Logistics of the Holocaust

[whatthebutlersaw]

Ooh, I just remembered one. I believe it belongs more in the "should have thought that through before opening mouth" than actual sheer lack of knowledge.

We were doing WWII in second year of Gymnasiet (UK: app. Upper Secondary/Sixth form. US:Senior High/Junior College) and had gotten as far as Marshall Aid, White buses and the general aftermath when one of the... "blonder" girls in class (and I'd like to take some time out here to explain that there was not a bad bone in her body. She was a really nice person and a good class mate, as were all the people in that class. It was a _really_ good year with only nice people. She just opened her mouth without thinking first a lot.)

Anyhow, this nice, but slightly clueless girl in class held her hand up and asked "Torsten" - for that was the teacher's name - "why did Hitler gas the jews?".

Now, we had just done that module _and_ had a written test which she had passed, but since our history teacher - who was also our "homeroom" teacher - believed firmly that when it came to history, understanding the processes were much more important than burping years and treaties on a test so he heaved an almost imperceptible sigh and went back to the beginning. Explained about the socio economic situation in Europe after WWI, the rise of nationalism, jingoism, the Weimar Republic, the Dolchstuss-theory, a thousand years of antisemitism and how jews were an easy target in that particular climate - made an aside to explain that gypsies, communists and homosexual people were also systematically eradicated - well, basically covered the series of events leading up to the holocaust and WWII one more time, but at double plus speed. He spoke for an hour and a half, taking input from students who had paid more attention, drew graphs and maps on the board and really exerted himself.

When he was done, she held up her hand again and said: "No, I mean... why didn't he just shoot them?"

Have you ever heard the sound of 25 facepalms in unison? (And her best friend wailing an embarrassed "Iiiidaaaa!")

Once again - she was not a bad sort. She just didn't understand the logistics and why it was so elaborate and she wanted to know, so she asked.

Split from: "Wow!" Moments of Ignorance and Stupidity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155964).

[Careyp74]

Ooh, I just remembered one. I believe it belongs more in the "should have thought that through before opening mouth" than actual sheer lack of knowledge.

We were doing WWII in second year of Gymnasiet (UK: app. Upper Secondary/Sixth form. US:Senior High/Junior College) and had gotten as far as Marshall Aid, White buses and the general aftermath when one of the... "blonder" girls in class (and I'd like to take some time out here to explain that there was not a bad bone in her body. She was a really nice person and a good class mate, as were all the people in that class. It was a _really_ good year with only nice people. She just opened her mouth without thinking first a lot.)

Anyhow, this nice, but slightly clueless girl in class held her hand up and asked "Torsten" - for that was the teacher's name - "why did Hitler gas the jews?".

Now, we had just done that module _and_ had a written test which she had passed, but since our history teacher - who was also our "homeroom" teacher - believed firmly that when it came to history, understanding the processes were much more important than burping years and treaties on a test so he heaved an almost imperceptible sigh and went back to the beginning. Explained about the socio economic situation in Europe after WWI, the rise of nationalism, jingoism, the Weimar Republic, the Dolchstuss-theory, a thousand years of antisemitism and how jews were an easy target in that particular climate - made an aside to explain that gypsies, communists and homosexual people were also systematically eradicated - well, basically covered the series of events leading up to the holocaust and WWII one more time, but at double plus speed. He spoke for an hour and a half, taking input from students who had paid more attention, drew graphs and maps on the board and really exerted himself.

When he was done, she held up her hand again and said: "No, I mean... why didn't he just shoot them?"

Have you ever heard the sound of 25 facepalms in unison? (And her best friend wailing an embarrassed "Iiiidaaaa!")

Once again - she was not a bad sort. She just didn't understand the logistics and why it was so elaborate and she wanted to know, so she asked.

Man, the whole class assumed she was just asking another stupid question and the whole thing bit them in the butt. I would have asked also, except with me, the teacher would have immediately said "what do you mean?" and I would rephrase the question.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Ooh, I just remembered one. I believe it belongs more in the "should have thought that through before opening mouth" than actual sheer lack of knowledge.

We were doing WWII in second year of Gymnasiet (UK: app. Upper Secondary/Sixth form. US:Senior High/Junior College) and had gotten as far as Marshall Aid, White buses and the general aftermath when one of the... "blonder" girls in class (and I'd like to take some time out here to explain that there was not a bad bone in her body. She was a really nice person and a good class mate, as were all the people in that class. It was a _really_ good year with only nice people. She just opened her mouth without thinking first a lot.)

Anyhow, this nice, but slightly clueless girl in class held her hand up and asked "Torsten" - for that was the teacher's name - "why did Hitler gas the jews?".

Now, we had just done that module _and_ had a written test which she had passed, but since our history teacher - who was also our "homeroom" teacher - believed firmly that when it came to history, understanding the processes were much more important than burping years and treaties on a test so he heaved an almost imperceptible sigh and went back to the beginning. Explained about the socio economic situation in Europe after WWI, the rise of nationalism, jingoism, the Weimar Republic, the Dolchstuss-theory, a thousand years of antisemitism and how jews were an easy target in that particular climate - made an aside to explain that gypsies, communists and homosexual people were also systematically eradicated - well, basically covered the series of events leading up to the holocaust and WWII one more time, but at double plus speed. He spoke for an hour and a half, taking input from students who had paid more attention, drew graphs and maps on the board and really exerted himself.

When he was done, she held up her hand again and said: "No, I mean... why didn't he just shoot them?"

Have you ever heard the sound of 25 facepalms in unison? (And her best friend wailing an embarrassed "Iiiidaaaa!")

Once again - she was not a bad sort. She just didn't understand the logistics and why it was so elaborate and she wanted to know, so she asked.


I laughed out loud. Out loud.

I loved this story so much, I shared it with my father, who is a very smart guy and a big lover of history, thinking he would scream with laughter. He didn't laugh and didn't think it was funny.

He raised his eyebrows and said "Why is that stupid? That's a perfectly logical and reasoned question! There is a story behind why the Nazis chose gassing, though they did shoot the Jews, too, especially in the Ukraine. They tried many other methods before they thought of mass Zyklon B. Good for her, for asking. That's a smart question! She just didn't phrase the question right. It was the teacher's fault for launching into a pompous lecture instead of just answering the girl! The misunderstanding was his!"

What can I do but spread my arms? And let out an occasional howl at the moon? You ever feel like you are speaking a different language from other people? Existing on another plane?

Edit: Some terrific responses here. Great stories.

Isn't it funny how my thread on unforgettable acts of charity only got 9 responses but my thread on unforgettable acts of stupidity is still getting traffic? What does that say about us?

Edit 2: That reminds me of another great story. A high school teacher of mine told me this one.

When he was a teenager, he took a younger cousin of his to the local Catholic school for her first day of religious education. So I deduce that she must have been 4 or 5 years old at the time. Maybe 6. The nun there was explaining religion to the kids but in such a way as made this guy (who was and still is a devout Catholic) want to yell "They are young children- not mentally retarded!".

Nun: "You see kids, God created the world. He made everything. He made the moon, the stars, the Earth, the sun...uhm, the cats, the dogs, the kittens and the puppies...God made the grass, the trees and the flowers..."

Kid raises hand.

Kid: "Oh no, not the flowers, because today I saw my mommy plant the flowers!"

[Dr Adequate]

When he was done, she held up her hand again and said: "No, I mean... why didn't he just shoot them?" Like EeneyMinnieMoe's dad, I agree that that was a sensible question.

So far as I know, the answer is that even the SS couldn't bear to watch what they were doing.

Can we get back to the funny stuff? I was enjoying this thread up 'til now.

[Dr Adequate]

He raised his eyebrows and said "Why is that stupid? That's a perfectly logical and reasoned question! There is a story behind why the Nazis chose gassing, though they did shoot the Jews, too, especially in the Ukraine. They tried many other methods before they thought of mass Zyklon B. Good for her, for asking. That's a smart question! She just didn't phrase the question right. It was the teacher's fault for launching into a pompous lecture instead of just answering the girl! The misunderstanding was his!"

What can I do but spread my arms? And let out an occasional howl at the moon? You ever feel like you are speaking a different language from other people? Existing on another plane? Occasionally.

Why did they round up the Jews and transport them over long distances using railway trains that they could have used for something else using fuel that they could have used for other purposes and then gas them in specially built gas chambers, rather than shooting them wherever they found them? Bureaucracy is expensive, bullets are cheap, so why did they do it that way?

The question is not stupid, but the answer does make we want to vomit continuously.

Let's move this to the History forum.

[Shrike]

Just to keep it serious a bit longer, IIRC they stopped shooting Jews as well because the bullets were getting too expensive.
But are you going to take it to the History forum?

Edited for Rule 12 due to post move to public section

[Careyp74]

I laughed out loud. Out loud.

I loved this story so much, I shared it with my father, who is a very smart guy and a big lover of history, thinking he would scream with laughter. He didn't laugh and didn't think it was funny.

He raised his eyebrows and said "Why is that stupid? That's a perfectly logical and reasoned question! There is a story behind why the Nazis chose gassing, though they did shoot the Jews, too, especially in the Ukraine. They tried many other methods before they thought of mass Zyklon B. Good for her, for asking. That's a smart question! She just didn't phrase the question right. It was the teacher's fault for launching into a pompous lecture instead of just answering the girl! The misunderstanding was his!"


Se my previous post, I agree with your grandfather. I just didn't have the smarts to use the word pompous. But I think he nailed it om the head. And it wasn't just the teacher being pompous, anyone participating in the group bash was also guilty.

[Morrigan]

The girl was stupid, mean, or cowardly. She should have interrupted her teacher and rephrased her question immediately, instead of letting him drone on and on. Either she thought it amusing to waste his time, or she was too timid to interrupt him (unlikely), or she was just plain stupid (my assumption, since as we know, we should never assume malice for what can easily be explained by stupidity ;)).

[Careyp74]

She should have interrupted her teacher and rephrased her question immediately, instead of letting him drone on and on.

Do you know how hard that is to do when someone sets off on a journey to prove you incompetent?

[Dave Rogers]

Like EeneyMinnieMoe's dad, I agree that that was a sensible question.

I think Heydrich thought it was a sensible question too; according to Eichmann, it was a major topic in the final, un-minuted part of the Wannsee Conference. So she could have delivered the ultimate anti-Godwin argument: "Look, if the Butcher of Prague thought it was a sensible question, so should you!"

The girl was stupid, mean, or cowardly.

Or polite, and a little timid. Depending on the school and the social attitudes, it may be very hard for even a sixth former to interrupt a teacher.

Dave

[Dr Adequate]

Just to keep it serious a bit longer, IIRC they stopped shooting Jews as well because the bullets were getting too expensive. More expensive than transportation?

But are you going to take it to the History forum? Edited for Rule 12 due to post move to public section I'll take my chances. I'll report it to the moderators now.

I may not post on the resulting thread. When I talked about me vomiting, I wasn't joking. I have just managed not to do that, but I can't stop myself from crying ...

... yeah, the whole "Dr Adequate" persona is basically a big pose. Don't tell anyone.

[Eos of the Eons]

Many of the jews died in the ghettos first. Then, upon transport (via trains and/or death walks) even more conveniently died (they were fed things like salty water/soup on the trains).

Then, at the camps they were used for labour and worked to death, allowed to die of disease and starvation after being sorted out from the ones that were to be gassed as soon as they arrived the concentration camps.

In places where they didn't bother taking the jews/homosexuals/other overtaken civilans, etc. to the camps they also had trucks they loaded people into and gassed. Some places they just made jews dig a huge pit and then buried them alive. Some were shot (babies shot through to their mother so one bullet killed two people). Others were boarded up into places like churches and then burned.

Whatever was cheapest and killed the most people depending on the circumstances.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/chelmno/sonderdruck.html
http://www.neveragain.org/time.htm
http://www.neveragain.org/1942.htm

http://www.neveragain.org/1945.htm

Check out how many polish non-jews are unearthed at 1945 timeline. I thank FSM that my polish grandparents hid in ditches and escaped to Canada, otherwise I wouldn't be typing this right now.


April 29, 1945: U.S. Troops enter Dachau. There the troops find fifty train wagons of piled emaciated bodies. Near the crematorium another huge pile of bodies were found. Of the 33,000 survivors found at Dachau, only 2,439 were Jews. Very few Jews are left alive to liberate.

[Dancing David]

Occasionally.

Why did they round up the Jews and transport them over long distances using railway trains that they could have used for something else using fuel that they could have used for other purposes and then gas them in specially built gas chambers, rather than shooting them wherever they found them? Bureaucracy is expensive, bullets are cheap, so why did they do it that way?

The question is not stupid, but the answer does make we want to vomit continuously.

Let's move this to the History forum.

This is the question to ponder, because they thought they would get away with it more easily. And if you round up people and start to shoot them they are more likely to resist than it you transport them, starve them a while and then get them to walk into the death chamber.

Appaling.

[qayak]

More expensive than transportation?

Yes! They were fighting a multi-front war and couldn't spare the ammo.

As well, all of the people dealing with the jews were volunteers who could quit the detail if they didn't have the stomache for it. It was found that requiring people to shoot the jews resulted in a lot higher attrition rate among volunteers. (Read that somewhere.)

With the gas, it took a lot less manpower and time to execute the same number of people.

[nota]

what was done depended on where alot too

germans lied about the whole thing to everyone
most people inc the jews themselfs were told resettlement in the east
esp if they were NOT in the east was their fate
in the west france Belgium duch danes few were shot in place or no mass killing near a village in the east that was far more common

in most allied countrys the nazi's were far less active intil the near end when they went nuts everywhere

so I think on the spot shooting was only a eastern [ poland and russia] common action
intill the very late war period when anything could happen from being shot to told to walk/run away

as the nazi's wanted terror and fear in the east
[ thats probably why they lost the war as they wasted 3-4 million russian troops
that a good % of could have been used as support manpower]

in the west the common people were shielded from the harsh reality and lied to
being told resettlement not we are killing them

[Careyp74]

Does anyone else agree that most of this should not have been moved from the original thread? Does this qualify as a wow moment of ignorance and stupidity?

[ddt]

More expensive than transportation?

Sort of. You have to keep in mind that the bulk of the Holocaust took place in Eastern Europe: Poland, Belarus, Ukraine. The bulk of the gassings were Polish Jews who were first rounded up in big ghettos in the big cities. They'd have to be transported first anyhow, and well, from Lublin, Majdanek is just around the corner.

In comparison, the number of Western European (Dutch, Belgian, French, ...) Jews is peanuts. And when you're telling they're being resettled to the East, what better way than actually transporting them East too? Shooting them in the country itself is so - let's say - messy, and there's bound to be someone who witnesses it and spills the beans. Transporting them to Poland leaves enough gullible people who actually believe the story - e.g., the chairmen of the Dutch Jewish Council.


So far as I know, the answer is that even the SS couldn't bear to watch what they were doing.

That would only apply to the Reichsführer SS himself. The training for the SS men who'd actually do the killings took adequate care that they'd be (gradually) desensitized to that work.

[Trojan]

More expensive than transportation?



Expense was just one consideration - secrecy was also important. By transporting the Jews to central camps, you created the illusion of a resettlement program and by killing Jews in a central location, you kept the secret inhouse (so to speak).

But yes, the amount of a gas needed to kill humans was rather cheap.

[Nick Terry]

That would only apply to the Reichsführer SS himself. The training for the SS men who'd actually do the killings took adequate care that they'd be (gradually) desensitized to that work.

Actually Himmler watched numerous executions by firing squad as well as gassings on inspection tours.

Most of the leading perpetrators from the death camps and shooting squads subsequently reported some form of disgust or displayed some signs of post-traumatic stress disorder in their testimonies. But outright psychiatric casualties were rare; 1 or 2 men out of 100 SS assigned to Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were posted out because they could not handle it. The majority of the killers desensitised themselves with alcohol.

Apropos the breakdown of methods and locations, I'd say the current state of the art in research would suggest



some 10s of 1000s killed by collaborators in pogroms in eastern Poland and the Baltic states.
about 800,000 shot on the spot in the old (prewar) Soviet Union, with small numbers starved to death in ghettos or killed in gas vans, killed by the Nazis
about 800,000 shot on the spot inside the territory of prewar Poland by the Nazis, mostly eastern Poland, but at least 100,000 in western (postwar) Poland.
approximately 1.8 million Polish Jews deported to death camps in Poland, of whom about 100,000 died en route from suffocation or being shot by train guards. Of these, nearly 250,000 died at Auschwitz, 150,000 in Chelmno, 434,000 in Belzec, the rest in Sobibor and Treblinka. Most of the victims went to the nearest death camp for even shorter transport turnaround times.
about 300,000 died in the ghettos and labour camps in Poland from starvation and overwork, of which about 70,000 died in Warsaw (excluding those shot) and 43,000 in Lodz, and more than 10,000 in obscure forced labour camps like Skarzysko-Kamienna, largely from picrin poisoning due to working in an ammunition plant.
about 250-300,000 killed or starved to death by Romanians in Romanian-occupied territory. Quite a number were former Soviet citizens but most were Romanian citizens before the war, who were deported into Transnistria.
about 50,000 killed on Yugoslav soil by the Nazis, Croatian Ustashe or Hungarian occupation forces
circa 1-1.1 million deported from Scandinavia, Western Europe, Central Europe, the Balkans and Hungary to the death camps and some select ghettos in the east. Of these, about 100,000 died in concentration camps all over Germany in 1944-45, at least 50,000 died in place like Riga and Minsk, up to 70,000 in the Lublin camps and the rest in Auschwitz.
34,000 died in Theresienstadt after being deported there

total, about 5.1-5.3 million

By method

about 2.6 million killed in the death camps
about 2 million shot,
some 10s of 1000s killed in gas vans (excluding Chelmno)
about 500,000 dying in ghettos and camps

[fuelair]

More expensive than transportation?

I'll take my chances. I'll report it to the moderators now.

I may not post on the resulting thread. When I talked about me vomiting, I wasn't joking. I have just managed not to do that, but I can't stop myself from crying ...

... yeah, the whole "Dr Adequate" persona is basically a big pose. Don't tell anyone.

Understood. And it's why I got trained to kill- the one's that can do those things need killing.

[fuelair]

Like EeneyMinnieMoe's dad, I agree that that was a sensible question.

So far as I know, the answer is that even the SS couldn't bear to watch what they were doing.

Can we get back to the funny stuff? I was enjoying this thread up 'til now.

Not to make you feel any more nauseated, but according to reports by a german engineer working temporarily at one of the locations where they were digging pits and shooting people in them (I'll leave it at that), one of the shooters was sitting on the edge of the pit swinging his legs and laughing - and others involved were walking around doing similar. Sorry, but those slime had no trouble doing it and having fun at what they were doing. Read that when I was about 13. Somehow it stayed with me. Had some influence on how I feel about the bad guys and how far I'm willing to go against them.

[CplFerro]

I would have asked the same question, about why not just shoot them. It seems more logical to shoot them where you find them instead of shipping them hither and yon in order to kill them another way. So, I agree with the poster's dad.

[fuelair]

For some odd reason I am reminded again about my training.

[TriskettheKid]

I would have asked the same question, about why not just shoot them. It seems more logical to shoot them where you find them instead of shipping them hither and yon in order to kill them another way. So, I agree with the poster's dad.

The time element is missing in a lot of these discussions.

I mean, think about it.

The mass shootings were fairly massive undertakings, and took quite a while. You've got to make the Jews dig their graves, assemble the appropriate number of troops and ammo, account for reload time, etc. And, there was the added "misfortune" of a Jew escaping because he/she wasn't hit. In fact, there are quite a few tales of Jews who escaped the Holocaust because they were not hit in a mass shooting.

Compared to a gassing, where you ship the Jews off to a camp, cram 1,000 into a room, and drop in about $5 worth of Zyklon B, guaranteeing death for all those 1,000.

It's a ghastly, ghastly business that went on.

I mean, how some people could sit there and figure stuff like this out....it's fairly sickening.

A good first start would be to read, if you haven't already, Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men.

[Ikarus]

He raised his eyebrows and said "Why is that stupid? That's a perfectly logical and reasoned question! There is a story behind why the Nazis chose gassing, though they did shoot the Jews, too, especially in the Ukraine. They tried many other methods before they thought of mass Zyklon B. Good for her, for asking. That's a smart question! She just didn't phrase the question right. It was the teacher's fault for launching into a pompous lecture instead of just answering the girl! The misunderstanding was his!"
I would have asked the same question, about why not just shoot them. It seems more logical to shoot them where you find them instead of shipping them hither and yon in order to kill them another way. So, I agree with the poster's dad.

I agree with above posts.
I have done some research on the camps Auschwitz and Auschwitz Birkenau, and the story is actually deeper and more interesting than it seems at first glance. It is still horrible, of course.

Camp Auschwitz Birkenau, the most infamous and largest of the Nazi camps, was actually the second big concentration camp in the town of Auschwitz (now Oświęcim, Poland). The first one (Auschwitz I), was a converted Polish army base, and it started out as a prison, housing several thousands of inmates. As the German army invaded Russia, however, they needed a massive amount of extra space to incarcerate the Russian Prisoners of War.

These were (mostly) fit men, and they could be put to work well. After many strategical considerations and negotiations, it was decided to drastically expand the prisoner capacity of the town of Auschwitz by building a huge camp there. The fact that they chose that town, is because it was a good place for an ideal German siedlung (settlement), with an enormous factory plant for processing local coal and ore into synthetic rubber, fuel and ammunition; essentials for war.

The prisoners of Auschwitz (in concept mostly Russian soldiers), were put to work building this plant, which was going to be the most advanced of it's time, and the siedlung. Later on, they also worked in the plant and in the area, improving infrastructure, digging etc.

However, the massive influx of Russian prisoners was not as impressive as calculated, since the conquest wasn't as smooth as the Germans hoped. So they had to bring in Jews and gypsies and anything they could get to keep progress going, since the death rate was humongous. Especially in the first years, there were many deaths because of typhoid. (At one point, typhoid killed half of the camp's population, including many SS-guards) After installing sanitation, it got slightly better, but they kept a close watch on anyone having symptoms of what could be such a disease.

Burning the deceased, had two advantages. One, it eliminated the possibility of disease spreading from the dead bodies. But much more important, was the fact that it reduced their weight and size. Cremation reduces a body of, say, 80 kilos, to a mere 5 kilos of ashes. When you need to dispose of thousands of workers per month, this matters a lot, although it was still a whole lot of ash.

The pragmatic efficiency with which the Germans looked at the prisoners is also reflected in the fact that they managed to make money off the camps. The plant owner (I.G. Farben) payed the German Reich a (very modest) wage for (not to) the workers, and since it didn't cost much to house and feed them, the Reich who maintained the camp, actually made a profit. Other smaller companies could hire workers off I.G. Farben (at a slightly higher fee than they paid for them), and in this way, the prisoners were lucrative business for the company as well, apart from the fact that they built their plant at almost no cost.

The question is then, why did they transport non-able prisoners all the way to Auschwitz from all over Europe? They were separated at arrival from the work able and sent directly to the gas chambers. (Which were part of the crematorium buildings, by the way)

Perhaps this was done to uphold the illusion of being resettled. Perhaps because it was bad for the morale of the locals who they left behind. Maybe it was rather cheap to hook a couple of extra wagons onto the trains and deal with them all in one place. Perhaps it was a hassle to do a round of selection before putting them on trains, and then another one at the other end to sort out the ones that didn't do well on transit.

I'm pretty sure it is a combination of the above, but this is a bit of interpretative guessing. What you must know, to understand how it worked, also on a psychological level, is that these German soldiers, officers, planners, architects, businessmen, industrials and bureaucrats did not think about the prisoners as humans. Probably not even untermenschen (subhumans), but as commodities or, simply, problems.

They were millions. They died within months upon arrival. They were nothing but the number tattooed on their arm or in their neck.

Ikarus

[MaGZ]

Like EeneyMinnieMoe's dad, I agree that that was a sensible question.

So far as I know, the answer is that even the SS couldn't bear to watch what they were doing.


Oh, queasy SS men, that makes sense.

[MaGZ]

Just to keep it serious a bit longer, IIRC they stopped shooting Jews as well because the bullets were getting too expensive.
But are you going to take it to the History forum?

Edited for Rule 12 due to post move to public section

Expensive bullets, of course!

[MaGZ]

Expense was just one consideration - secrecy was also important. By transporting the Jews to central camps, you created the illusion of a resettlement program and by killing Jews in a central location, you kept the secret inhouse (so to speak).

But yes, the amount of a gas needed to kill humans was rather cheap.

So mr. expert how many liters of gas would it take to kill 12 million people and how does that compare to 12 million bullets?

Like you would know.

[MaGZ]

Not to make you feel any more nauseated, but according to reports by a german engineer working temporarily at one of the locations where they were digging pits and shooting people in them (I'll leave it at that), one of the shooters was sitting on the edge of the pit swinging his legs and laughing - and others involved were walking around doing similar. Sorry, but those slime had no trouble doing it and having fun at what they were doing. Read that when I was about 13. Somehow it stayed with me. Had some influence on how I feel about the bad guys and how far I'm willing to go against them.

That is why we need to take young school children to Holocaust museums.

[MaGZ]

I agree with above posts.
I have done some research on the camps Auschwitz and Auschwitz Birkenau, and the story is actually deeper and more interesting than it seems at first glance. It is still horrible, of course.

Camp Auschwitz Birkenau, the most infamous and largest of the Nazi camps, was actually the second big concentration camp in the town of Auschwitz (now Oświęcim, Poland). The first one (Auschwitz I), was a converted Polish army base, and it started out as a prison, housing several thousands of inmates. As the German army invaded Russia, however, they needed a massive amount of extra space to incarcerate the Russian Prisoners of War.

These were (mostly) fit men, and they could be put to work well. After many strategical considerations and negotiations, it was decided to drastically expand the prisoner capacity of the town of Auschwitz by building a huge camp there. The fact that they chose that town, is because it was a good place for an ideal German siedlung (settlement), with an enormous factory plant for processing local coal and ore into synthetic rubber, fuel and ammunition; essentials for war.

The prisoners of Auschwitz (in concept mostly Russian soldiers), were put to work building this plant, which was going to be the most advanced of it's time, and the siedlung. Later on, they also worked in the plant and in the area, improving infrastructure, digging etc.

However, the massive influx of Russian prisoners was not as impressive as calculated, since the conquest wasn't as smooth as the Germans hoped. So they had to bring in Jews and gypsies and anything they could get to keep progress going, since the death rate was humongous. Especially in the first years, there were many deaths because of typhoid. (At one point, typhoid killed half of the camp's population, including many SS-guards) After installing sanitation, it got slightly better, but they kept a close watch on anyone having symptoms of what could be such a disease.

Burning the deceased, had two advantages. One, it eliminated the possibility of disease spreading from the dead bodies. But much more important, was the fact that it reduced their weight and size. Cremation reduces a body of, say, 80 kilos, to a mere 5 kilos of ashes. When you need to dispose of thousands of workers per month, this matters a lot, although it was still a whole lot of ash.

The pragmatic efficiency with which the Germans looked at the prisoners is also reflected in the fact that they managed to make money off the camps. The plant owner (I.G. Farben) payed the German Reich a (very modest) wage for (not to) the workers, and since it didn't cost much to house and feed them, the Reich who maintained the camp, actually made a profit. Other smaller companies could hire workers off I.G. Farben (at a slightly higher fee than they paid for them), and in this way, the prisoners were lucrative business for the company as well, apart from the fact that they built their plant at almost no cost.

The question is then, why did they transport non-able prisoners all the way to Auschwitz from all over Europe? They were separated at arrival from the work able and sent directly to the gas chambers. (Which were part of the crematorium buildings, by the way)

Perhaps this was done to uphold the illusion of being resettled. Perhaps because it was bad for the morale of the locals who they left behind. Maybe it was rather cheap to hook a couple of extra wagons onto the trains and deal with them all in one place. Perhaps it was a hassle to do a round of selection before putting them on trains, and then another one at the other end to sort out the ones that didn't do well on transit.

I'm pretty sure it is a combination of the above, but this is a bit of interpretative guessing. What you must know, to understand how it worked, also on a psychological level, is that these German soldiers, officers, planners, architects, businessmen, industrials and bureaucrats did not think about the prisoners as humans. Probably not even untermenschen (subhumans), but as commodities or, simply, problems.

They were millions. They died within months upon arrival. They were nothing but the number tattooed on their arm or in their neck.

Ikarus

How many crematoria and how much fuel to use to burn the bodies in the crematoria?

For 12 million, please.

[headscratcher4]

IIRC...shooting -- especially women and children -- was found to be hard on the shooters. Indeed, I think Himmler witnessed one such action group shooting and found it incredibly hard to watch. He, among others, pushed for more efficeceint methods. Gassing was believed to be more efficient. You could do large numbers of people in a couple of hours....horrible logic of mass death.

Re-read Himmler's Poznan speech...he talks about the heroic nature of the SS's murder of the Jews and how most people would not understand what the SS had to go through to do it...while keeping their "humanity"...it is truly sick-making.

[Ikarus]

How many crematoria and how much fuel to use to burn the bodies in the crematoria?

For 12 million, please.

Lol wut? :D

[headscratcher4]

How many crematoria and how much fuel to use to burn the bodies in the crematoria?

For 12 million, please.


Such BS. No one claims 12 million cremated. Period. End of story. Exageration of claims on that scale merely underscores your intellectual dishonesty.

[Simon39759]

So mr. expert how many liters of gas would it take to kill 12 million people and how does that compare to 12 million bullets?

Like you would know.


The average fatal dose for hydrogen cyanide is: 50 to 60 milligrams.
So, it would take between 600 and 720 kilogram (between 1,320 and 1584 pounds) to kill 12 million people, using an exposure time between 30 minutes and one hour.
Considering the can most commonly used to ship the product contained 200g of product, a total of 3000 to 3600 cans would have been needed. Each can would have contained enough chemical to kill between 4000 and 3000 people.

Of course, not all the gas would be absorbed by the victims; it would depend of the volume of the gas chambers themselves.
The large gas-chamber at Auschwitczh -Crematory II-, for example, was 506.1m3 in volume (cf. here (http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_auschwitz.html)), that 631.1 kg of air which would require the dissolution 0.189 kg of zyklon B to reach a concentration that'd be lethal in a matter of minutes. That's a bit less than the content of a single can but, in reality, the Nazis seem to have used about 5 can of gas each time.
These chambers were enough to contain a maximum of 2500 people, according to the account I read. That'd be almost 12 person by meter square, which is A LOT (http://www.crowddynamics.com/Myriad%20II/Anthropomorphic.htm). But the maximum occupancy on an average subway train is about 3 people per square meter. The busiest line of the Tokyo subway system routinely reach 250% of this occupancy. And that's people going there voluntarily, without any Nazis to push them in.

Using only this one chamber, it would have taken about 4,800 runs to kill the 12 million people you mention.
Because the Nazis used 5 cans each time, that would have taken 4,800 kg of 24,000 cans of 200 gram.


That is to answer your question.
Of course, as mentioned before, your question is not accurate (and likely dishonest) and the gas chambers were a relatively late development. The total number of people estimated to have been murdered in the gas chamber is estimated to be between 3.5 to 3.8 million people.
About 1,000,000 people were murdered in the Auschwitz gas chambers alone (cf. here (http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/auschwitz-faq-09.html)). That'd take about 400 runs of Crema II. Because we know that the procedure was to conduct only one run a day, one can assume that this one particular chamber was able to murder a maximum of 2,500 victims a day.
We also know this chamber first recorded run was the 13 March 1943 and, because it was destroyed on the 7th of October 1944, it stayed operational for 574 days. That'd be plenty, assuming a near perfect efficiency, to account for the totality of the victims of the gassing in Auschwitz.
It must be mentioned that a total of 5 gas chambers were active in Auschwitz at its peak so, the number of victims would be perfectly within the operating capacity of the complex; there is absolutely no reason to doubt them.


Here is the link (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/cyanide/cyanide.001) from somebody that did pretty much the same calculation and reach pretty much the same conclusions.


I could not really find any information about the cost of Zyklon B (I know that the owner of one of the firm that produced it were judged and executed, so, this information should be somewhere) but it seems to be essentially negligible.
But, at any rate, the reason why the Nazis chose the 'deportation to the East' rather than shooting their victims on the spot probably has more to do with propaganda and hiding their murderous activities than the actual logistics of the operation.

[Corsair 115]

So mr. expert how many liters of gas would it take to kill 12 million people and how does that compare to 12 million bullets?


If you're fighting a war, which resource would you use to dispose of unwanted prisoners—bullets or poison gas? Seems to me millions of bullets would be put to much better use being shot at the soldiers of the nations you're fighting against rather than being used to execute prisoners.

[Trojan]

So mr. expert how many liters of gas would it take to kill 12 million people and how does that compare to 12 million bullets?

Like you would know.

Zyklon gas did not come in liters, it came in granular pellets which reacted when the canister was open.

Zyklon was widely used, workers were experienced in its use and it was relatively cheap.

Since it takes more gas to disinfect CLOTHING than it takes to murder, the cost per person killed would have been less than the cost to disinfect the clothing the murdered person wore.

So you do the math.

[Simon39759]

As mentioned above, just 200g of Zyklon B would be enough to murder thousand of victims.
Even considering how the Nazis went overboard and used a kg per run, it is one kg for a couple of thousand victims. That is a few hundred grams per victims that is, essentially, negligible.

Considering that transportation outside of the center of populations were required for secrecy and propaganda, considering that the victims were most often gassed on arrival, the additional cost occasioned by the murders were about nill.

[ponderingturtle]

When he was done, she held up her hand again and said: "No, I mean... why didn't he just shoot them?"


I chalk this up to ignorance over the eastern front. Probably more were shot than gassed, but it tended to be in the east and not the west. Those have not gotten the same level of publicity.

[ddt]

But the maximum occupancy on an average subway train is about 3 people per square meter. The busiest line of the Tokyo subway system routinely reach 250% of this occupancy. And that's people going there voluntarily, without any Nazis to push them in.
Just a nitpick: pushing in is part of the daily routine in the Tokyo subway (link (http://s3.images.com/huge.64.321925.JPG), link (http://img3.exs.cx/img3/3820/untitled528.jpg)). Your point is, of course, well taken.


That is to answer your question.
Of course, as mentioned before, your question is not accurate (and likely dishonest) and the gas chambers were a relatively late development. The total number of people estimated to have been murdered in the gas chamber is estimated to be between 3.5 to 3.8 million people.
That number is for all gas chambers, I suppose, and not just those where Zyklon B was used. The Aktion Reinhard camps, save one, all used exhaust from combustion engines to gas the people.

Thanks for the detailed explanations and calculations, btw!

[Kestrel]

If you're fighting a war, which resource would you use to dispose of unwanted prisoners—bullets or poison gas? Seems to me millions of bullets would be put to much better use being shot at the soldiers of the nations you're fighting against rather than being used to execute prisoners.

Soldiers are the scarce resource in a war. As mentioned earlier in this thread, simply shooting the prisoners had a bad effect on the soldiers. I suspect it also took fewer guards to heard a couple thousand people into a gas chamber than it would to keep the same number under control while they are watching people being shot while awaiting their own turn.

[Simon39759]

That number is for all gas chambers, I suppose, and not just those where Zyklon B was used. The Aktion Reinhard camps, save one, all used exhaust from combustion engines to gas the people.
Thanks for the detailed explanations and calculations, btw!


That's a fair point, I guess I was too focussed on Auschwitz itself, and on the question.
But, didn't Belzec also use Zyklon B at some point? I think to remember that delivering Zyklon B was the reason of Gerstein's visit to the camp...

[CplFerro]

I mean, how some people could sit there and figure stuff like this out....it's fairly sickening.[/I][/B].

Nazi nerds?

[Simon39759]

More like, Nazi bank-tellers, from what I read, these guys had a strong administrative streak.

[TriskettheKid]

As for the crematoria, I believe they figured it out, as well.

Something like 1lb of coke per body, once the fire is going.

I can't remember the exact number. I'll have to see if I can find it in one of my books.