ONLY VICTIMS OF THE GAS CHAMBERS CAN GIVE PROOF OF THE GAS CHAMBERS

Lyotard [French philosopher, sociologist, and literary theorist] used the example of Auschwitz and the revisionist historian Faurisson’s demands for proof of the Holocaust to show how the differend operates as a double bind (a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions). Faurisson would only accept proof of the existence of gas chambers from eyewitnesses who were themselves victims of the gas chambers. However, any such eyewitnesses are dead and are not able to testify. – Cited with slight revisions from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Lyotard#The_Differend

BOMBING AUSCHWITZ MIGHT ONLY MAKE THE GERMANS MORE VINDICTIVE

There has been considerable opinion to the effect that such an effort, even if practicable, might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.
-This was the reply of John J. McCloy, an Assistant U.S. Secretary of War to
A. Leon Kubowitzki, Head, Rescue Department, World Jewish Congress, who had requested of the U.S. State Department:

“I believe that destruction of gas chambers and crematoria in Oswiecim by bombing would have a certain effect now. Germans are now exhuming and burning corpses in an effort to conceal their crimes. This could be prevented by destruction of crematoria and then Germans might possibly stop further mass exterminations especially since so little time is left to them. Bombing of railway communications in this same area would also be of importance and of military interest.”