04.07.2013 Views

The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation - Holocaust Handbooks

The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation - Holocaust Handbooks

The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation - Holocaust Handbooks

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, THE GAS VANS 245<br />

4. <strong>Critical</strong> Summary of Witness Testimonies<br />

4.1. <strong>The</strong> Witness Problem<br />

Before listing the incongruencies of witness statements about the alleged<br />

“gas vans,” I have to once more return to the challenges posed to<br />

the historian by the general unreliability of witness testimonies. In<br />

chapter 3.4. I already deliberated about the problematic nature of confession<br />

made by alleged perpetrators when facing a situation where “innocence”<br />

is not an option in the eyes of the prosecution, the judges and<br />

the public at large. Now I will address the problems surrounding witness<br />

statements made by victims or alleged neutral bystanders. For this<br />

I will use a recently published paper on a subsection of the issue at<br />

hand: “gas vans” in Serbia.<br />

<strong>The</strong> alleged deployment of a “gas van” in Serbia poses a challenge<br />

to orthodox historiography, as was recently acknowledged by mainstream<br />

historian Jovan Byford. Whereas the orthodoxy accepts the generally<br />

held view that “gas vans” were deployed in the spring of 1942 to<br />

kill some 7,000 Jewish women and children held in the Semlin camp<br />

near Belgrade (see chapter 1.2.), the claim by numerous witnesses that<br />

non-Jewish Serbs – mostly resistance fighters – held in the Banjica<br />

camp were also killed in “gas vans” is disputed, as there is no corroborating<br />

documentary evidence to support this claim. Byford has done a<br />

thorough analysis as to why false “gas van” claims arose, which I<br />

would like to subsequently quote in lengthy excerpts, as it sheds a<br />

bright light on the poor quality of orthodox historiography of the <strong>Holocaust</strong><br />

in general. Byford’s statements are ultimately revisionist in nature<br />

and absolutely devastating for mainstream historiography. One can only<br />

speculate why he did this iconoclastic, taboo-shattering work. I surmise<br />

that his work, which was “part of a research project on the post-World<br />

War II memorialization of the Semlin Judenlager [Jewish camp],” tries<br />

to maintain the Jewish monopoly for horrendous sufferings during<br />

World War II, which requires the debunking of claims about similar<br />

sufferings by new-Jews, here by non-Jewish Serbs in the Banjica camp

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!