Wenlok wrote:The holocaust survivors/victims. People who were in concentration camps. The point being that the chemicals, atleast according to revisionists, would have killed the guards whos job it was to clear out the rooms, carry the bodies, remove gold from teeth etc.
Ah I see.
Well, several answers spring to mind.
The first is that eye-witnesses might not think it worth saying. It's like an eye-witness to a spaceshuttle disaster might not feel it necessary to point out that people were wearing their spacesuits.
Secondly, dosage is everything. There are all manner of highly toxic things that you can easily bear without harm if they're in small enough doses.
Thirdly, presumably most eye-witnesses died. For example, why would the guards carry the bodies when they have
subhumans to carry the
subhuman remains?
Fourthly, there are other records (such as bills of sale) which show that at least some concentration camps bought protective gear.
I can probably come up with a dozen more such reasonable explanations, but it's really a question as to whether the original notion is valid. Why would it ever be simply accepted that the Nazis in the 40's were somehow sufficiently knowledgeable to design complex systems to murder people with gas on an industrial level but would then blindly and naively expose themselves to that same gas? The notion just makes no sense, it's an appeal to ignorance where the best that can be said is that they don't know how the bodies were disposed of, but they've opted to draw fictional conclusions from their ignorance.