WHY IS NO ONE ALLOWED TO QUESTION THE HOLOCAUST?
I was amazed when I was informed that, in some countries, it is a crime to question aspects of the Holocaust.

I really couldn't belive that such medieval law, could exist in todays world.

When I learned this I was so outraged at the idea, that I went away and thought up a few questions to ask.

The questions were phrased as an answer to a post that claimed that:

A major factor in determining the pace of killing was the capacity of cremation ovens. Weindling, op.cit., p.319.

Well, this statement is just not credible.

Germans were/are well known for their industrious nature and their construction abilities. If they really wanted to kill lots of people they would have built sufficient cremation ovens to do the job. Somehow it is assumed that this was beyond their organizational capabilities. An assumption that is incredibly hard to swallow.

If the Germans only aim was to kill the Jews then why did they transport many of them half way across Europe in order to do this?

This is expensive and would tie up locomotives and waste resources (eg coal) that could otherwise have been used in the war effort.

There are so many easier ways to kill people, eg, if they were loaded into wagons as usual but just left at a lonely rail junction or siding, they would have all been dead (from dehydration) in less time than it took to transport them to Auschwitz. As to the bodies, they could have been scattered from the moving train in forested areas, or something. At this time there were many dead scattered throughout Europe, I doubt a few more would make much of a difference.

And another question. If the Germans only aim was to kill the Jews then why did they waste thousands of tons of coal cremating their bodies? Once again a major waste of resources. This would tie up many thousands of workers mining the coal and several locomotives (and many wagons) delivering it. And, of course, using locomotives to transport the coal from the mines would waste even more coal and manpower. All of these resources would have otherwise been available to the war effort.

In particular, the coal would have been available for use in the gasification plants (at, for example, Auschwitz III (Monowitz)) at a time when Germany was running desperately short of gasoline.

And another question. The Germans had manufactured the lethal nerve gases Sarin and Tabun. Were they not technically competent to use these very toxic compounds? Certainly, safety would be an issue. Would these gases have been safer to use than Zyklon B?

Just curious.

A few after thoughts:

It is well known that Hitler's experiences in the trenches during the first world war lead him to loathe the use of poisonous gases. His loathing of the use of deadly gases was so strong, that he refused to use the nerve gases Sarin and Tabun against the Soviets, even though this could have won Germany the war.

One has to contrast this against the action of the United States, which developed nuclear weapons and used them immediately on civilian targets.