×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务

贴个内容多些的:The Red Cross visit to Auschwitz in 1944 is often referenced in various discussions,

but the reality of the inspection is more complex and has been misrepresented over time. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was granted very limited access by the Nazi authorities and was only allowed to visit specific parts of certain camps, like Theresienstadt, which was staged as a "model" camp to mislead international observers. The Nazis controlled what the inspectors saw and were able to mask the true extent of the atrocities.

In the case of Auschwitz, the Red Cross was not given full access to areas where mass exterminations were taking place, such as the gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Their inspections were carefully orchestrated, and they had no way of seeing the full scope of the Nazi operations. After the war, the ICRC acknowledged that they were misled and that the Nazi authorities deliberately concealed the purpose and function of the extermination camps.
Sign in and Reply Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下茶话 / 和平之路 / I love X ♥️ Every thing about this country is fake! 👉🏼 The Holocaust, Fact and fiction! 1. The Red Cross inspected Auschwitz in 1944 and found no evidence it was an extermination camp. ⛺️
    • 这个报告是11/22/1944出的,是在当时希特勒控制下的INSPECTION,我脚趾头都不相信这个报告会真实。希特勒死于4/30/1945。 +1
      • In 1988, American execution expert Fred Leuchter examined the “gas chambers” at Auschwitz, and had the walls chemically tested for Zyklon B residue. The test were negative.
        • 不遗余力的跟帖: +1

          The 1988 report by Fred Leuchter, often called the "Leuchter Report," is frequently cited in discussions about Holocaust denial, but it has been widely discredited by historians, scientists, and legal experts. Leuchter, an American who claimed expertise in execution technologies, was hired by Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel to examine the Auschwitz camp and provide evidence against the existence of gas chambers. However, Leuchter’s methods, findings, and conclusions have been thoroughly invalidated for several reasons:

          Lack of Qualifications and Expertise: Leuchter had no formal training in chemistry, toxicology, or engineering relevant to evaluating historical sites for chemical residues. He was neither a chemist nor an engineer qualified to analyze residue left by Zyklon B, the cyanide-based pesticide used by the Nazis.

          Improper Sampling Methods: Leuchter’s sampling was unscientific. He chiseled samples from walls without any controlled procedures, which would contaminate the samples and make the results unreliable. The nature of cyanide residue is such that it forms a compound that can be removed or degraded by exposure to elements, which Leuchter did not account for.

          Misinterpretation of Chemical Evidence: He failed to understand the chemistry of how Zyklon B residues bond to walls. Studies have shown that even if high levels of cyanide were present during the time of operation, decades of exposure to the elements, as well as the cleaning and repurposing of the structures after the war, would diminish detectable levels of the residue. This has been substantiated by more rigorous studies conducted by qualified chemists and historians, such as those by the Institute for Forensic Research in Kraków in the 1990s.

          Subsequent Rebuttals by Historians and Forensic Experts: Detailed studies with proper methodologies, such as those by Jan Markiewicz and others, have demonstrated the presence of cyanide residues in gas chamber walls at Auschwitz, confirming historical evidence and eyewitness testimonies.

          The report’s conclusions have been comprehensively discredited in both historical scholarship and in courts of law, where it has been deemed pseudoscientific. The persistence of references to the Leuchter Report on the internet is largely due to Holocaust denial circles and misinformation campaigns, which use it to cast doubt on historical evidence without basis in credible science or historical research.

    • 贴个内容多些的:The Red Cross visit to Auschwitz in 1944 is often referenced in various discussions, +2
      but the reality of the inspection is more complex and has been misrepresented over time. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was granted very limited access by the Nazi authorities and was only allowed to visit specific parts of certain camps, like Theresienstadt, which was staged as a "model" camp to mislead international observers. The Nazis controlled what the inspectors saw and were able to mask the true extent of the atrocities.

      In the case of Auschwitz, the Red Cross was not given full access to areas where mass exterminations were taking place, such as the gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Their inspections were carefully orchestrated, and they had no way of seeing the full scope of the Nazi operations. After the war, the ICRC acknowledged that they were misled and that the Nazi authorities deliberately concealed the purpose and function of the extermination camps.
    • Such thread would be removed from YouTube. Thanks, my Lost Ear. +1