I see you are labouring under the misapprehension that I have been arguing that the swimming pool was availabale for inmates to use. Unfortunately I have never suggested anything of the sort and so your question is misconstrued.
I have only ever argued that the facility in question was obviously a swimming pool. It is the exterminationists that have been so concerned lest anyone should think the pool may have been available to inmates, that they have frequently tried to ignore the existence of the pool and who on occasions when the existence of the pool became known, have tried to pretend that it was not a swimming pool at all, despite the handrails, the diving boards and the ornamental gargoyle waterspout.
What the disingenuous behaviour of the exterminationists demonstrates however, is that they are prepared to lie, to virtually state that 'black is white', in order to prop up the flagging credibility of their assertions.
Listen to your Papa, he knows best!
My post was not addressed to you specifically. I was however under the impression that many holocaust deniers use the 'swimming pool' at Auschwitz as evidence that it wasn't really such a ****-hole really. Now, why would they do that if the inference wasn't clearly that it was a facility for use by the inmates? In fact if it was a swimming pool built specifically for use by Nazi personnel only, splashing about gaily whilst the emaciated and dying inmates looked on wistfully, then that would strike me as typically sadistic Nazi behaviour - why then is the 'swimming pool' of any consequence whatsoever in 'holocaust denier world'?
Holocaust denier tract about the 'swimming pool' example no 1: "It was meant for the detainees"
http://www.rense.com/general24/controversy.htm
ITT: Stormfag leaps on to his soap box to promote his ridiculous assertions of a conspiracy and sell tinfoil hats. No-one except his circlejerk of fellow Stormfags is buying. Stormfag gets butthurt and soils himself with dolmio sauce.
PORK KORMA NAO!
Vote Pirate!
The Rense article to which you refer, quotes an individual named 'Mark Klein' who appears to have been an inmate and who claimed in his memoires that certain inmates were able to use the pool on occasions. It is therefore the Jewish ex-inmate (Klein is a obviously Jewish name) who is making the assertion that the pool was also used by inmates.
I don't think the Rense article can be readily dismissed as a 'denier tract' in view of the fact that it is quoting a Jewish survivor's memoirs. Robert Faurisson cannot be disparaged for quoting a survivor, surely?
The Jewish survivor, Mark Klein, may be lying, but if so, that's not Faurisson's fault.
It is interesting to note however, that even some of the Jewish survivors of Auschwitz have testified that they were allowed to use the purpose built recreational pool. Thanks for that interesting snippet, Sid.
Listen to your Papa, he knows best!
Bookmarks