rabbits post… apparently it took about 25 years to say the bins were used for gassings. As for 1948 the gas was claimed to have entered from the corner vent.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 12:23 pm

                • You wrote: “As for 1948 the gas was claimed to have entered from the corner vent.”
                  I have a photo of the “corner vent” on my website at
                  http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/interior00.html

                  It is obvious that this is a heating vent. If this is not a heating vent, then there was no heat in the shower room and the naked prisoners would have frozen to death in the winter.

                  This quote is from my website: “The back wall of the gas chamber has a vent on the left side near the floor, which the display in the undressing room describes as follows: “Vent on floor – An influx of warm air from a condenser in the attic was supposed to accelerate the evaporation of poison pellets.” This vent was shown in the movie about the gas chamber which was presented as evidence at the Nuremberg IMT; the narrator of the film said that this was a “gas vent.” End quote from my website

                  Comment by furtherglory — July 11, 2016 @ 1:30 pm

                • “It is obvious that this is a heating vent. If this is not a heating vent, then there was no heat in the shower room and the naked prisoners would have frozen to death in the winter.”

                  Not every shower room created by the
                  German’s had a heating system… If this is a heating system then you just answered one of my major issues in which I was looking for… But the lack of evidence surrounding this claim has issues. Leuchter called it a Vertical Vent.

                  Leuchter claims “This alleged gas chamber also contains a ventilation port clearly added after construction.”… And it doesn’t appear that he is talking about the vents on the ceiling. His report actually doesn’t even bother with the ceiling ventilation.

                  Leuchter also said that the showerheads were impossable to use.

                  “The end is sealed and not threaded. They are not connected, nor are they capable of being connected to any piping system.”

                  He does say that the water would have been heated… but there is no evidence for this room having water piping going into it.

                  But according to Leuchter the corner item is a vent.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 1:55 pm

                • Where were the JAG officers at? You said that officers investigated this camp from the 7th. The JAG corps are gonna be running the show. Regular officers ain’t gonna have the knowledge to conduct a complete investigation. Did anyone ever raise that issue in court

                  Comment by Tim — July 12, 2016 @ 2:50 pm

                • FG. A question please. Your site went on line back in the “dark ages”. Your journalism career goes further back then that. As long a “modern writers”,has been bought up,I’ve got a question on that. How well do you think the journalist of today,handle a subject like the holo. I mean all the journalist today seem to be the “pep squad”,when it comes to the subject of the holo. When these journalist today write of the holo,would you say they’re writing it from a subjective point of view,instead of objective? How would you and your fellow journalist have handled writing about this subject,back in the day?

                  Comment by Tim — July 11, 2016 @ 7:44 pm

                • You wrote: “When these journalist today write of the holo,would you say they’re writing it from a subjective point of view,instead of objective? How would you and your fellow journalist have handled writing about this subject,back in the day?”

                  Journalists today are not objective. They don’t give sources for the information that they write. I started my Journalism career as a copy reader, which means that I read every news story before it was printed. I checked every fact in the morgue room where clips from former stories were kept. When the first copy of the newspaper rolled off the press, I was standing there, ready to scan every story on the front page of the first paper to see if there were any errors. I was the person, whose job it was to yell “Stop the press” if there was an error on the front page.

                  Comment by furtherglory — July 12, 2016 @ 6:44 am

                • So irresponsibility seems to be the standard in journalism today. Sounds like they tell the public what they want to hear,instead of what they should hear…….the truth.

                  Comment by Tim — July 12, 2016 @ 7:05 am

              • You wrote: “Captain Best’s testimony does have more things backing it up.”

                I wrote the following on my website about Captain Payne Best:
                Begin quote from my website:
                Along with Elser, Captain Sigismund Payne Best, a British intelligence agent, was also imprisoned at Sachsenhausen, and later at Dachau, while he awaited trial on a charge of conspiracy in the assassination attempt by Elser, which was believed by Hitler to have been instigated by the British government.

                The story of Georg Elser’s execution, according to Captain Sigismund Payne Best, is that either Adolf Hitler or Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler had ordered the head of the Gestapo, SS-Gruppenführer Heinrich Müller, to deliver a letter, authorizing the execution of “special prisoner Georg Eller” during the next Allied air raid, to the Commandant of the Dachau concentration camp, Obersturmbannführer Eduard Weiter, on April 5, 1945. Eller was a code name for Elser so that the other prisoners would not know his true identity. By some strange coincidence, Captain Payne Best had come into possession of this letter in May 1945 shortly before the end of World War II.

                Normally, an execution order would have come from RSHA (Reich Security Main Office) in Berlin, addressed to the head of the Gestapo branch office at Dachau, Johann Kick. Kick would have given the order to Wilhelm Ruppert who was the SS officer in charge of executions at Dachau. Ruppert would have given the order to either Franz Trenkle or Theodor Bongartz, the two SS men who carried out executions at Dachau. After the execution, RSHA and the Gestapo would have received documentation that the execution had taken place. In the case of Georg Elser, none of this happened.
                End quote from my website

                Comment by furtherglory — July 11, 2016 @ 11:03 am

            • As well didn’t Chavez’s report claim the gas rose through the drainage? That is if I remember reading it correctly.

              Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 12:43 pm

              • You wrote: “As well didn’t Chavez’s report claim the gas rose through the drainage?”

                I wrote about the Chavez report, and showed photos that illustrate his report on this page of my website:
                http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/interior02.html

                Comment by furtherglory — July 11, 2016 @ 1:23 pm

              • Judas H. This is what I’m always talking about. Nobody can come up with one certain set of facts and stick with them. The number of stiffs is always changing. Now the way the gas was introduced into the gas house is changing. First they dump it through the ceiling. Next they dump it into what looks like one of those after hours deposit slots that banks have. Now,the gas is coming up through the floor. Clearly I slept through that one. When did that one come up?

                Comment by Tim — July 11, 2016 @ 7:52 pm

                • It depends on the site.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 7:54 pm

                • It’s just confusing as hell for me. Like I say,I’m trying to figure out what really happened with this part of history ( I probably never will. To much conflicting shit). From the time it took me,to bitch about how many ways the gas was dispensed,somebody else came along and mentioned something about,putting the pellets in through a “peephole”. To me it seems demonstrable,why the defense attorneys,lost so much,while defending their clients. Too many roadblocks popping up ( by that I mean constantly introducing new evidence,to show,there were several ways of doing shit. Dispensing the gas. The disposal of corpses etc.)

                  Comment by Tim — July 11, 2016 @ 8:16 pm

                • “From the time it took me,to bitch about how many ways the gas was dispensed,somebody else came along and mentioned something about,putting the pellets in through a “peephole”.”

                  This one shouldn’t be taken seriously its from the humor of codoh.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 8:18 pm

                • Well,I guess take into account,I’m still a long way,from having an accurate account of what happened with all this. History is full of bizzare incidents,but this one takes the proverbial,”cake”. It was always my contention that people who questioned the Hebs over this,were doing this because it was all racially motivated. I’m finding out,people actually have a legitimate beef over certain aspects of this. So if someone says something in jest on here,I might not catch it,due to all the other bizzare shit that will pop up on this subject

                  Comment by Tim — July 12, 2016 @ 7:31 am

            • >>>> Captain Best’s testimony does have more things backing it up. I could quote Thomas from IH.

              Well, go ahead.

              >>>> Mazal was trying to write an essay based on more modern conclusions. It should be important to note that he was a chemist… Not a historian. Nor was Pressac. As well I do not believe Mazal was writing his essay just so he could search out for Otto Kohlhofers report. Though this is good information and thank you for sharing it.

              Mazal’s article is crap because it’s based purely on published works, he did zero archival research before publishing it. But compared to today’s standard’s [where people rarely look beyond the internet], I can see why you think it’s impressive. lol

              Pressac was a court approved expert on Nazi gas chambers, and, as strange as this might seem to you, he took the trouble to visit the archive at Dachau to conduct research on its alleged GC.

              >>>> As for Chavez report. I would direct you to FG’s website. 3rd paragraph below the modern photograph of the fumigation chambers.
              http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/history01.html

              FG just C&P that [mis]info from Carlos Porter. 159L is [once again] the Congressmen’s report on Buchenwald, Dora and Dachau; 2430-PS is [I write this for the 3rd time] the film [and transcript] Nazi Concentration Camps shown at the IMT 29 Nov 1945.

              I would direct you to the actual Chavez report, specifically volume 1.

              >>>> I do agree though that it does appear the Germans added them at a later point in time,

              Why would have that been the case if the room was designed and built as a HGC?

              >>>> As for Pressac though… I am not so sure about his conclusion on the bins. They lock and a grate wouldn’t seem needed if they were created as some addition to the ventilation process. This seems it would call for the claimed peephole to be the place the gas was inserted, unless he wishes to claim it was the side vent like the museum used to say.

              Where did you read that the gas may have been inserted through the alleged peephole?

              >>>> Also Pressac concluded similar claims about Majdanek, but Kranz still believes the holes in the ceiling of gas chamber I and II to have been purposes with inserting Zyklon B. It’s a safe note that Pressac is a raw researcher. It also seems though that one could argue the same with Mazal. It appears though more people agree with Mazal, and not Pressac. This is more so an illogical way to settle it but the consensus in the modern era says Mazal is right

              Well you’re certainly right about the modern consensus, but that consensus is not supported by the evidence. Modern articles and books that make the case for the DG chamber are either ridiculously brief, terribly researched, or bordering on dishonest. Pressac’s work on Dachau is without doubt the most thorough that anyone from the orthodox side has conducted. But his findings are contrary to the *modern consensus*, which explains why it is completely ignored by the people who usually cite him as an authority on nazi HGCs.

              Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 11, 2016 @ 6:10 pm

              • >>>> As for 1948 the gas was claimed to have entered from the corner vent.

                You have one press photo to back up that claim.

                Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 11, 2016 @ 6:18 pm

              • “Well, go ahead.”

                You know the quote. You have most definitely read Thomas Dalton’s essay. Dr. Franz Blaha.

                “Many executions by gas or shootings or injections took place right in the camp. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still alive… Many prisoners were later killed in this way.”

                It is a small example but there really isn’t much when it comes to online resources and outdated books.

                “Mazal’s article is crap because it’s based purely on published works, he did zero archival research before publishing it. But compared to today’s standard’s [where people rarely look beyond the internet], I can see why you think it’s impressive. lol’

                Its not exactly a “impressive” essay, but its what works from the modern theory of the gas chambers operation. It doesn’t exactly make him correct, and I also agree he didn’t spend time within an archive before publishing his essay. The Modern belief if the gas was dropped down into the bins.

                “Pressac was a court approved expert on Nazi gas chambers, and, as strange as this might seem to you, he took the trouble to visit the archive at Dachau to conduct research on its alleged GC.”

                True, but it follows exactly the same thing as you said in your rodoh thread. “It was unpublished”. Pressacs report isn’t exactly open to the rest of the world like his other writings. I could always visit a local areas for my research, but sadly enough I don’t have a card for it ether. I also am not arguing that he wasn’t a court approved expert, I am just stating what even Raul Hilburg has state. Pressac is not a Historian. I haven’t called his actions strange ether, this would be pressing far past what I have implied.

                “FG just C&P that [mis]info from Carlos Porter. 159L is [once again] the Congressmen’s report on Buchenwald, Dora and Dachau; 2430-PS is [I write this for the 3rd time] the film [and transcript] Nazi Concentration Camps shown at the IMT 29 Nov 1945.”

                Alright.

                “I would direct you to the actual Chavez report, specifically volume 1.”

                I do know where to find it.

                “Why would have that been the case if the room was designed and built as a HGC?”

                Plans do not always follow original intentions. You did say in your Rodoh thread that Pressac mentioned the room originally being planned for a Morgue. This idea may have changed…

                “Where did you read that the gas may have been inserted through the alleged peephole?”

                People Joking around on some Codoh thread, they were talking about the pipe you can see in the peephole. I am not sure if the thread is still up, but its not a very plausible idea.

                how exactly did pressac claim the gas entered, I didn’t see any clarification of this on your rodoh thread.

                “Well you’re certainly right about the modern consensus, but that consensus is not supported by the evidence. Modern articles and books that make the case for the DG chamber are either ridiculously brief, terribly researched, or bordering on dishonest. Pressac’s work on Dachau is without doubt the most thorough that anyone from the orthodox side has conducted. But his findings are contrary to the *modern consensus*, which explains why it is completely ignored by the people who usually cite him as an authority on nazi HGCs.”

                You did say his essay was “Unpublished”… it doesn’t exactly help if the access to his essay is limited. As well most people probably haven’t herd of it… Its no wonder people don’t cite his essay for dachau. Maybe you could create it so its open source.

                “You have one press photo to back up that claim.”

                There is more to it. The vent did become the route claim for a little while.

                Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 7:34 pm

                • >>>> You know the quote. You have most definitely read Thomas Dalton’s essay. Dr. Franz Blaha.

                  Blaha testified at the IMT causing an absolute sensation with his testimony that incriminated almost everyone in the dock. He claimed he’d seen most of them on a visit to Dachau partaking or observing some form of atrocity. He also testified at the G. Weiss trial and, significantly, was a member of the International Dachau Committee [the organisation that has always ran the Dachau memorial] for decades after the war.

                  His testimony has always been well known, but it was brushed aside for decades by the Dachau museum which from 1962-c.2003 [perhaps even earlier] insisted that the GC was never used. Barbara Distel [the former museum director for several decades] stated in numerous published works that the GC was never used; she ignored Blaha’s testimony and she knew him personally!

                  Blaha also claimed to have personally skinned dead prisoners and made trousers out of their skins. He was a liar that the museum used to have the sense to ignore. Since c.2003, when they again changed their story on gassings at the camp, they been relyingy on him but without mentioning anywhere that they’re specially relying on the infamous trouser-maker for *evidence* the GC was used.

                  >>>> True, but it follows exactly the same thing as you said in your rodoh thread. “It was unpublished”. Pressacs report isn’t exactly open to the rest of the world like his other writings. I could always visit a local areas for my research, but sadly enough I don’t have a card for it ether. I also am not arguing that he wasn’t a court approved expert, I am just stating what even Raul Hilburg has state. Pressac is not a Historian. I haven’t called his actions strange ether, this would be pressing far past what I have implied.

                  Pressac wrote another article on Dachau in which he expresses precisely the same points, and that was published, if only in Italian. But regardless, any scholar who wants to address the Dachau GC indepth has a profession obligation to address Preassac’s work which they’ll discover when they visit the camp museum—they can’t miss it if they’re doing real research on Barrack X.

                  You’re indulging in little more than an ad hominem by arguing that Pressac’s work is lessened by the fact he is not a historian. Pressac did genuine research into Barrack X: he studied all the important sources [at least the ones know to him], he clambered into the roof to inspect the aeration pipes, he addressed revisionist arguments. He did real work which stands on its on merits. Compare that to the *efforts* of two “historians” who claim that the GC was used: Harold Marcuse, who has written two, maybe three, whole if short paragraphs on gassings at Dachau. He cites none of the original plans or numerous reports; he just claims the museum was wrong to claim it never worked and cites Blaha. The there’s Donald Bloxham, he cites no plans or reports either, he lies about “experimental gassings” being *proven* at the Weiss trial, and, like Marcuse, relies on the previously dismissed testimony of Franz “Ed Gein” Blaha.

                  That’s how “historians” who claim the GC was used work. Pathetic, is too nice a word for that type of behaviour.

                  >>>> “I would direct you to the actual Chavez report, specifically volume 1.”
                  >>> I do know where to find it.

                  Records of the Weiss trial. And the original must be in the NARA somewhere, probably.

                  >>>> “Why would have that been the case if the room was designed and built as a HGC?”
                  >>>> Plans do not always follow original intentions. You did say in your Rodoh thread that Pressac mentioned the room originally being planned for a Morgue. This idea may have changed…

                  Yes, that’s what the plans suggest. Pressac claims it was completed as a morgue, that it was used as a morgue, that it was modified into a GC for testing gases in 1944, used just once, and then used as a morgue once again.

                  The most recent report on Barrack X, by the engineer Axel Will, states that it was designed and built as a GC. No one other than Pressac claims that the room was altered after initial construction [revisionists aside of course], so you’ll be hard pressed to find a historian to appeal to on this matter.

                  >>>> how exactly did pressac claim the gas entered, I didn’t see any clarification of this on your rodoh thread.

                  Thru the so-called “peep hole” which the Americans smashed out of the wall within just days of arriving at Dachau—I think it was probably ripped out within 5 days of their arrival.

                  Pressac said it wasn’t a peep-hole anyway, just a tube for dropping in the test gases. It was stupidly low for a peep hole [waist height] and it pointed downwards!

                  >>>>> You did say his essay was “Unpublished”… it doesn’t exactly help if the access to his essay is limited. As well most people probably haven’t herd of it… Its no wonder people don’t cite his essay for dachau. Maybe you could create it so its open source.

                  Nah, copyright issues. But, yeah, it’s hard to obtain and it’s unlikely anyone not familiar with the quoted-interview would even know about it. It can be found in the big file on Barrack X in the museum archives. Any “historian” who wants to make claims about the GC has to visit and look through that file it if they want to be taken seriously.

                  >>>> “You have one press photo to back up that claim.”
                  >>>> There is more to it. The vent did become the route claim for a little while.

                  haha. Prove it.

                  Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 12, 2016 @ 12:17 am

                • You wrote: “Compare that to the *efforts* of two “historians” who claim that the GC was used: Harold Marcuse, who has written two, maybe three, whole if short paragraphs on gassings at Dachau.”

                  When I was creating my website, back in 1998, I relied heavily on Marcuse for help. At that time, there was a sign in the Dachau gas chamber saying that it was never used as a gas chamber. Marcuse agreed that this was correct.

                  Comment by furtherglory — July 12, 2016 @ 6:22 am

                • What made you go from questioning the holo to denial? Like I’ve said before,something happened and to what degree,I don’t know. I certainly wouldn’t go to the United Klans of America (KKK) for info on the holo. It would be one sided. I’m here because I get both sides. Both sides here are very passionate about this subject. Sometimes that could be a good thing,sometimes a bad thing. Either way,this is a useful site.

                  Comment by Tim — July 12, 2016 @ 7:17 am

                • You wrote: “What made you go from questioning the holo to denial?”

                  I lived in Germany for 2 years, after World War II was over. My husband was an officer in the American Army and we “lived on the economy” which meant that we lived upstairs in a German house while the landlord lived on the ground floor of the house. He could hear us talking upstairs, and when he heard us say something that was wrong, he could come bounding up the stairs and correct us. We soon learned that, in talking about anything in Germany, one had to be very precise. That is why I started questioning the gas chamber at Dachau.

                  Comment by furtherglory — July 12, 2016 @ 9:00 am

                • Y’all didn’t have base housing available. Wouldn’t that make intimacy a bit difficult if he could hear everything? I’m asking because years back I lived in a house,that had two basement apartments. The train track was about 50 yards from there. There was a couple that lived in one of the apartment below. The heating vents in the house where I lived were on the floor. For the basement apartments they were located at the top of their walls. The duct work was connected to all the vents. The couple that lived in the one basement apartment,his wife was a “screamer”. A train from BN Railroad could be passing by,if they were going at it,you’d hear her. That’s why when you mentioned y’all’s living arrangements there,I’d think it would be impossible to intimate if the landlord could hear everything

                  Comment by Tim — July 12, 2016 @ 2:25 pm

                • You wrote: “Blaha testified at the IMT causing an absolute sensation with his testimony that incriminated almost everyone in the dock.”

                  I wrote about Blaha on my website, back before I became a Holocaust denier.
                  http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MartinGottfriedWeiss.html

                  Comment by furtherglory — July 12, 2016 @ 6:30 am

                • FG wrote: “When I was creating my website, back in 1998, I relied heavily on Marcuse for help. At that time, there was a sign in the Dachau gas chamber saying that it was never used as a gas chamber. Marcuse agreed that this was correct.”

                  Not really.

                  As a post-grad student he just repeated then-standard claim that it had never been used, but did point out that Blaha had testified that it had been.

                  In his professional works—at least the ones I’m aware of—he has always maintained that the museum’s former position that GC ‘never worked’ [1960-.1970s], later amended to ‘worked fine but was never used’ [1970s – 2003], was incorrect, and claimed that it was used for experimental gassings with Zyklon B and possibly with combat gases as well.

                  See:

                  – His PhD thesis 1992, p.249.
                  – His article in Lessons and Legacies V.3, 1999, p.155
                  – His book Legacies of Dachau, 2001, p.254

                  Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 12, 2016 @ 8:32 am

            • Where also did you find pressacs essay on dachau? At an archive?

              I am curious to ask as I know of only 3 of his works. Technique and operation, His essay on leuchter, and The Crematoria of Auschwitz.

              Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 6:45 pm

              • Yes; he wrote a report on the Dachau GC and sent it to the Dachau museum.

                Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 11, 2016 @ 7:04 pm

                • Pressac, 2000 “interview” with Valerie Igounet

                  Si on a la curiosité de monter au grenier du crématoire, on peut y constater que l’ensemble de l’appareillage technique de la chambre à gaz fut posé et est pratiquement intact, exceptées quelques dégradations dues à la soldatesque américaine. Sur le caisson de la soufflerie est fixée une plaque de fabrication donnant les caractéristiques du ventilateur et son année de construction: 1944. Le gazage eut lieu entre janvier et fin mars 1944 et plus probablement à la mi-mars. Portant sur sept détenus, deux semblent en être morts. Le gaz utilisé était un vésicant, tel l’ypérite ou la Iéwisite, dont Rascher voulait étudier la diffusion à diverses températures.

                  Il s’agit donc d’une chambre à gaz médicale expérimentale, et rien d’autre, n’ayant servi qu’une fois. Le film d’horreur tourné par les Alliés sur les camps et projeté au Tribunal de Nuremberg ne montre qu’une seule chambre à gaz présentée comme homicide et fonctionnant au Zyklon-B, celle de Dachau, ce qui est doublement inexact. Alors que reste-t-il dans ce film, exactement, des accusations de gazages homicides massifs?

                  J’ai envoyé à la directrice du musée de Dachau un article d’une vingtaine de pages sur sa chambre à gaz dans lequel j’exposais plus longuement les documents, les faits et les raisons me conduisant à penser que cette chambre n’avait pas été prévue sur les plans initiaux du nouveau crématoire, qu’elle avait été aménagée dans la morgue de ce dernier fin 1943 – début 1944 sur ordre du Dr Rascher pour mener à bien une série d’expériences médicales sur la diffusion de gaz vésicants en fonction de la température. A ce jour, je n’ai reçu aucune réponse à ce texte. Aveuglement de l’acquis. Sans commentaire.

                  Again: Where did you read that the gas may have been inserted through the alleged peephole?

                  Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 11, 2016 @ 7:24 pm

                • Alright, thank you Rabbit. And I got it from some people on Codoh joking around about the pipe one can see inside the peep hole. It was most just bashing and saying that one day they will claim carbon monoxide went through it. I am not sure if the thread is still up. I went looking for it and had no such luck.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 7:37 pm

                • okay. I was interested as that’s what Pressac claimed. He didn’t think it was a peep-hole but a tube for inserting the gas [not ZB].

                  Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 11, 2016 @ 7:50 pm

                • “okay. I was interested as that’s what Pressac claimed. He didn’t think it was a peep-hole but a tube for inserting the gas [not ZB].”

                  I’m aware you already said it wasn’t zyklon. I will continue to look for it as that is quite interesting, If i find it I will let you know.

                  Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 11, 2016 @ 8:36 pm

    • Rasher’s letter is genuine;…

      It may be — I’m completely agnostic about it — but a simple question for you, if I may: how does a copy of the letter, obtained from whatever archive, attest to its authenticity? — was there some kind of attestation of authenticity available with the letter? — if so, what is the nature of that?

      How anyone is sure that Rascher was talking about that particular room in Barrack X is something of a mystery.

      A point worth making.

      I find your web site very interesting — thanks for your efforts there.

      Comment by eah — July 10, 2016 @ 1:59 pm

      • Thanks eah.

        As for why I think the Rascher’s letters genuine:

        The first person to mention this letter in a published book was a German historian Günther Kimmel in 1979; he saw the original letter in the Bundesarchiv in Berlin-Lichterfelde.

        As I mentioned, I found a microfilm copy of the letter in the NARA [Maryland]; this MF copy was made decades before Kimmel found the original. You see, the Americans hauled countless tons of documents back to the States, many of which were microfilmed and the originals were eventually returned to [West] Germany.

        So, if anyone’s claiming fraud, they’d have to accept that it was created soon after the war, it was placed among Himmler’s official and private correspondence with Mr & Mrs Rascher, but absolutely nothing was done with it; it was not among the large collections of Rascher documents submitted to either the American-run NMT Doctors or Gottfried Weiss [main Dachau] trial. What was the pointed in concocting the fraud when it was never used and just forgotten about? The letter would probably still be unknown if Kimmel hadn’t have found it.

        Secondly, Rascher’s letter is two pages long, the bit on the Dachau gas chamber is contained within a single paragraph, the rest of the letter is about several others matters altogether. Himmler’s PA Rudolf Brandt wrote a follow-up letter to Gottlob Berger in which he passes on relevant-to-Berger recommendations contained in those other paragraphs in Rascher’s letter. So, people claiming the Rascher’s letter is a fraud, would need to explain the resulting Brandt letter as well.

        Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — July 10, 2016 @ 7:41 pm

  4. The chief U.S. Army Department of Psychological Warfare officer who entered Dachau in advance of the 7th Army Thunderbird liberators was Capt.Alfred de Grazia. One of his websites: http://www.tasteofwar.grazian-archive.com/topic/index.html
    De Grazia remained a CIA psychological warfare consultant/author throughout his post-war academic and post-academic career. I bought his 507 page non-indexed A TASTE of WAR Soldiering in WWII assuming there would be an account of his time at Dachau since these are his war memoirs. I’m not naive enough to think he would reminisce about something so secret as the forging of the Dr. Sigmund Rasher letter to Himmler because Skye War, especially Syke War “black ops,” usually involves disinformation, obfuscation and lying. But I did expect to find SOME text to go along with of a photo of Alfred de Grazia posing infront of a pile of emaciated corpses at Dachau included in his book. Guess what, I couldn’t find a word in it about Dachau! How do you like that? What the heck do you suppose he did a Dachau besides assist George Stevens in retrofitting the shower room into a Hollywood version of a Nazi gas chamber for newsreels to show the folks back home. Huh? I’ll bet Capt. Alfred “my lips are sealed” de Grazia either forged the Dr. Rasher letter himself, or ordered some desperate schlub crawling with cooties who wrote better German than he did to do it.

    Comment by who dares wings — July 8, 2016 @ 10:44 pm

    • Doesn’t matter. Here I’ll use a similar slogan “No holes, No Holocaust”.

      No pipes, No Shower.

      Do you understand? These people are not writing for Holocaust Historians as the holocaust is a different event. The Lack of anyone mentioning their liberation doesn’t matter. A Liberation was a day in the life of the US Army. Most of the time it was COMBAT that soldiers were experiencing, so its no surprise they would write about it. Your making unclear assumptions and have no evidence to back it up. I see no evidence for your claim, just like Gasan’s claim “Stanley Rabin” created this letter.

      He was pull shit out from his ass and calling it fact. All I had to do was contact a friend to understand that his claim was incorrect.

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 10:59 pm

    • As well this is just one more photograph which clearly shows the exact wooden covering that I have been talking about for a while now. Its the exact thing which hides the bins.

      Also mind that this is also not his book. He may have something about Dachau…

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 11:03 pm

    • “I’ll bet Capt. Alfred “my lips are sealed” de Grazia either forged the Dr. Rasher letter himself, or ordered some desperate schlub crawling with cooties who wrote better German than he did to do it.”

      What a fascinating “guess.”

      Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 4:30 am

  5. You want to know name of the forger?
    Here you go:
    His name was Stanley Rabin and he was born in Vienna/Linz/Stuttgart as Srul Rabinowitsch. He has immigrated to the United States in 1938 with his family, but in 1945 he claimed that entire family just perished in “holocaust”
    Two of his grandchildren Ёж (hedgehog) and Jeff K. were diagnosed as having severe mental issues due to inherited Tay-Sachs syndrome.
    It was your grandpa!

    Comment by Gasan — July 8, 2016 @ 10:26 pm

    • “You want to know name of the forger?
      Here you go:
      His name was Stanley Rabin and he was born in Vienna/Linz/Stuttgart as Srul Rabinowitsch. He has immigrated to the United States in 1938 with his family, but in 1945 he claimed that entire family just perished in “holocaust”
      Two of his grandchildren Ёж (hedgehog) and Jeff K. were diagnosed as having severe mental issues due to inherited Tay-Sachs syndrome.
      It was your grandpa!”

      How cute, the widdle denier made a funny.

      It’s to cover up two things:

      1) He doesn’t have a name, therefore he is desperately trying to squeak and squirm his way out of admitting he’s a dumbass.
      2) His intense sadness that he was born too late to bask in Hitler’s chronic flatulence.

      How sad. Well, his hero managed to lose a world war and be the direct cause of German cities being flattened, Germany getting split in half and an iron curtain dropping down over Eastern Europe for a half century. Bravo. No wonder Hitler is so admired today.

      Comment by Jeff K. — July 8, 2016 @ 10:35 pm

      • I’m not sticking up for hitler or anything,but America was stupid enough to let Stalin take all that real estate. I’m guessing we did that,just to get Russia of our ass. You can’t tell me we actually thought the people in those other lands,would be better off answering to Moscow

        Comment by Tim — July 9, 2016 @ 1:37 pm

        • “I’m not sticking up for hitler or anything,but America was stupid enough to let Stalin take all that real estate. I’m guessing we did that,just to get Russia of our ass. You can’t tell me we actually thought the people in those other lands,would be better off answering to Moscow”

          It would have taken a war to drive the Red Army out of Eastern Europe, Tim. Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman couldn’t justify that, plus Churchill was no longer Prime Minister by July of 1945. Roosevelt was dead and Truman had the Pacific War to deal with.

          Could the West have bargained harder for Eastern Europe? Probably. But Roosevelt wanted Soviet participation in the war against Japan and he wanted Soviet cooperation with the United Nations. Roosevelt was willing, to a certain degree, to accommodate Soviet influence in Eastern Europe (as was Churchill).. I don’t think anyone considered an Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe for almost 50 years. Hindsight’s always 20/20.

          Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 1:49 pm

          • Yeah,but by the time the soviets entered against Japan,it was all over but the crying. The soviets really didn’t make that big of a contribution. If there was any reason we wanted them,is because we knew Japan would go down to the last man. Why should we have a high body count on our side. Let’s throw some dead ruskies in there. Everybody was finished with Japan,but Russia still wanted their own peace agreement. Russia just wanted more real estate. Truman already made his mind up to drop the bomb,before he was presented with the other plans for Japan . They imprisoned one of Gen. Dolittles B25 bomber crews,cause they had to land in Russia when their tanks ran dry. That should’ve told everyone,hurry up and get this relationship over with. I guess with Stalin,that should be referred to as,”our deal with the devil”.

            Comment by Tim — July 9, 2016 @ 3:17 pm

            • “Yeah,but by the time the soviets entered against Japan,it was all over but the crying. The soviets really didn’t make that big of a contribution. If there was any reason we wanted them,is because we knew Japan would go down to the last man. Why should we have a high body count on our side. Let’s throw some dead ruskies in there. Everybody was finished with Japan,but Russia still wanted their own peace agreement. Russia just wanted more real estate. Truman already made his mind up to drop the bomb,before he was presented with the other plans for Japan . They imprisoned one of Gen. Dolittles B25 bomber crews,cause they had to land in Russia when their tanks ran dry. That should’ve told everyone,hurry up and get this relationship over with. I guess with Stalin,that should be referred to as,”our deal with the devil”.”

              Roosevelt and Stalin agreed that the Soviets would enter the war against Japan before anyone knew the bomb would work. Roosevelt made concessions for the reasons you described above, no one wanted massive US or British casualties. Stalin took advantage of this to drive a hard bargain over Eastern Europe and Asia.

              Another factor is the US and British didn’t want Hitler and Stalin to conclude a separate peace agreement, leaving them to fight the Germans alone.

              Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 3:51 pm

    • Thanks for the story but sounds like complete bullshit. Maybe you could explain how he is the origin of the letter.

      As well there is no issue here at on our part. The issue is quite well your IQ of 85. As a German speaker your use of ß appears very far off… Considering it is double S.

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 10:47 pm

  6. Here is an example of ß = ss from the 1650’s

    “Essen with ſs-ligature reads Eßen (Latin Blaeu Atlas, set in Antiqua, 1650s)”

    “In the late 18th and early 19th century, when more and more German texts were printed in Roman type, typesetters looked for a Roman counterpart for the blackletter ſz ligature, which did not exist in Roman fonts. Printers experimented with various techniques, mostly replacing blackletter ß in Roman type with either sz, ss, ſs, or some combination of these. Although there are early examples in Roman type of a ſs-ligature that looks like the letter ß, it was not commonly used as Eszett.”

    Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 10:21 pm

  7. Two freaking idiots: “hedgehog” and Jeff K. are using Google Translator to teach me German and Russian (my native) languages.

    Я же тебе сказал, придурок: Пшёл нахер!

    Comment by Gasan — July 8, 2016 @ 9:17 pm

    • “Two freaking idiots: “hedgehog” and Jeff K. are using Google Translator to teach me German and Russian (my native) languages.

      Я же тебе сказал, придурок: Пшёл нахер!”

      Ok, this is entertaining, but you still haven’t given me a name of the forger.

      You don’t have a name, do you, denier?

      Just guesswork, typical denier bullshit. You can fool morons but when asked to provide actual evidence you fold.

      So, what was the name of the forger, Ivan?

      Comment by Jeff K. — July 8, 2016 @ 9:30 pm

    • Love how our friend here clearly is unable to read the word “Reply” but he can apparently speak both German and Russian fluently.

      I also love how he has ignored that this quite clearly shows the word in use as well.

      “Postcard Düsseldorf am Rhein, Urkunde, *Thu euch kund und zu wißen*, Betrunkene, Bier”

      http://www.akpool.co.uk/postcards/25120319-postcard-duesseldorf-am-rhein-urkunde-thu-euch-kund-und-zu-wissen-betrunkene-bier

      Tell me is my Translation correct?

      “Make known and to know”

      Cause its quite clearly another spelling of the word. Just as English has multiple forms of There.

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 9:40 pm

      • “Love how our friend here clearly is unable to read the word “Reply” but he can apparently speak both German and Russian fluently.”

        Hey, I pointed him in the direction of a good on-line course.

        Apparently he can’t answer my question.

        So, just like a typical denier, he ducks.

        Comment by Jeff K. — July 8, 2016 @ 9:47 pm

        • I think all debate over ß or “ss”. ends right here.

          “To the reader unfamiliar with German, the ß’s “s” origin may be obscure or nearly undetectable, particularly in the Sulzbacher Form. Long s itself was frequently confused with “f,” which led to its demise in English writing around 1800. Unlike German, ß per se has apparently never been used in English. *Rather, various other forms are seen for ss in pre-modern literature and handwriting. A double long-s [ſſ] is seen in places such as scans of the original Geneva Bible of 1560.* Scans of British census sheets of the 19th century may show a simple unligatured long-s short-s or something that looks to the modern eye as a long-ascendered p. Where the latter case is seen, the pre-modern English handwritten p differs from its ſs generally both by the p’s shorter ascender as well as the p’s bowl being drawn with a space left at the bottom versus the s of the ſs being drawn in more completely at the bottom.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F

          Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 10:02 pm

        • In basics ß = “ss”

          So much for a “Native” German speaker. e.e

          Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 10:03 pm

    • Perchance you speak Ukrainian too?

      Comment by Anonymous — July 9, 2016 @ 1:04 am

  8. My German was always good enough even for the Wehrmacht veteran Herb Stolpmann.
    So, here is some Russian for you:
    Пошли оба нахер, уёбки.

    Comment by Gasan — July 8, 2016 @ 8:42 pm

    • “My German was always good enough even for the Wehrmacht veteran Herb Stolpmann.
      So, here is some Russian for you:
      Пошли оба нахер, уёбки”

      So, I ran that through a translator, this is what it came back with:

      Come both of Najera , uёbki

      WTF is that supposed to mean?

      Are you illiterate in all languages?

      You also didn’t answer my question, dumbass.

      What was the name of the alleged German immigrant who forged the letter?

      Did you just make that up?

      By the way, I have nothing but respect for Mr. Stolpmann. I hope he is in good health.

      Comment by Jeff K. — July 8, 2016 @ 8:59 pm

  9. Your brain volume is even smaller than one of a normal hedgehog.
    This is the postcard written in one of the many dialects of German language.
    The letter from a doc to Reichsführer SS must be written in Mittel-Hoch-Deutsch.
    Understood?

    Comment by Gasan — July 8, 2016 @ 8:25 pm

    • “Your brain volume is even smaller than one of a normal hedgehog.
      This is the postcard written in one of the many dialects of German language.
      The letter from a doc to Reichsführer SS must be written in Mittel-Hoch-Deutsch.
      Understood?”

      Hhhhhhmmmmm. I smell denier bullshit.

      💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩💩

      See below:

      The verb wissen is a stem-changing verb. That is to say, the infinitive’s stem vowel i changes to ei in all the singular present tense forms (weiß), and to u in the past participle (gewusst). In many ways, as we said above, it behaves like a modal verb. Except for ihr wisst (formerly wißt), spelling reform has not affected wissen, so you should note that its singular forms are still spelled with an ess-zett (ß, except in Swiss German), while the plural forms use a double-s (ss).

      Again, it might be helpful to take a basic German class.

      Comment by Jeff K. — July 8, 2016 @ 8:29 pm

    • Gasan your German has proven faulty. Here is a perfect example of the word being used. You have blatantly ignored it.

      “Postcard Düsseldorf am Rhein, Urkunde, Thu euch kund und zu *wißen*, Betrunkene, Bier”

      http://www.akpool.co.uk/postcards/25120319-postcard-duesseldorf-am-rhein-urkunde-thu-euch-kund-und-zu-wissen-betrunkene-bier

      If anyone takes the time to do a google search they will also see that Wißen is a version of Wissen.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=wi%C3%9Fen+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=wi%C3%9Fen+translation

      This has just proven to be more faulty reasoning by deniers and it is not evidence of anything.

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 8:39 pm

  10. Ёж (hedgehog) and Jeff K.

    Your opinions do not matter. The letter is a fake.
    I have exposed this as a fake five and a half years ago.

    https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/the-letter-from-dr-sigmund-rascher-to-himmler-which-proves-that-a-gas-chamber-was-built-at-dachau/#comments

    Comment by Gasan — July 8, 2016 @ 7:49 pm

    • You haven’t exposed anything… And the arguments presented are not opinions. They are rests for evidence. As well you have been easily proven wrong by a simple google search.

      Here is even an article saying wißen in a similar sense to the letter.

      “Postcard Düsseldorf am Rhein, Urkunde, Thu euch kund und zu wißen, Betrunkene, Bier”

      http://www.akpool.co.uk/postcards/25120319-postcard-duesseldorf-am-rhein-urkunde-thu-euch-kund-und-zu-wissen-betrunkene-bier

      Also why in the hell are you translating through 3 languages?

      “The Japanese-German dictionary”

      Of course your going to run into issues! Haven’t you ever herd of bad translator? It is a great demonstration.

      As for KL there is such things as a TYPO.

      So far no real issues have been presented.

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 8:02 pm

      • *They are requests for evidence.

        Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 8:03 pm

    • “Ёж (hedgehog) and Jeff K.

      Your opinions do not matter. The letter is a fake.
      I have exposed this as a fake five and a half years ago.”

      I see.
      Based upon what, your inability to look up basic German on-line?

      Oh, Gasan, you didn’t answer my question:
      What is the name of the alleged Jewish immigrant that supposedly forged the letter?

      Tick, tock, denier.

      Comment by Jeff K. — July 8, 2016 @ 8:25 pm

  11. The letter of Sigmund Rascher is a fake made by a jewish immigrant, who forgot how to spell words in German.
    The third word has grave orthographic error.

    “Wie Sie wißen…”

    The German word “wissen” (to know) is/was never written with “ß” also know as “Eszett”.
    One should assume that Dr. Rascher had had greater command in German and would not to send a letter to Reichsführer SS with gross misspelling.

    Copy of the letter:

    https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Dr.-Sigmund-Rascher-Letter//1

    Comment by Gasan — July 8, 2016 @ 5:56 pm

    • “The letter of Sigmund Rascher is a fake made by a jewish immigrant, who forgot how to spell words in German.
      The third word has grave orthographic error.”

      What is the name of this immigrant?

      Comment by Jeff K. — July 8, 2016 @ 6:03 pm

    • What evidence is there for this claim Gasan?

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 6:03 pm

    • e.e

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 6:09 pm

    • Here is another example of where wissen is spelled with a ß….. Do I need to go on?

      “Postcard Düsseldorf am Rhein, Urkunde, Thu euch kund und zu wißen, Betrunkene, Bier”

      http://www.akpool.co.uk/postcards/25120319-postcard-duesseldorf-am-rhein-urkunde-thu-euch-kund-und-zu-wissen-betrunkene-bier

      Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 6:15 pm

      • Okay. I’m lost once again. Why are we covering spelling here? There’s so much shit being thrown around here,I’m not sure which direction to go in

        Comment by Tim — July 9, 2016 @ 8:18 am

        • He was trying to claim that a German letter some how changed the word. It ends up that it’s just an older way for writing “ss” in German.

          Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 9, 2016 @ 4:30 pm

    • Um, excuse me, Gasan?

      The verb wissen is a stem-changing verb. That is to say, the infinitive’s stem vowel i changes to ei in all the singular present tense forms (weiß), and to u in the past participle (gewusst). In many ways, as we said above, it behaves like a modal verb. Except for ihr wisst (formerly wißt), spelling reform has not affected wissen, so you should note that its singular forms are still spelled with an ess-zett (ß, except in Swiss German), while the plural forms use a double-s (ss).

      Nice try. So much for denier bullshit.

      Comment by Jeff K. — July 8, 2016 @ 6:50 pm

      • spelling reform has not affected wissen

        If that is so — and it is, as Gasan points out (The German word “wissen” (to know) is/was never written with “ß” also know as “Eszett”.) — then why was it written as “wißen” in the Rascher letter? — it is certainly true that the only correct spelling today is wissen — it was also the correct spelling in the past — yet “wißen” appears in the Rascher letter — which was (allegedly) written by a well-educated man.

        Comment by eah — July 10, 2016 @ 2:08 pm

        • “If that is so — and it is, as Gasan points out (The German word “wissen” (to know) is/was never written with “ß” also know as “Eszett”.) — then why was it written as “wißen” in the Rascher letter? — it is certainly true that the only correct spelling today is wissen — it was also the correct spelling in the past — yet “wißen” appears in the Rascher letter — which was (allegedly) written by a well-educated man.”

          Click and I have gone over this repeatedly.

          Comment by Jeff K. — July 10, 2016 @ 2:23 pm

    • Hey, Gasan?

      Maybe this will help:

      http://german.about.com/library/blwissen.htm

      Apparently it’s German for beginners.

      Comment by Jeff K. — July 8, 2016 @ 7:02 pm

  12. What is “combat gas”? I’m guessing it’s not zyklon. I’m guessing Germany learned from ww1,that if you use gas and the wind turns back on your direction, you just f–ked yourself. So I’m guessing this was a tear gas of sorts.

    Comment by Tim — July 8, 2016 @ 4:37 pm

    • Yes – what are “combat gases”? I suspect we are not going to get any coherent technical definition of these substances – that’s if they even existed!

      But it is certainly a strangely worded letter that Dr Rascher sent to Himmler. It is rather familiar and colloquial in tone and style for a very serious communication sent from a doctor working in a concentration camp to the Reichsfuehrer SS.

      Let us read it through;- ” As you know, the same installation as in Linz is to be built in Dachau. As the ‘invalid transports’ terminate in the special chambers anyway I wondered if it would be possible to test the effects of our combat gases in these chambers [in Dachau] using the persons who are destined for those chambers anyway. The only reports which are available so far are for experiments on animals or of accidents in the manufacture of these gases.”

      He starts off his letter with the words “As you know”. He then says “as in Linz”, instead of specifying Hartheim – which is the facility that he is actually referring to. His second sentence also starts with the word “As” ( which is grammatically poor for a person who is supposed to be educated enough to hold a professional position. Dr Rascher then goes on to use the word “anyway” twice in the same sentence, and talks about reports that are available “so far”.

      I’m not convinced that this is a genuine letter at all. Both Himmler, and Dr Rascher both conveniently died in mysterious circumstances at the end of the war, and thus could not be questioned about its veracity and content.

      Comment by Talbot — July 8, 2016 @ 8:18 pm

      • Dr Rasher’s letter was probably composed in English by a not very intelligent Allied Intelligence officer and then translated into German. A captured German typewriter was then obtained quite readily, whereupon an obedient monkey of one sort-or-another was ordered to sit down at the keyboard and bash out the words that were written in front of him.

        After the words had been typed, then an official-looking stamp was obtained from one of the former SS offices and attached to the letter in order to make it look like an authentic document.

        The letter was then produced solemnly into the public domain at a staged tribunal – where, of course, it was accepted as genuine proof of Nazi intent to carry out experimental gassings.

        But today – 71 years later – most people are beginning to “wise-up” to all the shenanigans and fakery that the Allies and the Soviets were able to pull back in those early post-war years. Thus, the entire crumbling holocaust edifice has to be defended stalwartly by desperate “believers” who are becoming ever more hysterical and shrill in their futile endeavours to convince the public that these events actually took place.

        Comment by Talbot — July 9, 2016 @ 7:16 am

        • “Dr Rasher’s letter was probably composed in English by a not very intelligent Allied Intelligence officer and then translated into German. A captured German typewriter was then obtained quite readily, whereupon an obedient monkey of one sort-or-another was ordered to sit down at the keyboard and bash out the words that were written in front of him.”

          A Talbot guess!!!!!!!!!
          So, how should we take it?
          Not seriously because he has no proof.

          “After the words had been typed, then an official-looking stamp was obtained from one of the former SS offices and attached to the letter in order to make it look like an authentic document.”

          I know I’m wasting my time here, you only enjoy throwing out wild accusations and guesses, but, do you have any proof?

          “The letter was then produced solemnly into the public domain at a staged tribunal – where, of course, it was accepted as genuine proof of Nazi intent to carry out experimental gassings.”

          Of course, Talbot.
          Proof (a vain hope, I realize)?

          “But today – 71 years later – most people”

          So far I count about 10-12 deniers that post to this blog, I’m afraid that isn’t “most. However, you are entitled to your delusions.

          “are beginning to “wise-up” to all the shenanigans and fakery that the Allies and the Soviets were able to pull back in those early post-war years. Thus, the entire crumbling holocaust edifice has to be defended stalwartly by desperate “believers” who are becoming ever more hysterical and shrill in their futile endeavours to convince the public that these events actually took place.”

          I really wouldn’t tangle with the wabbit on this one, Talbot. Though a denier I give him a great deal of credit where it comes to his skills as a researcher. If he is satisfied that the letter is genuine, along with his evidence about the room, I’m inclined to believe him. You should as well.
          To be honest, I go back to my original premise. I don’t understand what the fuss is about. Everything I’ve read about this room (and there isn’t much) leads me to believe that if the room was actually used as a gas chamber it was used on a very limited basis. Frankly, utilizing the room for a single person or a small group of people isn’t very efficient, you could shoot them without resorting to all of the nonsense about taking a shower.

          Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 7:57 am

          • Actually, Jeff, you may well be right in saying “I don’t know what the fuss is all about” whether the room was being used for limited gassings of individuals or small groups. After all, several states within the USA deployed gassing as a means of executing people convicted of criminal activities, and nobody in America seems to have any qualms about it at all – so why is everyone squawking that the wicked Nazis may well have been doing the same thing at Dachau to their own convicted criminals. ( not that I believe they were, by the way ).

            Comment by Talbot — July 9, 2016 @ 8:10 am

            • “Actually, Jeff, you may well be right in saying “I don’t know what the fuss is all about” whether the room was being used for limited gassings of individuals or small groups. After all, several states within the USA deployed gassing as a means of executing people convicted of criminal activities, and nobody in America seems to have any qualms about it at all – so why is everyone squawking that the wicked Nazis may well have been doing the same thing at Dachau to their own convicted criminals. ( not that I believe they were, by the way)”

              Again, it’s rather surprising when you display your ignorance of concentration camps, Talbot.

              Generally it didn’t take a conviction for someone to be sent to a concentration camp (though convicts did wind up there). The original inhabitants of Dachau were not convicted of anything, they were the perceived “enemies of the state,” Communists, Socialists, anyone else the Nazis considered a threat or someone who crossed the Nazis in the past. There were no trials, just arrests followed by incarceration.
              This pattern continued through the 1930’s. The net widened to sweep in the “work shy,” criminals convicted of past offenses but not currently guilty of anything, homosexuals, etc. There were no trials, just police sweeps and incarcerations. Those actually arrested and put on trial went to prisons, not concentration camps (though the convicted could get sent to a concentration camp after serving their sentence and vice versa).
              Generally during the 1930’s the sentences were shorter and most prisoners of concentration camps were released after six months or a year. The terms did lengthen as time wore on and those on their second incarceration served longer. There were very few Jews in these camps to start with, most of the Jews in the camps were political prisoners of some sort (Socialist or Communists) but their being Jewish guarranteed harsher treatment.
              The mass incarcerations of Jews after Kristilnacht certainly did not occur after any sort of trial but even most of those Jews were released after a relatively short stay as long as they agreed to emigrate and turn over their businesses.
              After the takeover of Austria and Czechoslovakia foreigners perceived as threats were also incarcerated (with no trial), the same happened in Poland after Germany conquered the country. The Germans set up camps in Poland for these Polish prisoners, again without trial. The same continued throughout the war, with foreign workers and POWs tossed into the mix.
              So, you see Talbot, you are incorrect in your belief that any sort of “trial” was involved. Non-Jews gassed at any camps were generally murdered because they couldn’t work anymore, or because they were considered threats, not because they were convicted of any crimes.

              I hope that helps….and inspires you to do some actual research on your own.

              Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 8:43 am

              • Thanks for telling me stuff that I already know, Jeff. I have done some research into Dachau, and have actually visited the place. But Dachau is only indirectly related to the “holocaust” legend – which is the main event that I am interested in exposing as a fraud.

                Comment by Talbot — July 9, 2016 @ 8:54 am

                • “Thanks for telling me stuff that I already know, Jeff.”

                  Really? Because you made a mistake in thinking people executed there were actually convicted of something. I hoped to correct your error.

                  “I have done some research into Dachau, and have actually visited the place.”

                  Good for you!!!! I hope to go myself one day.

                  “But Dachau is only indirectly related to the “holocaust”

                  I took out the “legend” part, it isn’t correct.
                  You are right, Dachau is only indirectly related to the Holocaust.

                  “which is the main event that I am interested in exposing as a fraud.”

                  Just a suggestion, you may want to focus on trying to find the Jews you say weren’t killed. That would actually be helpful. Otherwise you are spinning your wheels.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 9:05 am

              • You wrote: “The original inhabitants of Dachau were not convicted of anything, they were the perceived “enemies of the state,” Communists, Socialists, anyone else the Nazis considered a threat or someone who crossed the Nazis in the past. There were no trials, just arrests followed by incarceration.”

                The Dachau concentration camp was opened on March 22, 1933 in a former gun powder factory. The first prisoners were 200 members of the Communist and Social Democrats political parties who were arrested after the Reischstag (German Congressional building) was deliberately set on fire on the night of February 27, 1933. Some of the first prisoners were members of the Congress, who were suspected of plotting to overthrow Hitler who had just taken office as the German
                Chancellor on January 30, 1933. They were at first held in Landsberg prison which was the same prison where Hitler served time after his attempt to take over the government on November 9, 1923.

                Comment by furtherglory — July 9, 2016 @ 8:56 am

                • “The Dachau concentration camp was opened on March 22, 1933 in a former gun powder factory. The first prisoners were 200 members of the Communist and Social Democrats political parties who were arrested after the Reischstag (German Congressional building) was deliberately set on fire on the night of February 27, 1933. Some of the first prisoners were members of the Congress, who were suspected of plotting to overthrow Hitler who had just taken office as the German
                  Chancellor on January 30, 1933. They were at first held in Landsberg prison which was the same prison where Hitler served time after his attempt to take over the government on November 9, 1923.”

                  There was some justification for what the Nazis did, at least regarding the Communists. The Nazi Government was on shaky ground to start with, they were understandably paranoid over the possibility of a violent Communist attempt to take over the government. The concentration camps were on shaky ground themselves, members of the Justice Ministry and the party itself were against the continuation of the camps once things stabilized. However, Hitler wanted them and made them permanent.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 9:12 am

                • Okay. If they were killing enemies of the state,how is any different than the shit Stalin or Castro pulled? They’re world famous for that shit. So,the nazis killed enemies of the state. They ain’t doing anything any different that other countries haven’t done

                  Comment by Tim — July 9, 2016 @ 9:47 am

                • “Okay. If they were killing enemies of the state,how is any different than the shit Stalin or Castro pulled? They’re world famous for that shit. So,the nazis killed enemies of the state. They ain’t doing anything any different that other countries haven’t done”

                  Stalin and Castro killed their own. The same applies to Pol Pot or Mao.
                  Communism historically has been more lethal to its own, not outsiders. It’s the paradox of Communism. In their attempts to create a “classless society” Communist Parties ruthlessly exterminate anyone in their own countries that don’t conform to their ideal.
                  National Socialism only became lethal when it stepped beyond its borders. The reality is that the Nazis in Germany never purged its society like the Soviets did. Only when Germany militarily conquered Poland did it become genocidal, the T-4 Program became widespread after war started, the German Army and SS committed wide scale atrocities in Poland, including the destruction of the Polish elite.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 10:13 am

                • You wrote: “Only when Germany militarily conquered Poland did it become genocidal, the T-4 Program became widespread after war started, the German Army and SS committed wide scale atrocities in Poland, including the destruction of the Polish elite.”

                  I wrote about the T4 program on my website at
                  http://www.scrapbookpages.com/AuschwitzScrapbook/History/Articles/MonowitzGasChamber.html

                  The web page, cited above, is kosher, written before I became a denier.

                  Comment by furtherglory — July 9, 2016 @ 11:17 am

                • I’m not sure which you are referring to. Pol Pot may very well killed his own,but he killed a shitload that weren’t . Hanoi couldn’t stand them. They were the original people. The Vietnamese and Cambodians invaded around the 9th or 10th century and forced the Yards into the Highlands. Pol Pot was given blessings by Hanoi to dispose of the Yards. Cops in Thailand were given a bounty for each Yard they killed (a lot of the Yards fled to Thailand. Outta the frying pan and into the fire in that one). These were solid,loyal people. We had a couple go on long range with us a few times. There’d be more names on The Wall in D C if it wasn’t for these men. However,we fucked em when we left the party in ’75. To Damned concerned with the South Vietnamese ( which most were cut throat,back stabbers). We finally started doing right by the Yards in the Clinton administration . I think it’s the guys at 5th Special Forces that got the ball rolling. The Yards were the best asset those guys had. Clinton cleared the way to start bringing some of them over. Need another example? I’ve got a guy who works for me. He’s a 100% Mayan. He’s from Guatemala . Seems the asshole running the show in Guatemala,hates Mayans. So around the mid to late 80’s,he starts rounding them up and taking them out. The Mayans were the original people of Gautemala . If you wanna get down to brass tacks,you can say Castro was killing people other than his own. Africans. African slaves were bought into Cuba ( that’s rarely mentioned in history,because they have to much fun laying that burden on the white man). They’ve mixed in with the population. The ones that didn’t agree with Castro,found themselves on the beach at sun up. The ironic part,a lot of Cubans are racist as hell. Now Che was born in Bolivia,but he identified himself as a Cuban. Pick up the “motorcycle diaries”. He’s giving out his racist views. Leaders of other countries kill plenty of other people besides their own

                  Comment by Tim — July 9, 2016 @ 1:27 pm

                • “I’m not sure which you are referring to. Pol Pot may very well killed his own,but he killed a shitload that weren’t . Hanoi couldn’t stand them. They were the original people. The Vietnamese and Cambodians invaded around the 9th or 10th century and forced the Yards into the Highlands. Pol Pot was given blessings by Hanoi to dispose of the Yards. Cops in Thailand were given a bounty for each Yard they killed (a lot of the Yards fled to Thailand. Outta the frying pan and into the fire in that one). These were solid,loyal people. We had a couple go on long range with us a few times. There’d be more names on The Wall in D C if it wasn’t for these men. However,we fucked em when we left the party in ’75. To Damned concerned with the South Vietnamese ( which most were cut throat,back stabbers). We finally started doing right by the Yards in the Clinton administration . I think it’s the guys at 5th Special Forces that got the ball rolling. The Yards were the best asset those guys had. Clinton cleared the way to start bringing some of them over. Need another example? I’ve got a guy who works for me. He’s a 100% Mayan. He’s from Guatemala . Seems the asshole running the show in Guatemala,hates Mayans. So around the mid to late 80’s,he starts rounding them up and taking them out. The Mayans were the original people of Gautemala . If you wanna get down to brass tacks,you can say Castro was killing people other than his own. Africans. African slaves were bought into Cuba ( that’s rarely mentioned in history,because they have to much fun laying that burden on the white man). They’ve mixed in with the population. The ones that didn’t agree with Castro,found themselves on the beach at sun up. The ironic part,a lot of Cubans are racist as hell. Now Che was born in Bolivia,but he identified himself as a Cuban. Pick up the “motorcycle diaries”. He’s giving out his racist views. Leaders of other countries kill plenty of other people besides their own”

                  Tim, look up the following:
                  The Holdomor
                  The Great Purges
                  The Cultural Revolution
                  The Great Leap Forward
                  The Killing Fields

                  Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 1:52 pm

                • No. You wrote Stalin and Pol Pot killed their “own”. I can’t find the page with the comment on it,but you made it sound like they only killed their own. I know what the killing fields are. First time I heard about it on the news. It was just another thing that made me question ,”what difference did I make when I was in country”. I thought shit was hittin the fan when I was there. In the end the only accomplishment any of us had,was getting each other out of that cesspool alive and back home. Like I’ve heard people say,”it was a used war”.

                  Comment by Tm — July 9, 2016 @ 3:24 pm

                • “No. You wrote Stalin and Pol Pot killed their “own”. I can’t find the page with the comment on it,but you made it sound like they only killed their own.”

                  OK, my mistake. Let me see if I can be clearer.

                  Before the war in Nazi Germany, the Nazi Government executed or otherwise put to death about 10,000 people. I’m getting this from Timothy Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Stalin and Hitler. This number includes those legally put to death, those that died as result of incarceration in a concentration camp, those that died as a result of political violence (The Night of the Long Knives, Kristilnacht) or those that died as a result of street fighting. Now, that seems like a lot, but really, that’s nothing compared to what Stalin did. Most ordinary Germans did not suffer.

                  Now, contrast that with what Stalin did. From 1931-1933 around 7 million Soviet citizens died as a result of forced collectivization and the suppression of the “Kulaks,” or richer peasants. Out of that number perhaps 3 million Ukrainians died during the Holdomor, the artificial famine created when Stalin ordered the forced seizure of grain, even seed grain, from the Ukrainian peasants to force them to submit.
                  Then, you have the Great Purges. Most people think that this purged the old Soviet guard and the military, the reality is this also swept up the ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union. This included the Poles, the Jews, the Ukrainians, some of the Ethnic Germans, Koreans, Mongols and Japanese minorities living in the Soviet Union. Up to 1 million people died, though I’ve seen lower numbers, 500,000-750,000.
                  Mao? The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution killed up to 20,000,000 Chinese.
                  Pol Pot? Out of a country of 12,000,000 Cambodians and other minorities it’s possible that 3-4 million native Cambodians and other minorities died in Cambodia.

                  Nothing like that happened in Nazi Germany. There were two major “purges,” the Night of the Long Knives” and “Kristilnacht.” Maybe 200 total died.

                  Contrast that with what happened when Nazi Germany spilled over its border. Up to 3 million non-Jewish Poles died, 5-6 million Jews, over 3 million Soviet POWs and over 20,000,000 Soviet citizens died as a result of the war.

                  That is what I meant, Tim. In order to build “classless societies” the Communists often decimated their own countries. Nazi Germany did nothing comparable in Germany, the highest death tolls occurred when they invaded other countries.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — July 9, 2016 @ 4:25 pm

                • I heard something that while Stalin was going apeshit bumping everyone off,he f–ked himself. He killed a lot of military leaders that he needed to fight a war

                  Comment by Tim — July 10, 2016 @ 10:51 am

                • “I heard something that while Stalin was going apeshit bumping everyone off,he f–ked himself. He killed a lot of military leaders that he needed to fight a war”

                  This is true. During the Winter War with Finland the Finns held off a superior Soviet force for months until the Soviets overwhelmed them.

                  This, of course, makes the whole idea of the Soviets attacking Germany in 1941 ridiculous. If the Finns could hold off the Red Army, what do you think would have happened if the Soviets attacked the well-armed, experienced German army of 1941?

                  The fact that in the Summer of 1941 the Germans defeated the Red Army wherever it found it, even outnumbered, speaks for itself.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — July 10, 2016 @ 10:57 am

        • You wrote: “Dr Rasher’s letter was probably composed in English by a not very intelligent Allied Intelligence officer and then translated into German. A captured German typewriter was then obtained quite readily, whereupon an obedient monkey of one sort-or-another was ordered to sit down at the keyboard and bash out the words that were written in front of him.”

          I have the text of the letter on this page of my website:
          http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/letter.html

          Comment by furtherglory — July 9, 2016 @ 8:05 am

  13. She makes a new one for every bit of evidence that Click seems to bring… Just take this into consideration and shit about it.

    Comment by Lóegaire — July 8, 2016 @ 4:07 pm

    • *Think about it.

      Alright Jeff?

      Comment by Lóegaire — July 8, 2016 @ 4:09 pm

  14. I’m not sure why you keep posting about the Dachau gas chamber, FG.
    Really, even if it was used it was only used on a limited basis.

    Comment by Jeff K. — July 8, 2016 @ 3:58 pm

  15. Why you would post this… I don’t know… It clearly doesn’t help your case.

    Comment by Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Click Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ — July 8, 2016 @ 3:27 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: