Talk:Gas chamber/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Citation

"More notoriously, it was used in the Nazi Third Reich during the 1930s a part of a public euthanasia program..." -- This is new to me. Not doubting you but do you have a cite on this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.239.87 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 1 November 2002

The cite on my desk right now is Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, by Yitzhak Arad, who describes the development of the Operation Reinhard death camps. There are several books about the euthanasia program, which I have at work, but I don't have a primary citation off the top of my head. To quote Arad on page 9: "The first time gas had been used in Nazi Germany for murdering people was for the 'euthanasia program.' Over seventy thousand mentally or otherwise hopelessly ill Germans--not Jews--were killed between September 1939 and late summer 1941." He cites Nationalsozialistische Masentötengen durch Giftgas, Frankfurt-A.M., 1983, p. 62. Danny—Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 1 November 2002.

Okay, thanks.:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.165.239.87 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 1 November 2002

More on citations

Moved some controversial statements here until we can get some citations. They are as follows:

The culprit can see the poison and is advised to hold the breath as long as possible for the next breath is going to bring death.

Some argue that they in fact knew, but still submissively went to meet their fate rather than to confront the armed guards who they vastly outnumbered in proportions 1:100 or more. The helpers in the technical matters of execution were fellow Jews whose lives were spared. These facts are cause of a lot of controversy and shame among Jews.

Is this info true, or revisionist history? Whatever the case, it needs to be rewritten before it's included in the entry. -- StormWriter—Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 1 November 2002.

This is outrageous! You cannot deny the facts by erasing them repeatedly, check

http://www.hagalil.com/shoah/holocaust/greif-0.htm if you dont believe. Instead of erasing you could rewrite it if you suggest it should be done!!

Nig —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niger (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 November 2002

Niger, I am denying nothing, nor am I erasing these items; you might notice that these statements, which many (even non-Jews) would consider provocative at best, have been moved here, to the talk page. I appreciate your citation, but I'm wondering if it's definitive. Does anyone have a constructive comment? StormWriter—Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 1 November 2002.

A thought: Niger, why don't you create a page about the Sonderkommandos? Since this page is about the gas chamber, I'm not sure an in-depth discussion of the Sonderkommandos belongs here. Again, I don't mean this as a form of censorship; the subject's just a bit off-topic for this page. StormWriter—Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 1 November 2002.

OK, I can see that some folks want this information to be included. That being the case, I'm going to rewrite it and tone down the language. I still want a higher authority to decide whether it fits here or not. Stormwriter—Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 1 November 2002.

By the way, why would the executed person be told to hold their breath as long as possible? To put on a show for the viewers, or what? Isn't the whole point just to get them killed ASAP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormwrite (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 November 2002

(Did someone call for a sysop? I'm one of several. --Ed Poor)—Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 1 November 2002.

That was me. Any comments? Stormwriter—Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 1 November 2002.

Comments? No: you haven't said anything to reply to :-) I did take the liberty of making some changes to the article. I added "death follows quickly", divided capital punishment from genocide, and marked the controversy section. Any comments? ;-) --Ed Poor—Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 1 November 2002.

Actually, I was hoping you could resolve the issue of whether or not the "Controversy" section really belongs here. Perhaps it should be moved to a new page about the Sonderkommandos? Stormwriter—Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 1 November 2002.

Why not write a separate, short article about this controversy? I have repeatedly come across this point when reading about the holocaust. Why didn't the Jews resist? (Maybe the "non-resistance" thing is fuel for holocaust-denial arguments.) Anyway, the 2 positions seem to be Those stupid Jews should have resisted more and How can unarmed civilians resist an army? Care to take a crack at it? --Ed Poor—Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 1 November 2002.

I'll certainly consider it, though I'm not well-versed about the Holocaust in particular (I just have lots of useless trivia floating around in my head). I am, however, a great researcher! :D Stormwriter—Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 1 November 2002.

Blaming the victims

These sorts of comments have always seemed to me to be blaming the victims, as if other people in the same position (such as the writers of these comments?) would have somehow overwhelmed their armed guards and escaped. Anyone who thinks that terrorised, starved, unarmed people can overcome armed guards... should be invited to try it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.134 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 1 November 2002

There's a case on record of a GI who captured an entire battalion of enemy soldiers in WWII, armed with only a machine gun. He spoke German, ordered them to form ranks, and marched them all back to friendly lines. And these guys were in good shape, disciplined, etc. But he had the drop on them. --Ed Poor—Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 1 November 2002.

Precisely. And that's what makes the remarks so insidious, with their suggestion that the death camp victims were somehow cowards (with the unsaid implication that they therefore deserved their deaths).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.134 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 November 2002

Actually, there were Sonderkommandos, they did not participate in the killing (though they did accompany the victims to the gas chambers--killing was reserved for the guards), and their primary responsibility was disposing of the corpses. They were forced into the position, but accepted it because it meant a few more months of life. After their terms, each group of Sonderkommandos was killed. They also led the revolts in Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz. Finally, a small handful survived. For a personal account of a Sonderkommando, read Eyewitness Auschwitz by Filip Müller. Danny—Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 1 November 2002.

PS.: The article quoted by Niger above, while interesting, is also a questionable source. It claims that 3 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz, when the actual number is closer to 1.2 - 1.5 million. Danny—Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 1 November 2002.

Cruelty issue

Stormwriter summarized: Changed "not pretty" to "unpleasant" in an attempt to maintain NPOV. Need a stronger but non-loaded term!

Maybe we have to mention that opponents of capital punishment regard the gas chamber as cruel. The US Constitution specifically bans "cruel and unusual punishment". --Ed Poor—Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 1 November 2002.

Very true, and in the eyes of some individuals, all death penalties are cruel and unusual. Don't know if it should appear here, though. While I can understand this viewpoint, I also believe that capital punishment is justified in many cases. Obviously electrocution, beheading, hanging, the gas chamber, and the like are not pleasant for the condemned criminal, and in many cases may deserve the term "cruel and unusual", it was only relatively recently that effective lethal injection methods were developed. It's my contention that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended this stricture to cover torture and means of execution that were unnecessarily painful, extravagant, and undignified, such as "inching" and quartering. But then, we've been arguing about what the Constitution means for over 200 years. Stormwriter—Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 1 November 2002.

Comments removed

213.253.40.134 removed some remarks that were sidetracking this discussion.

Thanks, .134 --Ed Poor—Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 1 November 2002.

Sorry, guess I left my NSOH (neutral sense of humor) home today. Stormwriter—Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 1 November 2002.

A few minutes longer

"A few minutes longer" is inaccurate. It was actually a couple of months. With the Russians beating back the Germans on the front, that was a serious matter of life and death. Sonderkommandos also led the death camp revolts, so the rest of the statement is inaccurate too. You might want to see the new movie The Gray Zone for a fictionalized account of one such revolt. Finally, surviving Sonderkommandos report various motives: pure survival instincts, a desire to tell the world, a desire to revolt, and more. Obviously, it is almost impossible to assess what really went through people's minds at the time and under the circumstances. Still, it's easy to be a hero from the distance of history. Danny—Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 1 November 2002.

Consider what the phrase under duress means. If someone is faced with a choice of (A) signing a contract or (B) being murdered on the spot, and he signs it -- then is the contract valid? Not where I live. This leads into several larger ethical issues... --Ed Poor—Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 1 November 2002.

Deleted text

I've deleted the remarks about the homosexuals and Jehova's witnesses, since these people weren't gassed, they were put into concentration camps and put to death by labor, or by shooting them, etc. Added the mentally ill, since these people actually were gassed in huge numbers. --Korpo—Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 18 May 2003 .

Something I wanted to clarify about my last edit:

I simply had a problem with the original post since it wasn't accurate. Gas chambers were specifically built for exterminating the groups mentioned in my edit. Jehova's witnesses and homosexuals were put into concentration camps, and surely mistreated beyond any measure conceivable to us. The fact remains though, that they presented a normal, and small portion, of those prisoner populations, and were not treated different than the rest of the prisoners. Jews, Sinti and Roma were people the Nazis specifically targetted for extermination as a people. Later on there wasn't even imprisonment for these people, they were simply transported to the death camps.

A Jehova's witness could have saved its life by denouncing its community's faith and agreeing to be drafted to the Wehrmacht, a choice Jews didn't have. But this isn't my point and I'm not suggesting they should have done that.

But the fact I want simply to put out by my edit, is:

I've read about the Holocaust and the Euthanasia operation, I've read about the concentration and death camps, and the SS, Gestapo and SD "security" apparatus, but I didn't read about Homosexuals or Jehova's witnesses being specifically targetted for extermination by gas as distinct groups, maybe still as a part of the prisoner population, but not specifically.

As a reference I want to suggest Eugen Kogons "The SS state" or the books of Raul Hilberg.

--Korpo—Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 20 May 2003.

Resistance?

As to the Some argue that they in fact knew, but still submissively went to meet their fate rather than to confront the armed guards who they vastly outnumbered in proportions 1:100 or more. The helpers in the technical matters of execution were fellow Jews whose lives were spared. These facts are cause of a lot of controversy and shame among Jews. statement: this is partially true. Contrary to the western societies who (despite constant reports from the Polish and Czechoslovak underground) learnt of the genocide only after the war, most Poles knew what the concentration camps are. Thanks to countless people like Witold Pilecki who voluntarily went to Auschwitz and then escaped to tell the tale, the Polish society was quite well informed of the gas chambers. There are countless reports of people who were surprised that the showers they were rushed in were actually showers since they believed that they will be killed on the spot.

Perhaps it wasn't true for many Jews who were transported to the death camps from the West, but note that most of people killed in concentration camps were Poles and knew perfectly well what is going to happen.

Also, many accounts mention that the groups of inmates working at the gas chambers and supervising the transports from the train station to the gas chambers often told people whom they were escorting that they are about to die in a matter of minutes and they have a last chance of consolating with God. Halibutt 11:17, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

scope of article

removed this text -

The American method may be contrasted with the method used in Nazi Germany, which was instituted en masse and secretly. The victims were apparently unaware of their fates; they died in the belief that they were entering the chambers to be cleaned and deloused.

=== Controversy ===

However, there is an ongoing controversy about whether the condemned knew what would happen to them. Some say they knew, but elected to live an extra few minutes rather than confront armed guards. Many regard such comments as an attempt to shift blame from Nazis to their victims, suggesting the death camp victims were cowards. While the guards were vastly outnumbered, the condemned were unarmed, often ill and emaciated, and were imprisoned in areas where the general populace was hostile, indifferent, or too fearful for their own lives to aid escaped prisoners.

Some prisoners called Sonderkommandos were forced to help the Nazis murder their fellow prisoners by leading prisoners to the gas chambers and disposing of the bodies.

Some Jews did resist, most notably in the 1944 Sonderkommando uprising at Auschwitz, during which one of the gas chambers was destroyed.

I don't see how a discussion of whether or not the Jews should have or did resist is appropriate here. Shouldn't this sort of thing be on the nazi concentration camp or Holocaust page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trick (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 January 2005

IMO it is appropriate as part of the history of the usage. (Trish, please sign your posts.) Mikkalai 19:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sorry about the non-signing - I wasn't very awake. And you would do well to indent when replying. As far as the edit is concerned - the resistance had nothing to do with gas chambers specifically with concentration camps. The paragraph as written is not appropriate. - Trick 00:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I considered my text to be a parallel opinion, you know, of the same bullet level, not an answer or comment to your remark. Mikkalai 03:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Autopsy

okay, but where are the autopsy results that prove that one person was gassed? keltik31—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keltik31 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume this question is in response to my removal of the statement, regarding the Holocaust, that "not a single autopsied body has been shown to have been gassed." I'm not a professional historian, but I would imagine that autopsy results for individual Holocaust victims are pretty hard to come by. In any case, I would think that any of the many, many references to Nazi methods of execution during the Holocaust could be inserted here in support of the claim that gas chambers were in fact used in concentration camps. I'll pop over to The Holocaust later today and find one. Eron 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Denialist link

I just removed the external link Critique of Gas chamber thesis from the article. I strongly support free speech, but the contents of the website are that much questionable (and even illegal in some countries, e.g. Switzerland and Germany; in fact that website even had to be blocked by internet providers in Switzerland according to law) that I think it can not just be left uncommented. If somebody really thinks it should be in Wikipedia please add it again to the article on Revisionism. --Bvontob 17:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

if it is so questionable, then why is it illegal? only the truth can threaten, not lies. Keltik31 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bvontob, totally disagree with your policy. When many people sing in perfect choir we are either in front of the truth or a very big lie. I leave it in the middle in this case, anyhow we cannot neglect the doubts left by several sources on the scope, usage and extent of gas chambers in Nazi Germany. Yes these doubts are relevant to this article. PS: it took about 400 years to know what Nero exactly did, let's not assume that anything we are told today it's the truth - expecially when further investigations are forbidden by LAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.103.154 (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Diesel exhaust used for gassing?

Someone inserted recently: "Carbon monoxide was also used in large purpose-built gas chambers, provided by diesel engines designed for use in tanks or submarines". But:-

• Diesel exhaust does not contain much carbon monoxide unless the engine is running under load. This is a case where smellyness does not equal lethalness.
• As far as I know, the Germans did not have diesel tanks available.
• In at least one case they used a tank as a source of gas, right enough, but it was a petrol-driven tank.

Anthony Appleyard 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I made that edit, on the basis of Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust (5th imprint, 1990), p 425:

'At Belzec, Chelmno, Treblinka, and Sobibor, ..., Jews were killed by the exhaust from diesel engines: carbon monoxide poisoning. At Treblinka, it was the engines of captured Russian tanks and trucks which provided the exhaust.' --Squiddy 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

When does the original source information use the word "diesel", and when does it merely specify a lorry-sized engine? In those times most Army vehicles, even the largest, were petrol-driven; the main WWII exception was later types of Russian tanks, but the tank(s) used at Treblinka were likeliest captured early in the war and thus would be a petrol-driven type. I admit that the Nazis may have used diesel exhaust sometimes, but not always. Anthony Appleyard 07:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The para quoted above doesn't have a footnote ref, but 2 pages later (p427) there is verbatim quote from the Nuremberg testimony of Kurt Gerstein (SS Technical Disinfection Services chief), which refers to 'the diesel, whose exhaust was to kill these poor unfortunates.', 'seventy minutes and the diesel still would not start.' and 'the diesel engine started up after two hours and 49 minutes'. The reference given is 'Kurt Gerstein, statement of 6 May 1945, Tubingen: International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, document PS-2170.' The incident recounted took place at Belzec in 1942, when Gerstein was visiting with Odilo Globocnik.

I'm not an engineer, but wouldn't it be possible to change the proportion of CO/CO2 in the exhaust by partially obstructing the air intake of the engine?

I've also changed submarine engine -> lorry engine, because I can't now remember where I read that, and Gilbert only mentions tank and lorry engines. --Squiddy 10:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the link from the article to this talk page, (just for encyclopedic style), but I'm willing to be proved wrong if you have sources. Martin Gilbert has slipped up in the past, so I don't consider him infallible. --Squiddy 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See also [1], 3rd para from the end. --Squiddy 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Who was drunk?

Mcshadypl in his edit cited www.deathpenaltyinfo.org when he wrote "Later it was revealed that the executioner, Barry Bruce, was drunk", but here The American Prospect reports: "The execution went horribly wrong (there were even rumors that Thomas Bruce, who oversaw it, was drunk at the time)". So it's hard to know if there was someone drunk at the time, and his eventual identity. I'd rather choose not to mention this detail. Amux 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Undertakers injured

I have removed: There have been several documented instances where undertakers have been injured because the cyanide gas was still present in the individual's body following death.. This may be documented but I cannot trace a single reference. Can anyone help, please? BlueValour 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of use as mass extermination?

Attention: PLEASE DO NOT FEED NEO-NAZI TROLLS Just ignore them, and remove their future comments. --HanzoHattori 21:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think, this comment must be removed itself because it contains personal attack. --Igor "the Otter" 15:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless a user's comments are personal attacks, they shouldn't be removed. No matter how we feel about them. Eron 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone tell me where there is evidence of one autopsy that proves that one person was gassed by Germany???? 22:34, 23 October 2006) User:Keltik31
• No comment needed. See Holocaust denial. The world knows that it happened. Anthony Appleyard 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• The world knows it happened, but I need proof. and if the world knows it happened, then why can't the world show me one autopsy that proves that it happened? User:Keltik31
• There are hundreds of witnesses about what happened, from ex-prisoners and ex-guards. That is plenty proof. See Yad Vashem. Anthony Appleyard 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then where are the photos? Where are the autopsied bodies proving it? Keltik31 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think autopsies are required as proof, given the vast and overwhelming body of evidence - including the direct testimony of some of those involved, which is referenced in the text. Eron 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

cause of death? you can say anything caused the death. but were is the scientific proof? where is the medical evidence that one person, let alone millions were gassed? where are the photos? Keltik31 17:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Those who ran the Death Camps weren't really interested in conducting autopsies on their victims. If that is your standard of proof, you will probably be disappointed. But it isn't just anyone saying that the victims were gassed: their murderers admitted to it. Rudolf Höß said in his testimony at the Nuremburg trials "when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Cyclon B, which was a crystallized Prussic Acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from 3 to 15 minutes to kill the people in the death chamber." Given that this confession - among others - led to his execution, I can't see why he'd be lying. Eron 17:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

well, if you research Rudolphs history, i have read that a lot of the SS were tortured, threatened and were subjected to many other forms of coercion. the nuremburg trials were a farce. i have contacted the auschwitz museum and asked many times for photos of the alleged millions of children who were murdered, they couldnt provide me with any. i also asked the Holocaust memorial in america to provide me photos. no reply was ever recieved. if you want to believe there was an organized plan to exterminate an entire people then you will find no shortage of Zionists who will provide you with what look like facts. but if you want to stay objective and keep an open mind, you have to ask tough questions and even hear the arguements of those who say that this is a one big conspiracy. i am listening to both sides and i am starting to question what i once believed to be the truth. i feel there is no way millions were gassed and then creamated. the numbers just done add up. and thank god i live in america where i can say that. in france i could be jailed. maybe some people were executed by gassing. but maybe not millions. you should read a publication called "did six million really die". it was quite interesting. and if it is sooooo false, then why is it a crime to say it? http://www.air-photo.com/english/hoess.html plus, you can also read this. and this http://www.air-photo.com/english/Keltik31 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned Ernst Zündel's little bit of holocaust-denying hate literature; that makes it absolutely clear what your agenda is so I don't need to spend any more time discussing this with you.Eron 19:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

eron, i dont have an "agenda" as you say. i feel i have been lied to. i felt for the suffering of people that i feel has never happened. and i dont deny that people suffered greatly. but i also beleive that people have told wild lies and made a great deal of money, like Speilberg. Keltik31 21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have read Did Six Million Really Die?, you most certainly have been lied to. I'm doing my best to assume good faith here, but that is frankly hard to do in the face of what appears to be just another Holocaust denier. The fact that gas chambers were used by Nazi Germany to commit murder on a massive scale is not denied by any reputable historian. In the face of that, specious requests for "proof" in the form of medical autopsies look less like a search for truth and more like an effort to obscure it. Eron 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

well, an autopsy would prove it. photos of otherwise healthy looking bodies would prove it to me. i cannot find them. and if the story of mass gassing is so true, why are there laws in germany and france that make it illegal to say otherwise? would you imagine an american being put in jail for saying that florida is not a state? this lable "holocaust denier" carries with it some almost satanistic stigma with it as if it is the same as being a murderer or a child predator. i dont deny that jews were targeted. and i dont deny that as a people they have suffered greatly. but i am finding that when you look at the official story, and then subject it to critical thinking, it simply doesnt add up. to me it is just like the official story of the assasination of JFK. there are too many unanswered questions. i majored in criminal justice and in order to prove a case, there has to be evidence. i am simply finding it hard to beleive that the germans were that cold and evil to put innocent men, women and children into gas chambers. wartime propaganda is nothing new. america has been involved in it too. look at some of the things that were said about the Iraqi army when they invaded Kuwait. taking babies out of incubators and throwing them on the floor. it was shown to have been made up. i think you have to remember that the first casualty in war is the truth. i dont think that propaganda is something that the Jews are above anymore than the Americas are. Keltik31 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic. The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss ways to improve the article. You've asked for evidence of the use of gas chambers in Nazi death camps. This claim is referenced in the article. You are free to make any personal conclusion you want about the references used, but they are valid references and the statements made meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability. If you disagree with the content of the article, feel free to edit it - and provide valid, reputable references for your changes, if you can find any. Eron 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

oh, i can find plenty. but they would be taken out. there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the claim of mass gassings is nothing more than wartime propaganda. america uses propaganda too. but i work for a living and dont have a great deal of time to do this right now. but i will soon. Keltik31 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are concerned about having edits you may make to this article removed, I recommend that before you begin you review Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability, neutrality, and original research. If your edits comply with these, you should have no difficulty. However, you should be aware that changes that appear to be pushing a controversial (and not broadly-accepted) point of view will be scrutinized very carefully. Note that policy states that "exceptional claims require stronger sources." A book that has been ruled, in court, to have "misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities," is unlikely to stand up to the verifiability requirement. Eron 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ive read an articel that basically discredits the claim that there were active gas chambers used for mass murder. i posted the link and it was removed. who is afraid of the truth? not me. someone removed it, so obviously someone here is afraid. the gas chambers were used for delousing clothing because of the lice problem. nobody disputes that. but there is no evidence of mass extermination. do you think that people would simply just walk into the gas chambers? i dont. Keltik31 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my comments above. This isn't a page to debate the truth of the Holocaust; it's a page to discuss this article in this encyclopedia. You do not appear to be willing to make substantive contributions to the article. As your contributions appear to be about 90% to talk pages, I doubt your willingness to make substantive contributions to the encyclopedia either. So I see little point continuing this discussion. Eron 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

i didnt ask you to continue a discussion. Keltik31 17:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

why are the tests done on the gas chambers only showing trace amounts of gas and not large amounts considering there were millions gassed? Keltik31 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The amount of gas that would show up in tests would be proportionate to the exposure time. You'd have to take into account things like what type of surface (wood, concrete), how long has elapsed since the exposure, and what the condition(s) have been since the exposure.

As for "truth", denial of any Nazi crime is illegal in many nations in Europe. Since you have indicated that "the truth" doesn't need protection, does this mean that the Nazis committed no crimes? Cantankrus 06:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also the question of how samples were collected and tested. The most prominent tests used by Holocaust deniers are those conducted by Fred A. Leuchter at Auschwitz. Leuchter "surreptitiously collected samples from walls, ceilings and floors since he did not have permission to take samples, using a chisel and hammer to chip and scrape off pieces of the masonry." He sent them to a lab for testing, saying only that they "were to be used as evidence in a court case about an industrial accident." Trace amounts of cyanide were found.

When informed later what the tests were actually for, the lab manager James Roth stated that in a gas chamber, cyanide would have formed an extremely fine layer on the walls to the depth of one-tenth of a human hair. Leuchter had taken samples of indeterminate thickness; Roth had pulverized the entire samples, severely diluting the cyanide-containing layer of each sample with an indeterminate amount of brick. He offered the analogy that the tests were like looking at timbers when one needed to be looking at the paint.

Hardly a rigourous scientific investigation. Eron 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

you people really need to stop using the term "holocaust denier". not everyone who questions the official story is the same. to put us all into one category is as racist as what allegedly happened to the jews. there are buildings that were supposed to have been used as gas chambers that had doors that opened in and not out. how would people get back inside the room when it is full of dead bodies? i can tell you that if i was a german, i would be very resentful of the disgraceful things that have been alleged. the money making machine that is the story of the holocaust never ends and the stories never stop getting more and more wild. human fat used for soap? discredited! what else is a lie? what a monster the every-day german of 1939 must have been to gas women and children. these people were germans too. Keltik31 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the content of this article? If not, please stop wasting people's time with off-topic commentary. And please do not delete other people's comments. Eron 23:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

so it is okay for someone to call another a "nazi troll"? Keltik31 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, if said people are pushing outrageous baloney that belongs on Stormfront. --Shadowlink1014 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is wrong if somebody find something interesting on the Stormfront site? Please prove that there are everythig is lie in that site. Once I've seen outrageous baloney on the Nizkor site(http://www.nizkor.org/), and I can prove my words. So I will call everybody who believes in official history nizkor trolls. Okay?--Igor "the Otter" 15:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Igor, we've been over this before. Review policy on verifiability and guidelines on reliable sources if you are unclear why references from Stormfront would not be acceptable. - Eron ^Talk 15:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Real trolls are working as admins in wikipedian holocaust-related articles.--Igor "the Otter" 13:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia - autopsies. There are two doctors who are mentioned in the literature as doing autopsies on prisoners. Dr Larson - US army doctor claimed he never found anyone who had died of gas. He did many autopsies ( he was the only pathologist I guess ). Dr Blaha at one of the camps is listed as 10,000+ autopsies. His reports may be available in some archive. 159.105.80.141 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

the fact is that there is no evidence of use by nazi germany of gas chambers to kill anyone. this article shows blue staining on what is said to be a gas chamber, well, where is the blue staining at the gas chamber at auschwitz? where are the documents? and where are the transmissions from auschwitz to berlin stating how many people died. and as far as reputable historians is concerned, david irving is a reputable historian and he went to jail for pointing these things out. history doesnt need laws to protect it. lies do though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.102 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

where did six million jews that year go? You can't really believe that they got six million bullets to shoot them all, can you? they would have had to be preparing for years. also, there are at least a thousand witnesses that they were gassed. they couldn't have spread a "lie" that fast throughout all of the concentration camps that gassed people. they have to be telling the truth. if that isn't enough proof for you then I don't know what is. I'm NOT slamming anyone, i'm just stating the evidence and facts. [3/16/09]71.37.123.237 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Napoleonic France

There was a disputed neutrality tag on the Napoleonic France section, but no explanation here for why it was placed. I've rewritten the section to make it as neutral as possible and removed the tag. If anyone has an issue with the text as it now stands, please explain here. Eron 15:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite opening

I'd like to propose a rewrite of the opening section. The current opening is a bit of a mishmash that tries to explain various concepts that are fully covered in the body of the article itself. I think the opening needs to be confined to a simple description of what a gas chamber is and what the most common uses are. As this article can be a bit contentious, I'm proposing the text here to get some consensus before editing:

A gas chamber is an instrument of execution consisting of a sealed chamber into which poisonous gas is introduced. The most commonly used poisonous agent is hydrogen cyanide; carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide have also been used. (The use of nitrogen gas has been proposed as a form of humane execution, but this method has not been used.*)

Gas chambers were used as a method of execution for condemned prisoners in the United States beginning in the 1920s.* Their use has also been reported in North Korea.* Gas chambers have also been used for animal euthanasia, using carbon dioxide as the lethal agent.*

During the Holocaust, large-scale gas chambers designed for mass killing were used by Nazi Germany as part of their genocide program.*

References will be provided in the text where noted by "*". I think further revisions to the article are also necessary; I'll work on those after we get the intro cleaned up. - Eron ^Talk 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer this version to the existing one, but these things occur to me:

• 'instrument' doesn't feel quite right to me. 'Apparatus' or 'method' might be better?
• 'execution' isn't the right word for the Holocaust or for animals. 'killing' is direct and neutral, and has no implications regarding legality.
• Should the Holocaust be the first example of use rather than the last?
• Move the sentence about nitrogen into the main body of the article.

Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I considered a method of killing, but the "method" is poisoning or asphyxiation; the gas chamber itself is the instrument or apparatus used to apply the method. How about A gas chamber is an apparatus for killing consisting of a sealed chamber into which a poisonous or asphyxiant gas is introduced.

Chronologically, the first well-cited use is in executions in the U.S., so I went with that.

Agreed on the nitrogen; I'll find a place for it.

- Eron ^Talk 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed to that version, and removed the nitrogen sentence, after the first version suggested was added at the beginning. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

I am replacing the image at the top of the page with a picture of an **actual** gas chamber, not an ex-gas chamber-converted-to-a-lethal-injection-chamber; the image is of the Mississippi one.

The old image was incorrectly tagged, it was NOT public domain, but property of Cal. DOC. This new one is property of Mississippi DOC, so if the old one was okay, then this one should be too.  :)

--Shadowlink1014 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gassing at Auschwitz I

Upon a visit to Auschwitz I was told that the first experimental gassing killed 750 people, not 600. I was also informed that the chamber at Auschwitz I was in operation for a period of about 3 months, where 10,000 people were killed. Currently trying to find a citation for these. WilliamH 15:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Condemned" vs. "Criminal offender"

An IP user has been replacing "condemned" with "criminal offender" on this article and the lethal injection article, without explanation. First of all, "criminal offender" is wordy, especially when you're repeating it many times. Second of all, it's not as accurate a term. A "condemned" person is just that -- they have been condemned to be executed. Thus in all instances, this term is correct. "Criminal offender" is only correct when the condemned has committed a crime... he or she may be a victim of miscarriage of justice (and indeed there are many instances of wrongful execution) - thus this term is not always applicable. It's also not neccessary for someone who is executed to be even an alleged criminal... for example, the Holocaust. Finally, "criminal offender" takes the focus away from what this article is about: execution... as far as the procedure of lethal injection goes, criminality is not as directly related as the simple idea of someone being condemned to execution. --Shadowlink1014 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, 'condemned' is better for the reasons Shadowlink1014 gives above. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Suicide

I remember reading an article on this topic that made a case against the use of gas chamber as cruel and inhuman punishment because it forces the condemned to play an active role in their own demise -- technically committing suicide, which has religious implications for some. I have no memory of which article this is, but if one can be found it might be worth adding to the controversy section. (Just adding such a statement without a source would be removed as POV and possibly OR). 68.146.8.46 13:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Questioning Gassing of Jews in World War II

I would like to ask where is the evidence for gas chambers being used on Jews in WW2. I am not denying the holocaust- but I have questioning the extent of it.

• Looking at the rooms at Auschwitz, one can see that the room could not have possibly been used as a gas chamber as given at this address http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/doors.html.

• Also, there is no documentary evidence by the Nazi party during WWII of a gas chamber idea in any meeting (ie. no transcript, no video, no audio, completely nothing). I understand Hitler bragged about poisoning Jews in his Mein Kampf book (ie. before he rose to power), but never once did he make a statement whilst he was in power. He did boast about killing the Jews during his reign, but never through poisonous gas.

Hitler and his crew commited atrocities in the open. There was no hidding of the atrocities neither in words or in videos/audios. However, why can there not exist evidence for gas chamber extermination by Hitler, Himmler or even other heads of the Nazis, when there can be documentary evidence for just about any other type of killing done under the Nazis.

• On the subject of eye witness statements. There are eye-witness statements that state gas chambers did exist, but equally there are eye witness statements stating that gas chambers did not exist for the use of poisoning the Jews. Reports by Dr. Miklos Nyiszli returns to be false- since he said there were four crematoria at Auschwitz bu there turned out to be one.

If anyone can provide credible responses to my above statements, Ill be happy to change my views and the subject of Jews in this article (gas chambers) can continue. Otherwise, I would hope for the mentioning of Jews to be non-existant in the article regarding gas chambers. Thanks. --Waqas1987 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The statements in this article regarding the use of gas chambers during the Holocaust are fully referenced. Check the references if you have any questions. - Eron ^Talk 04:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see any pictures of a gas chamber used under Nazi Germany. I kindly ask someone to upload one, as it is extremely relevant to the article concerned.--Waqas1987 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• There were gas chambers at Auschwitz I and at Birkenau. I have seen them. They existed. Anthony Appleyard 21:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying they never existed, but a link to the picture of one would be nice. Hopefully not the same one located at: http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/doors.html. --Waqas1987 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The content in this article on the gas chambers at Auschwitz comes from reliable sources and is verifiable. That - not the availability of pictures that meet your specific standards - is what is required in this encyclopedia. - Eron ^Talk 01:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If such is the case, then I would urge the current pictures regarding the gas chambers used by the Nazi's currently present in the article to be removed. None of these pictures actually show a gas chamber, rather the Soviet one shows a box which can be from anywhere in the world of which looks to me made up, and the other showing a bombed camp, but where the actual room of the gas chamber cannot be seen or anything can be seen, rather looking like someones garage to me. If no-one decides to change the images, then I will personally add a note in the article that no actual picture of a gas chamber can be found, or otherwise I will upload the image presently at http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/doors.html which hardly holds credible when one relates it to a gas chamber (although, officially it is accepted). Why can we not find a picture of a gas chamber when we can find virtually every other atrocious crime commited by the Nazis? --Waqas1987 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has pictures of gas chambers. You may not, personally, like them, but they are there. And they come from reliable, verifiable sources. If you want to add more pictures, I suppose you can, but they would have to come from reliable and verifiable sources as well. (And I would question the reliability and verifiability of a website, like www.historiography-project.org, that my employer's firewall blocks as a "Racism and Hate" site.) I'm doing my best to assume good faith in this discussion, but I am starting to suspect your motives. - Eron ^Talk 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of a picture is so that it provide further information on the textual content in the article. The image of the California gas chamber in the article (above the examples of the Nazi gas chambers) is perfect as the gas chamber itself is the subject of the image- showing the gas chambers doors and part of the inside. What is presented in the 2 images under Nazi gas chambers shows no evidence of gas chambers at all. The soviet soldier is quoted to have "opened the roof of a gas chamber" but actually it adds no weight to the article since it does not show how a Nazi gas chamber looks like. Some may argue its soviet propoganda and others can say its a shoe box- Whatever it is, does it at all make sense that this is the best gas chamber image you can get? The second image shows the "wreckage of gas chamber #1 at Birkenau". However, it does NOT SHOW a gas chamber. Its like writing an article on wheels of cars, and shows an image of the car WITHOUT wheels rather than an image of a car WITH wheels (what most, if not all, want to see). Hence, the image is not informative at all.

On the subject of finding a suitable image, unfortuanely I cannot find one. Perhaps you can have better luck? I have tried extensively to find an image from all reliable resources but cannot find a single authentic gas chamber used by the Nazis. I do not like to read conspiracy theories, but I had no choice. I CANNOT FIND A SINGLE IMAGE OF A GAS CHAMBER USED BY THE NAZIS. I am not a holocaust denier -- The holocaust unfortuanetly did take place, and millions of innocent people were slaughtered. We have the evidence for every part of the holocaust, from the slave labour to the mass graves. But answer me my friend, where is the photographical evidence for the gas chambers?

--Waqas1987 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Added no photographical evidence section under Nazi Germany---hope this should rectify the problems highlighted here. If anyone does seem to find an image, I will happily take it off. --Waqas1987 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article section on no photographical evidence that is-- not the picture of course :P --Waqas1987 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

btw, the page at http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/doors.html shows no racism or hate. I havent checked out the rest of the pages, nor do I intend to. But the page given, presents a view questioning the gas chambers in use and suprisingly makes no mention of Jews or that the holocaust did not exist. I do not know why your firewall is behaving like it is because there is certainly nothing wrong with that page on that site. And also FYI: any site which I come across that although may support that gas chambers never existed, but is among the holocaust-denials, I immediately stop reading. but like I said, I have only read the page located at: http://www.historiography-project.org/misc/doors.html and none of the rest of the pages, so I cannot comment on this site, but merely on this page. So my final note: The page shows no evidence of racism or hate. No offensive language has been used and no hate protrayed. It offers a view, like all peices of history do, and does not enforce that view upon anyone. You should contact ur firewall provider for wrongly attributing that page as racism or hate -- you know, this should be a crime-- im serious, imagine what the page's creator will be labelled as?? --Waqas1987 23:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So, you are relying on that site for evidence supporting a claim that gas chambers didn't exist at Auschwitz, but you haven't bothered looking at the rest of the site? Interesting. Well, I have, and it's a pretty much typical holocaust-denial cesspool. Not something I would rely on for content. In any case, let me say this one more time: the statements in this article regarding the existence of gas chambers in Nazi Germany and their use for mass murder as part of the Holocaust are properly referenced and verifiable. Stop adding commentary to this article suggesting that the lack of photographic evidence that suits you means there is some doubt about this. - Eron ^Talk 00:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, you are saying that there exists photographic evidece, then please produce it. Show me the evidence. You are making the claim, and I am challenging you and anyone else out there. You state that this is fully referenced and verifiable but where is it? I am challenging it for the sake of history and posterity. Had we not challenged the figures of at auschwitz, it would remain 4 million today whcih as you know is grossly high. In the same manner, I want people to produce photographical evidence of a gas chamber used by the Nazis. What I am asking for is not hard, its simple. We have photographical evidence of every other piece of Nazi aggression, but not the gas chambers. Provide it please and I will stop this debate. --Waqas1987 09:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the section stating there's no photographic evidence because that info does not currently have a source. If you want to include info, the responsibility lies with you to provide sources. If you're the one making the claim, then this is original research. If it's created a controversy, then it shouldn't be hard to come up with a reliable source that says so. Note that photographic evidence is not required under WP:V but citations from reliable sources is. delldot talk 09:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If such is the case, then I would like the current images under the Nazi germany Gas Chambers section to be removed. Like I said before, these images do not provide further information for the textual contents. The pictures currently there are useless e.g. Its like writing an article on wheels of cars, and shows an image of the car WITHOUT wheels rather than an image of a car WITH wheels (I have said this earlier in this discussion too)--Waqas1987 13:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

One more time: the images are verifiable, the content is reliably sourced. Your objections to the images are, frankly, irrelevant. If you think the article would be improved by a better picture, well, go find one. But don't go removing the pictures we have simply because you feel they aren't good enough. - Eron ^Talk 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats the point, I cannot find a better picture cus there isn't one. The image currently in the article is IRRELEVANT to the article because it DOES NOT SHOW A GAS CHAMBER. It is deceitful propoganda to make us believe it is or existed a gas chamber. I would like the images to be removed at once -or at least allow a vote and discussion from all sides on this issue.

Also I wish to have the soviet image removed. This is soviet propoganda in the same way they said 4 million died at Auschwitz when in reality it was around 1.1-1.3 million. The soviets cannot be trusted on anything on most things actually.

--Waqas1987 22:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the picture of the destroyed gas chamber with one of the interior of the chamber at Majdanek. This one works quite well with the other picture there, actually, as it shows the same thing - the delivery system for the Zyklon B - from the interior. - Eron ^Talk 13:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected Page

I decided to semi-protect the article from vandelism. Hoepfully this way we can produce a professional article based on truth. --Waqas1987 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Vandalism? Please explain what you see as vandalism. If you mean this reversion of your addition of POV-pushing commentary, I think you may want to take a closer look at the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. - Eron ^Talk 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, only administrators can protect pages. You don't seem to be one of those. - Eron ^Talk 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I AM the one who is trying to be neutral about the situation. I am willing to accept a photograph of a gas chamber under Nazi Germany, like you have for the one in california in the article. You are the one who is not prepared to add such image. Therefore in such case, it is wrong to fool the readers into presenting an image of a camp without a gas chamber and stating this is where the gas chamber was. We cannot see the invisible. Cameras existed way before that time, and all that was needed was one single camera shot from any period in WW2 of a gas chamber used by the Nazis. Sadly there is not one. I have added the sentence based on no photographic evidence because it is required for the readers, and for history. I am asking the world consisting of 6 billion people to provide ONE SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH for the article -- and you cannot even do that. You are accusing me of being a holocaust denier, simply because I am questioning if the gas chambers existed on civilian population. How dare you! I am not a holocaust denier, for it would mean denying the killing of over 5 million civilians and anyone who does so is ignorant. I can accuse you of your motive or motives , but I think it is best if we stick to the discussion and not accuse anyone. I am doing it in the interest of history, and I hope you too are doing it for the same reason as I. --Waqas1987 13:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no debate among historians about whether the Nazi regime used gas chambers to kill civilians. Please do not add uncited nonsense to articles. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That must be the reason why you cannot produce a SINGLE image on the gas chambers used by the Nazis. --Waqas1987 22:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's enough. Your POV-pushing is obvious. Stop deleting valid page content and valid page references. - Eron ^Talk 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, regarding POV-pushing. The JVL is a website that is biased towards Jews. I do not see why that is cited as a source as it does not maintain a neutral point of view. Your POV-pushing to portray the JVL as a credible source is wrong. I would like the JVL source to be removed.

Secondly, I don't see why the soviet picture is considered as a credible source since the communist regime is well known to manipulate, through its media, history to make themselves look good. I dont see why they are trusted since, after all, they did steal the blueprints to the manhatten project.--Waqas1987 10:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

JVL Cannot be a source

The Jewish Virtual Library cannot exist as a source as it does not maintain a Neutral Point of View. The wikipedia NPOV clearly states that there cannot be any sort of bias "bias for or against religion, faith or beliefs;". The Jewish Virtual Library biased towards the people of the Jewish religion, and therefore CANNOT be accepted as a source. Trolls like Eron keep wanting it as a source. --Waqas1987 11:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing policy on neutral point of view - which applies to articles - to that on reliable sources. Sources do not have to be neutral, they have to be reliable. You may want to review what is a reliable source for more information.

While you are at it, you might want to check on the definition of trolling. A quick look at policy on personal attacks would probably be instructive as well. - Eron ^Talk 12:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Im sick and tired of your rant. A source on a sensitive issue such as the holocaust must exclusively lie in independant third party sources (except in eye-witness reports of course). However, in all eye-witness reports there will be a degree of exageration, either for the better or for worse. The reason being is because they are not trained in the art of providing precise evidence. For instance, how does a person like you and I know when there are 1000 people in a room or 2000 people when we are lined up as guinea pigs ready to be slaughtered or do slave labour til we die? Unless we met every single person, our number will always be an estimate- and an overestimate. Likewise, when people give an account, especially when undergone a terrible event such as the holocaust, people do begin to exagerrate. Therefore, I think, the gas chambers have been created from the mental sufferation of these people. A picture in this case is indeed worth more than a thousand words, and this is the only reason why I am asking for a suitable picture that can vividly express the precise and heavy allegations that are being made. No one to date is able to provide anything greater than peoples accounts, and the scientifical work (regarding the zyklon B, the walls, doors etc) has also been challenged and on its own cannot be conclusive. If I was to debate all day and all night and my entire life's blood in search of a single photograph of a gas chamber used by the Nazis, it will never be found. Like my example I mentioned several times, when we want to find a picture of a wheels on a car, we will instead find a car without the wheels. Therefore, I have decided to stop this discussion as it is not being fruitful. I know that no historian will be able to provide the answer for the my question, that is a single photograph of the gas chambers. Thus, I have of now stopped all discussions and alterations to this article, not because I am in the wrong, but simply because my questions cannot be answered. You are free to portray the gas chambers however you wish and fool the masses, but you and I both know, that is will be far from the truth, that is no photograph of a real gas chamber under and by Nazi Germany will ever be produced!! --Waqas1987 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Keltik31 20:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

not true

the section about chambers being used for mas killing is not true. there is no physical evidence to prove that even one person was gassed. Keltik31 00:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is referenced and verifiable. (And haven't we been through this all before?) - Eron ^Talk 00:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

verifiable? ok. where? where is the pysical evidence that human beings were hearded into gas chambers and murdered? where are the dead bodies? where are the autopsies? where are all the corpses that were gassed? what did it cost to gas millions of people? where was that money allocated in the nazi budget? tell me where the news stories printed between 1939 and 1945 are reporting that millions were being murdered? i have contacted to "holocaust" museums and they cant tell me of one story printed between 1939-45 reporting on mass genocide. Keltik31 18:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Go away. You're a crank. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

that is a personal attack. cant answer the qestions then you go away.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltik31 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 November 2007

I've indefinitely blocked Keltic31 for disruption. Addhoc 23:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

... What disruption? Allerion (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion that took place over a year ago. You'll need to review the archives of this talk page if you want the whole story. - Eron^Talk 16:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Controversy" sentence

Firstly, my matter on the gas chambers has not changed since the last, but I have decided not to pursue that debate further since its getting fruitless. Now on another part in the article:

This sentence has been removed by me as I do not see the relevancy: "As gas chambers were used by the Nazi Party in Germany during World War II, having them in the United States is quite controversial."

There are 1001 things that the Nazi Party use and/or invented that we do not consider them to be controversial. Nazi Germany created the first Jet bomber, rocket-powered fighter or even a fighter jet with an eject seat. Are these controversial that the British, Americans and every other notable military force have implemented them even though they are of Nazi origin??

I have removed the sentence regarding, gas chambers and it causing controversy in the US. The above examples I mentioned are advances in the Nazi military (ie. a force whose purpose is to kill people) and is employed happily amongst Allied nations. They do not see this controversial. Eron reverted the change when another member removed it, and so I am waiting for his reasoning behind it. Anyone else meanwhile wants to undo my change, discuss your reason here first please. --Waqas1987 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good call; the sentence is hooey. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position for or against including that sentence, but I'd note that it, or a version of it, seems to have been in the article for at least two years. That aside, I take exception to the statement "Eron reverted the change when another member removed it." I assume you are referring to this edit of mine. I did not revert the removal of that sentence. I reverted obvious vandalism that happened to include the removal of that sentence. I don't think I need to provide any reasoning for that action. - Eron^Talk 23:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats good to hear at least a NPOV from u for a change. Regarding the exception, I am deeply apologise, I was actually referring to this ie. A change done by Anthony Appleyard. A person with IP 71.243.137.235 removed the sentence (and that sentence only), and Anthony Appleyard reverted the change. Again, I offer my humblest of apologies Eron :) --Waqas1987 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on Anthony; you'll often find that deletion of page content done by IP users without the use of an edit summary or any explanation on the talk page will be reverted on sight. With no explanation, it is hard to tell the difference between "I am removing this unreferenced and potentially POV statement" and simple vandalism. Your deletion of the same sentence went unchallenged because you provided a reasonable explanation for it on the talk page. (Apology accepted, though it would have been easier to swallow without the backhanded accusation of POV, thank you very much.) - Eron^Talk 00:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Half your statement was about not taking sides, so I didnt want to make it look as if my reply overlooked it. I replied with the first thing coming to mind and keeping it succinct, to lack emphasis, although the italics may have undone that. Perhaps better put, at least we weren't at each others throats for a change. That should be easier to swallow I guess :). --Waqas1987 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

United States and on Nazi Germnay

I started out just adding a citation to the US section, and deleting an uncited statement of opinion. Then I looked at the whole section and it really needed a rewrite - it was repetitive and disorganized. There's still work to be done citing the direct quotes but I think it is in better shape now. - Eron^Talk 02:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

much better. But one question regarding the statement: "Gas chambers in mobile vans and at least eight concentration camps and extermination camps were used to kill several million people between 1941 and 1945." It states concentrartion camps and extermination camps but there is a difference. Only an extermination camp, by definition, can be used for gas chambers, and not a concentration camp. I have decided to alter it slightly, discuss, and then maybe revert if not. Citation also needed --Waqas1987 (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, it says a few million. The sentence is slightly misleading. Please state number that died from gas chambers only (not necessary in concentration camps). Source it too thanks. --Waqas1987 (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing your fact tags; details are in the Holocaust article and well referenced there, and this article already includes several references for the Holocaust. I'm also restoring "concentration camps"; there were gas chambers in camps that were not extermination camps - Mauthausen, for example - and mobile gas chambers were also used in conjunction with concentration camps, and with the Aktion T4 program that pre-dated the death camps. - Eron^Talk 11:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as im aware a concentration camp by definition is one where u do hard labour. Concentration camps were first used by the British in the Boers war. A concentration camp is never one in which the purpose is to kill people through means other than labour. However, an extermination camp is one supposedly employed by the Nazis in the use of killing (ie. extermination) of people. The entire existing of an extermination camp is to kill, by means largely other than labour for instance gas chambers albeit, hard labour is also imposed. Is this not a correct assumption?? --Waqas1987 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A concentration camp is where people are concentrated - the Boer families were dispersed all over the veldt, so the British 'concentrated' them in a few large camps to deny the Boers friendly farmsteads all over the disputed territory. Concentration camps may or may not use inmate labour. Labour was not a feature of the extermination camps apart from the relatively small number of sonderkommando needed to sort clothes, burn bodies etc.

Please read history books on the subject before modifying the article based on your assumptions. Thanks. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read my sentances carefully. My point is, that a concentration camp by definition cannot contain gas chambers. An extermination camp can. OED official definition of concentration camps is:

• " attrib.: concentration camp, a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African War of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organized by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45; also fig.; concentration cell Electr., a cell whose difference of potential is due to the difference of concentration of the solutions in which the electrodes are immersed."

whereas an extermination is:

• b. attrib., as extermination camp, a concentration camp for the mass murder of human beings, applied esp. to the camps set up by Nazi Germany in the war of 1939-45.

Therefore as it clearly states, an extermination camp is used for murder- which is a gas chamber but not a concentration camp. I therefore request that concentration camps be removed in favour of extermination camps when talking about gas chambers. --Waqas1987 (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I read your sentences carefully, that's how I spotted the elementary error in your own attempt to define a concentration camp. Some concentration camps had gas chambers (eg Natzweiler) but were not used as part of large-scale extermination, and so cannot be called extermination camps. That's why it is accurate to say that gas chambers existed in both concentration and extermination camps. Note that the OED is not a useful historical source - it is tertiary, non-specialist definitions for acquainting people with the language. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

no autopsies

there are no autopsies of any bodies that show that even one person, let alone 11 million were gassed at any of the camps. 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Ethmegdav (talk)

The statements in this article are referenced from verifiable and reliable sources. Please do not add unreferenced content that appears intended to promote a fringe point of view. - Eron^Talk 23:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

but eron, are there any autopsies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethmegdav (talk • contribs) 02:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea and question

So that all the stuff by holocaust deniers etc is not used here, and more relevant infomration can put in articles, could it possibly be a good idea to split gas chamber into gas chamber (holocaust and gas chamber (execution method)

And now for my query: What are the chances of lethal gas actually being used in an execution in the US again? Bob7496 (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Videotaping of Harris execution

I've added the FACT tag to this statement as a source needs to be given, plus the Wikipedia article on Harris makes no mention of it whatsoever. 68.146.25.241 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Carbon Monoxide is used to kill animals

Not Carbon Dioxide (rarely if EVER used). 99% of the time it's carbon monoxide. Just an FYI.

Just a source http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/4156926-nc-animal-shelters

there's more out there though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.161.200 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Chessman execution in Gas Chamber: Indicated extremely painful

C. Chessman was executed in a California gas chamber I think in the 1960s and he had made an arrangement with an observer to communicate via gestures whether he was experiencing pain during the execution; Chessman indicated that he was experiencing extreme pain.--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-homicadal Gas chambers

This article doesn't mention the use of gas chambers for sterilization or cleaning, which was their common usage prior to the Nazi euthanasia program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.240.182 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Validity of Sources

I do not think that it is POV to point out that a source is problematic as to credibility. Rudolf Hoess was certainly in a position to know how many were gassed in his facility, yet in his confession he gave what is now regarded as the impossible number of 4 million dead for Auschwitz (officially repudiated in 1992 and replaced with the figure of 1.5 million). That means that there is something wrong with the confession, and I think it is irresponsible, if you are going to cite Hoess' confession as a source, not to point this out. Either Hoess was out of his mind when he confessed 4 million murders or the confession was under duress. In any other subject there would be no argument about indicating problems with a source; for example, I don't believe that I would get a lot of dispute in an article about the Ancient World if I inserted a caveat about the credibility of Josephus, who gives wrong or contradictory information about a number of events.

If it is not permissible to point out that a source is questionable and why, then the source ought simply to be deleted from the article, along with whatever claim was based on it. Hadding (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoess's credibility as a source for the use of gas chambers at Auschwitz is not questionable - no reputable historian disputes that gas chambers were used there or questions Hoess on this point. There are some issues with his initial testimony on the number of victims at Auschwitz, but he himself later amended his own estimates, stating "I regard two and a half million far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities." If Hoess were being used in this article as a source regarding the number of Auschwitz victims, then his changing testimony might be pertinent. That is not the case, though; he never changed his testimony regarding the use of gas chambers and this testimony is supported by numerous other sources, two of which have now been added to the article.

I also had POV concerns over the inclusion of the statement "Hoess' confession was not credible and tended to damage the credibility of the Holocaust story as a whole." I don't think this article is an appropriate place to raise questions regarding the Holocaust. - Eron^Talk 19:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

EronMain: When you say, "no reputable historian disputes that gas chambers were used there or questions Hoess on this point," you are mixing issues. The question of whether gassings occurred at Auschwitz is completely separate from the question of whether it is legitimate to use Hoess' confession in support of that claim.

Here are some of the claims from Hoess' confession, alleged as a source in the Wikipedia article "Gas Chamber," which invalidate the whole confession as a source:

"I ... estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000."

"I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941. At that time there were already in the general govemment three other extermination camps; BELZEK, TREBLINKA and WOLZEK." http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1946Hoess.html

The figure of 2.5 million gassed at Auschwitz is considered absurd by mainstream Holocaust scholars, and the Germans never operated a camp called "Wolzek."

This "document" cited in support of the claim that gassings occurred at Auschwitz does not represent a voluntary confession. It contains what Hoess would have known were falsehoods. There are numerous indications that Hoess made this confession under duress.

A confession that contains significant, generally recognized falsehoods is ipso facto not reliable. If you know that Hoess is right that there were gassings in Auschwitz, you do not know it because of Hoess. In other words, Hoess is not really your source. You only know it only because you got it from some other source. I understand that there is this temptation to pretend that you have a reliable confession from the horse's mouth, but Hoess' confession to "gassing and burning" 2.5 million is not credible. (The Polish Government now claims a total death-toll for Auschwitz of only 1.5 million.) If you try to make the confession seem credible by omitting mention of the 2.5 million figure, it seems to me that you are doing something dishonest.

Since you have "numerous other sources" for the claim of gassings at Auschwitz, use them, but don't use this confession by Hoess without any caveat and expect to escape criticism. Hadding (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"The question of whether gassings occurred at Auschwitz is completely separate from the question of whether it is legitimate to use Hoess' confession in support of that claim." I don't agree. There are a couple of issues with Hoess's testimony, but they are not sufficient to invalidate him as a source for the use of gas chambers at Auschwitz. Regarding the numbers of dead, Hoess himself later acknowledged that the estimate of 2.5 million - based on numbers he had been provided by Eichmann - was too high and that the actual number was probably about 1.1 million. As to Wolzek, while he has the name wrong, other information he provides in describing it make it clear he is referring to Sobibor.

Hoess's testimony, with those two errors, is not the only source for Hoess's statements. There are also his own memoirs. I'd like to use those as a source but I haven't been able to track down a good English translation. There is also a great deal of corroborating evidence from other sources. I believe it is a reliable source for the purposes of this article. - Eron^Talk 19:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The very SAME SENTENCE that has Hoess saying that there were killings by "gassing and burning" at Auschwitz says that the number gassed and burned was 2.5 million. You're going to split apart a sentence in order to make it credible? How is this not fraudulent? Hadding (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)