Could I remind all posters that:

1. If a person chooses to post anonymously, it is not necessarily for negative reasons.

2. Not every poster has full access to all the historical materials.

3. Not every poster has full access to the Internet.

4. A question is a request for knowledge. If you choose to answer questions, your job is to provide knowledge, not to comment adversely on the lack of it.

5. Further speculation about other posters' motives in posting will be deleted.

6. Any links to, or quotations from, other websites should be fully credited.

7. Any images and their sources should be fully captioned and credited. Nonetheless, they may well be deleted on review (please refer to the Guidelines for posting in Controversial Subjects, at the head of the section).

Thank you.

MrP

Stannum wrote:

I can not swear to express my feelings but I see that people have displayed photographs some of the dead victims so I could say !@#$%^&*()_+ intil the cows come home and it would be less intense than the one damned blink I was cursed with before I scrolled past it.  I did not kill anybody and I spit on anybody who suppports anybody who did and I do not deserve to be subjected to those photos.  I understand why the poster posted the photos but I am sad that I saw them as it will take months to wash their intensity from my mind. Why are such photographs not considered to be pornographic?  Why are such photographs not at least as offensive as a clevage and bottom glossy of plastic imperfection? Stannum

Dear Stannum.

I'm sorry. You did not deserve to be subjected to such awful image.

I deeply regret having posted it because I know how sad you feel. I feel the same sadness.

I have lots of images. Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, so many they were. But I would be unfair to you if I posted them.

And it would be, moreover, utterly useless.

I don't owe an explanation or an apology to anyone. I apologize to you, and to you only.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holocamp.html

Erich Gnewuch testifies about gassings in Nazi-occupied USSR, 1942-3

[Quoted in "Nazi Mass Murder: A Documentary History of the Use of Poison Gas", edited by E. Kogon, H. Langbein, and A. Rueckerl, Yale University Press, 1993, p. 57-9]

On orders from my department, I too drove a gas-van from Berlin to Minsk. These vans had been constructed with a lockable cargo compartment, like a moving van...
I was detailed with the gas-van to about twelve convoys of arriving Jews. It was in 1942. There were about a thousand Jews in each convoy. With each arrival I made five or six trips with my van. Some of the Jews were shot. I myself never shot a single Jew; I only gassed them...
A ghetto operation took place in the autumn of 1943. I was put into action only once with the gas-van. I made three trips with it to the execution site. I gassed about 150 to 180 people.

Anonymous wrote:

Stannum wrote: Dear Anonymous, Is what relevant? (This is like an out-take from Idiocracy.)  "Is what relevant?" Yes, what is relevant! What is being depicted here! What is being depicted here? Is it an ugly example of Pol Pot's creative photographic skills?

You seem to be criticising me for not understanding your non responsive diatribe lacking focus more tightly defined than 'it'.

I asked you a genuine question.

The subject under discussion is extraordinarily complex and I still do not know which part of that discussion you are discussing and I am now confused even further as I did not know that Pol Pot employed any creative photographic skills (how do you even know that Pol Pot had creative photographic skills and what does that have to do with this already confusing question?).

I ask you again and would appreciate an answer rather than a poor Abott and Costello impersonation of 'Who's on first?'.

Is what relevant?  To which it do you refer?

Stannum