The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz -- Part 1
David Cole - The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz 1 of 2
I've found myself with time to watch this first video presentation. I do intend to watch the others. Here's a few things that sprung to my mind on one viewing.
Some points the revisionist said seem good points on the face of it. However, they do not convince whole-heartedly... since I am admittedly highly skeptical of Revisionist history regarding the holocaust.
I believe he started by saying that Russian Propoganda is behind a lot of the current understanding of the holocaust, but later said that the Russians are more concerned with the plight of the Poles and others from the late Eastern Bloc at Auschwitz than the Jews. Yet are we not dealing with the Holocaust which is supposed to be the German attempt to wipe the Jews out of European existence... an attempted genocide.
The issue of the Zyklon B staining remaining in the de-lousing chambers and yet not in the Gas Chamber, on the face of it seems a good point. However, the undisputed evidence that the Gas-Camber was turned into an Air Raid shelter by the Germans in 1943 after its use as a gas chamber can suggest that during construction the building would have been cleaned as well as new walls put in and the ceiling vents removed. It is reasonable to assume the building would have been cleaned of the debris of its former use. So it is a good point so long as it is presumed that the use of the building didn't change during the war and, unfortunately for the point, the use DID change.
What the video maker considers a fraud in reconstructing the buildings to how they approximately were before the changing from Gas Chamber to Air Raid Shelter, most would consider to be Restoration... which takes place in many historical buildings. The Tour Guide can not be expected to know all the historical details and it is human nature to try and muckle through so as not to disappoint what she thought to be an interested Jewish tourist - yes she made a booboo, but those who were better qualified were perfectly open and gave good explaination... indeed seemed to bend over backwards for the interviewer.
Oh and regarding the de-licing chambers... I thought they were common knowledge, as also the use of Zyklon B to kill infestations. It was, after all, invented before the war as a pesticide, wasn't it?
Regarding the swimming pool. I have a question. Was the pool constructed while Auschwitz was a military barracks, or was it constructed for the purpose of the inmates when the site became a prison camp. It does indeed seem very surprising that the Germans would have constructed an item of luxury for it's professed enemies.
The piece also rests heavilly on the lack of documentary evidence for the holocaust (ignoring witness statements). However, a lack of documentary evidence for traditional history is ALSO a lack of documentary evidence for revisionist history and thus siting it is a fallacy of logic. A lot of documents were destroyed when Nazi Germany fell and as to the lack of coded transmissions detailing the activities of exterminating the Jews... why would such local activity need to be transmitted in coded transmissions through the airways, what purpose would that serve if the mechanisms were already in place and operating.
I think it is a given, since the estimated dead at Auschwitz fell from 4 million to 1.1 million, that Russian propoganda played a part in the figures being so high for this particular camp. However no evidence is presented by the Revisionist for his suggestion that the figure be lower still. No evidence or even argument whatsoever.
Lastly regarding the questioning of the tour guide. Of course she will falter when asked questions she is not used to answering. She is not a historian but a person employed to guide an average tourist around the site. I would imagine just as much faltering would happen if you asked a man in a Mickey Mouse costume at Disney World on the life of Walt Disney. The questioning was not fair because the interviewer was hiding his interests, so of course she would be ill-prepared. Not that she was given much screen time in the video any way. He said he had, was it 9 hours of footage with her... she seemed to have only seconds of screen time. Very limited clips of what she had to say.
So. All-in-all this first video can appear to deliver some good points on the face of it, but it is not in any way convincing to a thinking/questioning skeptic looking for weaknesses in its arguments as any skeptic would.
It is a worthwhile video to watch, because it does bring up some interesting points. However it could also mislead because of what it, itself leaves unsaid by its careful construction. If I am to be asked to think outside the box of the holocaust, then I will certainly seek to think outside the box of the revisionist. Rather like those who claim the moon landings never happened, on the face of it the arguments seem convincing, but under the surface, if interrogated, they are questionable. Which is after all, exactly what the Revisionists are saying about the Traditionalists... so its a fair point to make in return
