Talk:Gas chamber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Long discussion

I just removed the external link Critique of Gas chamber thesis from the article. I strongly support free speech, but the contents of the website are that much questionable (and even illegal in some countries, e.g. Switzerland and Germany; in fact that website even had to be blocked by internet providers in Switzerland according to law) that I think it can not just be left uncommented. If somebody really thinks it should be in Wikipedia please add it again to the article on Revisionism. --Bvontob 17:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

if it is so questionable, then why is it illegal? only the truth can threaten, not lies. Keltik31 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"More notoriously, it was used in the Nazi Third Reich during the 1930s a part of a public euthanasia program..." -- This is new to me. Not doubting you but do you have a cite on this? Thanks.

The cite on my desk right now is Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, by Yitzhak Arad, who describes the development of the Operation Reinhard death camps. There are several books about the euthanasia program, which I have at work, but I don't have a primary citation off the top of my head. To quote Arad on page 9: "The first time gas had been used in Nazi Germany for murdering people was for the 'euthanasia program.' Over seventy thousand mentally or otherwise hopelessly ill Germans--not Jews--were killed between September 1939 and late summer 1941." He cites Nationalsozialistische Masentötengen durch Giftgas, Frankfurt-A.M., 1983, p. 62. Danny

Okay, thanks.

Moved some controversial statements here until we can get some citations. They are as follows:

The culprit can see the poison and is advised to hold the breath as long as possible for the next breath is going to bring death.
Some argue that they in fact knew, but still submissively went to meet their fate rather than to confront the armed guards who they vastly outnumbered in proportions 1:100 or more. The helpers in the technical matters of execution were fellow Jews whose lives were spared. These facts are cause of a lot of controversy and shame among Jews.


Is this info true, or revisionist history? Whatever the case, it needs to be rewritten before it's included in the entry. -- StormWriter

This is outrageous! You cannot deny the facts by erasing them repeatedly, check http://www.hagalil.com/shoah/holocaust/greif-0.htm if you dont believe. Instead of erasing you could rewrite it if you suggest it should be done!!

Nig

Niger, I am denying nothing, nor am I erasing these items; you might notice that these statements, which many (even non-Jews) would consider provocative at best, have been moved here, to the talk page. I appreciate your citation, but I'm wondering if it's definitive. Does anyone have a constructive comment? StormWriter

A thought: Niger, why don't you create a page about the Sonderkommandos? Since this page is about the gas chamber, I'm not sure an in-depth discussion of the Sonderkommandos belongs here. Again, I don't mean this as a form of censorship; the subject's just a bit off-topic for this page. StormWriter

OK, I can see that some folks want this information to be included. That being the case, I'm going to rewrite it and tone down the language. I still want a higher authority to decide whether it fits here or not. Stormwriter

By the way, why would the executed person be told to hold their breath as long as possible? To put on a show for the viewers, or what? Isn't the whole point just to get them killed ASAP?

(Did someone call for a sysop? I'm one of several. --Ed Poor)

That was me. Any comments? Stormwriter

Comments? No: you haven't said anything to reply to :-) I did take the liberty of making some changes to the article. I added "death follows quickly", divided capital punishment from genocide, and marked the controversy section. Any comments? ;-) --Ed Poor

Actually, I was hoping you could resolve the issue of whether or not the "Controversy" section really belongs here. Perhaps it should be moved to a new page about the Sonderkommandos? Stormwriter

Why not write a separate, short article about this controversy? I have repeatedly come across this point when reading about the holocaust. Why didn't the Jews resist? (Maybe the "non-resistance" thing is fuel for holocaust-denial arguments.) Anyway, the 2 positions seem to be Those stupid Jews should have resisted more and How can unarmed civilians resist an army? Care to take a crack at it? --Ed Poor

I'll certainly consider it, though I'm not well-versed about the Holocaust in particular (I just have lots of useless trivia floating around in my head). I am, however, a great researcher! :D Stormwriter

These sorts of comments have always seemed to me to be blaming the victims, as if other people in the same position (such as the writers of these comments?) would have somehow overwhelmed their armed guards and escaped. Anyone who thinks that terrorised, starved, unarmed people can overcome armed guards... should be invited to try it.

There's a case on record of a GI who captured an entire battalion of enemy soldiers in WWII, armed with only a machine gun. He spoke German, ordered them to form ranks, and marched them all back to friendly lines. And these guys were in good shape, disciplined, etc. But he had the drop on them. --Ed Poor
Precisely. And that's what makes the remarks so insidious, with their suggestion that the death camp victims were somehow cowards (with the unsaid implication that they therefore deserved their deaths).

Actually, there were Sonderkommandos, they did not participate in the killing (though they did accompany the victims to the gas chambers--killing was reserved for the guards), and their primary responsibility was disposing of the corpses. They were forced into the position, but accepted it because it meant a few more months of life. After their terms, each group of Sonderkommandos was killed. They also led the revolts in Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz. Finally, a small handful survived. For a personal account of a Sonderkommando, read Eyewitness Auschwitz by Filip Müller. Danny

PS.: The article quoted by Niger above, while interesting, is also a questionable source. It claims that 3 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz, when the actual number is closer to 1.2 - 1.5 million. Danny

Stormwriter summarized: Changed "not pretty" to "unpleasant" in an attempt to maintain NPOV. Need a stronger but non-loaded term!

Maybe we have to mention that opponents of capital punishment regard the gas chamber as cruel. The US Constitution specifically bans "cruel and unusual punishment". --Ed Poor

Very true, and in the eyes of some individuals, all death penalties are cruel and unusual. Don't know if it should appear here, though. While I can understand this viewpoint, I also believe that capital punishment is justified in many cases. Obviously electrocution, beheading, hanging, the gas chamber, and the like are not pleasant for the condemned criminal, and in many cases may deserve the term "cruel and unusual", it was only relatively recently that effective lethal injection methods were developed. It's my contention that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended this stricture to cover torture and means of execution that were unnecessarily painful, extravagant, and undignified, such as "inching" and quartering. But then, we've been arguing about what the Constitution means for over 200 years. Stormwriter

213.253.40.134 removed some remarks that were sidetracking this discussion.

Thanks, .134 --Ed Poor

Sorry, guess I left my NSOH (neutral sense of humor) home today. Stormwriter

"A few minutes longer" is inaccurate. It was actually a couple of months. With the Russians beating back the Germans on the front, that was a serious matter of life and death. Sonderkommandos also led the death camp revolts, so the rest of the statement is inaccurate too. You might want to see the new movie The Gray Zone for a fictionalized account of one such revolt. Finally, surviving Sonderkommandos report various motives: pure survival instincts, a desire to tell the world, a desire to revolt, and more. Obviously, it is almost impossible to assess what really went through people's minds at the time and under the circumstances. Still, it's easy to be a hero from the distance of history. Danny

Consider what the phrase under duress means. If someone is faced with a choice of (A) signing a contract or (B) being murdered on the spot, and he signs it -- then is the contract valid? Not where I live. This leads into several larger ethical issues... --Ed Poor

I've deleted the remarks about the homosexuals and Jehova's witnesses, since these people weren't gassed, they were put into concentration camps and put to death by labor, or by shooting them, etc. Added the mentally ill, since these people actually were gassed in huge numbers. --Korpo

Something I wanted to clarify about my last edit:

I simply had a problem with the original post since it wasn't accurate. Gas chambers were specifically built for exterminating the groups mentioned in my edit. Jehova's witnesses and homosexuals were put into concentration camps, and surely mistreated beyond any measure conceivable to us. The fact remains though, that they presented a normal, and small portion, of those prisoner populations, and were not treated different than the rest of the prisoners. Jews, Sinti and Roma were people the Nazis specifically targetted for extermination as a people. Later on there wasn't even imprisonment for these people, they were simply transported to the death camps.

A Jehova's witness could have saved its life by denouncing its community's faith and agreeing to be drafted to the Wehrmacht, a choice Jews didn't have. But this isn't my point and I'm not suggesting they should have done that.

But the fact I want simply to put out by my edit, is:

I've read about the Holocaust and the Euthanasia operation, I've read about the concentration and death camps, and the SS, Gestapo and SD "security" apparatus, but I didn't read about Homosexuals or Jehova's witnesses being specifically targetted for extermination by gas as distinct groups, maybe still as a part of the prisoner population, but not specifically.

As a reference I want to suggest Eugen Kogons "The SS state" or the books of Raul Hilberg.

--Korpo

As to the Some argue that they in fact knew, but still submissively went to meet their fate rather than to confront the armed guards who they vastly outnumbered in proportions 1:100 or more. The helpers in the technical matters of execution were fellow Jews whose lives were spared. These facts are cause of a lot of controversy and shame among Jews. statement: this is partially true. Contrary to the western societies who (despite constant reports from the Polish and Czechoslovak underground) learnt of the genocide only after the war, most Poles knew what the concentration camps are. Thanks to countless people like Witold Pilecki who voluntarily went to Auschwitz and then escaped to tell the tale, the Polish society was quite well informed of the gas chambers. There are countless reports of people who were surprised that the showers they were rushed in were actually showers since they believed that they will be killed on the spot.

Perhaps it wasn't true for many Jews who were transported to the death camps from the West, but note that most of people killed in concentration camps were Poles and knew perfectly well what is going to happen.

Also, many accounts mention that the groups of inmates working at the gas chambers and supervising the transports from the train station to the gas chambers often told people whom they were escorting that they are about to die in a matter of minutes and they have a last chance of consolating with God. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:17, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] scope of article

removed this text -

The American method may be contrasted with the method used in Nazi Germany, which was instituted en masse and secretly. The victims were apparently unaware of their fates; they died in the belief that they were entering the chambers to be cleaned and deloused.

[edit] Controversy

However, there is an ongoing controversy about whether the condemned knew what would happen to them. Some say they knew, but elected to live an extra few minutes rather than confront armed guards. Many regard such comments as an attempt to shift blame from Nazis to their victims, suggesting the death camp victims were cowards. While the guards were vastly outnumbered, the condemned were unarmed, often ill and emaciated, and were imprisoned in areas where the general populace was hostile, indifferent, or too fearful for their own lives to aid escaped prisoners.

Some prisoners called Sonderkommandos were forced to help the Nazis murder their fellow prisoners by leading prisoners to the gas chambers and disposing of the bodies.

Some Jews did resist, most notably in the 1944 Sonderkommando uprising at Auschwitz, during which one of the gas chambers was destroyed.

I don't see how a discussion of whether or not the Jews should have or did resist is appropriate here. Shouldn't this sort of thing be on the nazi concentration camp or Holocaust page?

IMO it is appropriate as part of the history of the usage. (Trish, please sign your posts.) Mikkalai 19:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sorry about the non-signing - I wasn't very awake. And you would do well to indent when replying. As far as the edit is concerned - the resistance had nothing to do with gas chambers specifically with concentration camps. The paragraph as written is not appropriate. - Trick 00:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I considered my text to be a parallel opinion, you know, of the same bullet level, not an answer or comment to your remark. Mikkalai 03:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


okay, but where are the autopsy results that prove that one person was gassed? keltik31—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keltik31 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume this question is in response to my removal of the statement, regarding the Holocaust, that "not a single autopsied body has been shown to have been gassed." I'm not a professional historian, but I would imagine that autopsy results for individual Holocaust victims are pretty hard to come by. In any case, I would think that any of the many, many references to Nazi methods of execution during the Holocaust could be inserted here in support of the claim that gas chambers were in fact used in concentration camps. I'll pop over to The Holocaust later today and find one. Eron 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel exhaust used for gassing?

Someone inserted recently: "Carbon monoxide was also used in large purpose-built gas chambers, provided by diesel engines designed for use in tanks or submarines". But:-

  • Diesel exhaust does not contain much carbon monoxide unless the engine is running under load. This is a case where smellyness does not equal lethalness.
  • As far as I know, the Germans did not have diesel tanks available.
  • In at least one case they used a tank as a source of gas, right enough, but it was a petrol-driven tank.


Anthony Appleyard 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I made that edit, on the basis of Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust (5th imprint, 1990), p 425:
'At Belzec, Chelmno, Treblinka, and Sobibor, ..., Jews were killed by the exhaust from diesel engines: carbon monoxide poisoning. At Treblinka, it was the engines of captured Russian tanks and trucks which provided the exhaust.' --Squiddy 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
When does the original source information use the word "diesel", and when does it merely specify a lorry-sized engine? In those times most Army vehicles, even the largest, were petrol-driven; the main WWII exception was later types of Russian tanks, but the tank(s) used at Treblinka were likeliest captured early in the war and thus would be a petrol-driven type. I admit that the Nazis may have used diesel exhaust sometimes, but not always. Anthony Appleyard 07:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The para quoted above doesn't have a footnote ref, but 2 pages later (p427) there is verbatim quote from the Nuremberg testimony of Kurt Gerstein (SS Technical Disinfection Services chief), which refers to 'the diesel, whose exhaust was to kill these poor unfortunates.', 'seventy minutes and the diesel still would not start.' and 'the diesel engine started up after two hours and 49 minutes'. The reference given is 'Kurt Gerstein, statement of 6 May 1945, Tubingen: International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, document PS-2170.' The incident recounted took place at Belzec in 1942, when Gerstein was visiting with Odilo Globocnik.
I'm not an engineer, but wouldn't it be possible to change the proportion of CO/CO2 in the exhaust by partially obstructing the air intake of the engine?
I've also changed submarine engine -> lorry engine, because I can't now remember where I read that, and Gilbert only mentions tank and lorry engines. --Squiddy 10:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the link from the article to this talk page, (just for encyclopedic style), but I'm willing to be proved wrong if you have sources. Martin Gilbert has slipped up in the past, so I don't consider him infallible. --Squiddy 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
See also [1], 3rd para from the end. --Squiddy 00:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who was drunk?

Mcshadypl in his edit cited www.deathpenaltyinfo.org when he wrote "Later it was revealed that the executioner, Barry Bruce, was drunk", but here The American Prospect reports: "The execution went horribly wrong (there were even rumors that Thomas Bruce, who oversaw it, was drunk at the time)". So it's hard to know if there was someone drunk at the time, and his eventual identity. I'd rather choose not to mention this detail. Amux 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undertakers injured

I have removed: There have been several documented instances where undertakers have been injured because the cyanide gas was still present in the individual's body following death.. This may be documented but I cannot trace a single reference. Can anyone help, please? BlueValour 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of use as mass extermination?

Attention: PLEASE DO NOT FEED NEO-NAZI TROLLS Just ignore them, and remove their future comments. --HanzoHattori 21:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless a user's comments are personal attacks, they shouldn't be removed. No matter how we feel about them. Eron 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone tell me where there is evidence of one autopsy that proves that one person was gassed by Germany???? 22:34, 23 October 2006) User:Keltik31
  • No comment needed. See Holocaust denial. The world knows that it happened. Anthony Appleyard 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The world knows it happened, but I need proof. and if the world knows it happened, then why can't the world show me one autopsy that proves that it happened? User:Keltik31
  • There are hundreds of witnesses about what happened, from ex-prisoners and ex-guards. That is plenty proof. See Yad Vashem. Anthony Appleyard 15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then where are the photos? Where are the autopsied bodies proving it? Keltik31 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think autopsies are required as proof, given the vast and overwhelming body of evidence - including the direct testimony of some of those involved, which is referenced in the text. Eron 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

cause of death? you can say anything caused the death. but were is the scientific proof? where is the medical evidence that one person, let alone millions were gassed? where are the photos? Keltik31 17:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Those who ran the Death Camps weren't really interested in conducting autopsies on their victims. If that is your standard of proof, you will probably be disappointed. But it isn't just anyone saying that the victims were gassed: their murderers admitted to it. Rudolf Höß said in his testimony at the Nuremburg trials "when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Cyclon B, which was a crystallized Prussic Acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from 3 to 15 minutes to kill the people in the death chamber." Given that this confession - among others - led to his execution, I can't see why he'd be lying. Eron 17:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

well, if you research Rudolphs history, i have read that a lot of the SS were tortured, threatened and were subjected to many other forms of coercion. the nuremburg trials were a farce. i have contacted the auschwitz museum and asked many times for photos of the alleged millions of children who were murdered, they couldnt provide me with any. i also asked the Holocaust memorial in america to provide me photos. no reply was ever recieved. if you want to believe there was an organized plan to exterminate an entire people then you will find no shortage of Zionists who will provide you with what look like facts. but if you want to stay objective and keep an open mind, you have to ask tough questions and even hear the arguements of those who say that this is a one big conspiracy. i am listening to both sides and i am starting to question what i once believed to be the truth. i feel there is no way millions were gassed and then creamated. the numbers just done add up. and thank god i live in america where i can say that. in france i could be jailed. maybe some people were executed by gassing. but maybe not millions. you should read a publication called "did six million really die". it was quite interesting. and if it is sooooo false, then why is it a crime to say it? http://www.air-photo.com/english/hoess.html plus, you can also read this. and this http://www.air-photo.com/english/Keltik31 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned Ernst Zündel's little bit of holocaust-denying hate literature; that makes it absolutely clear what your agenda is so I don't need to spend any more time discussing this with you.Eron 19:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

eron, i dont have an "agenda" as you say. i feel i have been lied to. i felt for the suffering of people that i feel has never happened. and i dont deny that people suffered greatly. but i also beleive that people have told wild lies and made a great deal of money, like Speilberg. Keltik31 21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have read Did Six Million Really Die?, you most certainly have been lied to. I'm doing my best to assume good faith here, but that is frankly hard to do in the face of what appears to be just another Holocaust denier. The fact that gas chambers were used by Nazi Germany to commit murder on a massive scale is not denied by any reputable historian. In the face of that, specious requests for "proof" in the form of medical autopsies look less like a search for truth and more like an effort to obscure it. Eron 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

well, an autopsy would prove it. photos of otherwise healthy looking bodies would prove it to me. i cannot find them. and if the story of mass gassing is so true, why are there laws in germany and france that make it illegal to say otherwise? would you imagine an american being put in jail for saying that florida is not a state? this lable "holocaust denier" carries with it some almost satanistic stigma with it as if it is the same as being a murderer or a child predator. i dont deny that jews were targeted. and i dont deny that as a people they have suffered greatly. but i am finding that when you look at the official story, and then subject it to critical thinking, it simply doesnt add up. to me it is just like the official story of the assasination of JFK. there are too many unanswered questions. i majored in criminal justice and in order to prove a case, there has to be evidence. i am simply finding it hard to beleive that the germans were that cold and evil to put innocent men, women and children into gas chambers. wartime propaganda is nothing new. america has been involved in it too. look at some of the things that were said about the Iraqi army when they invaded Kuwait. taking babies out of incubators and throwing them on the floor. it was shown to have been made up. i think you have to remember that the first casualty in war is the truth. i dont think that propaganda is something that the Jews are above anymore than the Americas are. Keltik31 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic. The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss ways to improve the article. You've asked for evidence of the use of gas chambers in Nazi death camps. This claim is referenced in the article. You are free to make any personal conclusion you want about the references used, but they are valid references and the statements made meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability. If you disagree with the content of the article, feel free to edit it - and provide valid, reputable references for your changes, if you can find any. Eron 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

oh, i can find plenty. but they would be taken out. there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the claim of mass gassings is nothing more than wartime propaganda. america uses propaganda too. but i work for a living and dont have a great deal of time to do this right now. but i will soon. Keltik31 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are concerned about having edits you may make to this article removed, I recommend that before you begin you review Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability, neutrality, and original research. If your edits comply with these, you should have no difficulty. However, you should be aware that changes that appear to be pushing a controversial (and not broadly-accepted) point of view will be scrutinized very carefully. Note that policy states that "exceptional claims require stronger sources." A book that has been ruled, in court, to have "misrepresented the work of historians, misquoted witnesses, fabricated evidence, and cited non-existent authorities," is unlikely to stand up to the verifiability requirement. Eron 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ive read an articel that basically discredits the claim that there were active gas chambers used for mass murder. i posted the link and it was removed. who is afraid of the truth? not me. someone removed it, so obviously someone here is afraid. the gas chambers were used for delousing clothing because of the lice problem. nobody disputes that. but there is no evidence of mass extermination. do you think that people would simply just walk into the gas chambers? i dont. Keltik31 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to my comments above. This isn't a page to debate the truth of the Holocaust; it's a page to discuss this article in this encyclopedia. You do not appear to be willing to make substantive contributions to the article. As your contributions appear to be about 90% to talk pages, I doubt your willingness to make substantive contributions to the encyclopedia either. So I see little point continuing this discussion. Eron 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

i didnt ask you to continue a discussion. Keltik31 17:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

why are the tests done on the gas chambers only showing trace amounts of gas and not large amounts considering there were millions gassed? Keltik31 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The amount of gas that would show up in tests would be proportionate to the exposure time. You'd have to take into account things like what type of surface (wood, concrete), how long has elapsed since the exposure, and what the condition(s) have been since the exposure.
As for "truth", denial of any Nazi crime is illegal in many nations in Europe. Since you have indicated that "the truth" doesn't need protection, does this mean that the Nazis committed no crimes? Cantankrus 06:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
There is also the question of how samples were collected and tested. The most prominent tests used by Holocaust deniers are those conducted by Fred A. Leuchter at Auschwitz. Leuchter "surreptitiously collected samples from walls, ceilings and floors since he did not have permission to take samples, using a chisel and hammer to chip and scrape off pieces of the masonry." He sent them to a lab for testing, saying only that they "were to be used as evidence in a court case about an industrial accident." Trace amounts of cyanide were found.
When informed later what the tests were actually for, the lab manager James Roth stated that in a gas chamber, cyanide would have formed an extremely fine layer on the walls to the depth of one-tenth of a human hair. Leuchter had taken samples of indeterminate thickness; Roth had pulverized the entire samples, severely diluting the cyanide-containing layer of each sample with an indeterminate amount of brick. He offered the analogy that the tests were like looking at timbers when one needed to be looking at the paint.
Hardly a rigourous scientific investigation. Eron 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

you people really need to stop using the term "holocaust denier". not everyone who questions the official story is the same. to put us all into one category is as racist as what allegedly happened to the jews. there are buildings that were supposed to have been used as gas chambers that had doors that opened in and not out. how would people get back inside the room when it is full of dead bodies? i can tell you that if i was a german, i would be very resentful of the disgraceful things that have been alleged. the money making machine that is the story of the holocaust never ends and the stories never stop getting more and more wild. human fat used for soap? discredited! what else is a lie? what a monster the every-day german of 1939 must have been to gas women and children. these people were germans too. Keltik31 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the content of this article? If not, please stop wasting people's time with off-topic commentary. And please do not delete other people's comments. Eron 23:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

so it is okay for someone to call another a "nazi troll"? Keltik31 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleonic France

There was a disputed neutrality tag on the Napoleonic France section, but no explanation here for why it was placed. I've rewritten the section to make it as neutral as possible and removed the tag. If anyone has an issue with the text as it now stands, please explain here. Eron 15:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite opening

I'd like to propose a rewrite of the opening section. The current opening is a bit of a mishmash that tries to explain various concepts that are fully covered in the body of the article itself. I think the opening needs to be confined to a simple description of what a gas chamber is and what the most common uses are. As this article can be a bit contentious, I'm proposing the text here to get some consensus before editing:

A gas chamber is an instrument of execution consisting of a sealed chamber into which poisonous gas is introduced. The most commonly used poisonous agent is hydrogen cyanide; carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide have also been used. (The use of nitrogen gas has been proposed as a form of humane execution, but this method has not been used.*)
Gas chambers were used as a method of execution for condemned prisoners in the United States beginning in the 1920s.* Their use has also been reported in North Korea.* Gas chambers have also been used for animal euthanasia, using carbon dioxide as the lethal agent.*
During the Holocaust, large-scale gas chambers designed for mass killing were used by Nazi Germany as part of their genocide program.*

References will be provided in the text where noted by "*". I think further revisions to the article are also necessary; I'll work on those after we get the intro cleaned up. - Eron Talk 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer this version to the existing one, but these things occur to me:
  • 'instrument' doesn't feel quite right to me. 'Apparatus' or 'method' might be better?
  • 'execution' isn't the right word for the Holocaust or for animals. 'killing' is direct and neutral, and has no implications regarding legality.
  • Should the Holocaust be the first example of use rather than the last?
  • Move the sentence about nitrogen into the main body of the article.
Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I considered a method of killing, but the "method" is poisoning or asphyxiation; the gas chamber itself is the instrument or apparatus used to apply the method. How about A gas chamber is an apparatus for killing consisting of a sealed chamber into which a poisonous or asphyxiant gas is introduced.
Chronologically, the first well-cited use is in executions in the U.S., so I went with that.
Agreed on the nitrogen; I'll find a place for it.
- Eron Talk 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've changed to that version, and removed the nitrogen sentence, after the first version suggested was added at the beginning. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the whole section of nazi germany needs to be removed

because it is such a bunch of lies. and if it is so true, why do they jail people for saying it isnt true? Keltik31 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I am replacing the image at the top of the page with a picture of an **actual** gas chamber, not an ex-gas chamber-converted-to-a-lethal-injection-chamber; the image is of the Mississippi one.

The old image was incorrectly tagged, it was NOT public domain, but property of Cal. DOC. This new one is property of Mississippi DOC, so if the old one was okay, then this one should be too.  :)

--Shadowlink1014 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/s/Talk%7EGas_chamber_8a7e.html"